Union Ave Opera - "Das Rheingold"

     Who would have expected a small opera company to mount a production of "Rheingold" here in the mid-west?  But I just got back from the Union Ave Opera performance and I have to say hats off to them! This company, who performs three operas a year in a church in St. Louis, seems to have no qualms about tackling any project they feel drawn to.  They did "Dead Man Walking" last year and in the coming years they have the rest of the Ring Cycle scheduled!  They are using the Graham Vick/Jonathan Dove chamber arrangement - reduction of the work to be sure - an arrangement which, at least for this first installment, seems to work pretty well - but is not without it's problems.  Nevertheless, before I start nit-picking about little things I want to say that it was an outstanding performance.  Union Ave. did a great job mounting what has got to be a challenge even in the reduced form.  The singers, across the board, were great.  There was not a weak link in the cast - and they were very well balanced (unlike their earlier production of "Ballo.")  For me the standouts in the outstanding cast were - 1st and foremost - Jordan Shanahan as Alberich.  He was simply terrific.  This is a top notch singer.  But he wasn't alone - I really liked Elise Qualgliata as Fricka (I hope she will be back for "Walkure") and Todd von Felker as Fasolt.  Also, hats off to the trio of Rheinmaidens, who performed as a tight unit and had great ensemble. 
     On the whole the orchestra was good.  It is a hard score and I am sure that this reduction, like most that I have performed, is a lot more taxing even than the original.  Conductor Scott Schoonover had good control of the orchestra and maintained a good pace throughout, for the most part.  Things started to drag a bit in the opening of the 2nd scene, but the once the giants arrived the pace got back on track.  I do wonder about Jonathan Dove's orchestration.  Would it have killed him to have included a couple more horns and at least a bass trombone.  The low brass were woefully missing at times, and I am sure it was the orchestration.  And the two horns did yeoman's work with 8 reduced parts - but there were times when there was just not enough horn.  The introduction was cut (drastically) - so I am not talking about that, but, for example, when Alberich steals the gold there is a terrifying blast from the horns which was just not really effective here and I think it was because there weren't enough of them.  There were other moments in the orchestra: the low strings had intonation troubles, especially in the beginning.  And the timpani was just way too timid.  Come on - the entrance of the giants should be powerful, even terrifying - and it wasn't.  The timpani was to meek and the low brass had been cut by the orchestration so it was disappointing. On the other hand, the horns and brass played the valhalla motif beautifully.
     My biggest complaint however are the cuts.  I am not sure whether these cuts came with the reduction or were the choice of the music director.  And certainly some of them were perhaps necessary.  There is really no choice, for example, but to cut the intro if you only have 2 horns and 1 trombone - there is no way to do the 8 horn effect.  But the other cuts were excessive, I thought, and a couple of them affected the opera negatively.  The worst one is the cut of the entire opening of the Niebelheim scene, which resulted in the cutting of the entire character of Mime.  This is really unfortunate.  First, the cut was not seamless and was musically jolting. This also had the effect of ruining the development of the scene with Alberich.  Lastly, Mime is more than comic relief.  He is going to be a central character in Siegfried and Rheingold introduces him and we begin to understand who he is and what motivates him.  The other cut that I thought was really harmful musically occurred after the giants exit with Freia.  In the complete opera, Loge then watches and narrates the descent of the giants with the goddess.  Musically this has always been one of my favorite moments in the opera.  And what follows then develops better.  As it was with this cut, the giants leave with Freia and everyone immediately enters the stupor of not having had their daily apple.  In general I hated the cuts and thought they were excessive.  What are they going to do with the remaining operas in the Ring Cycle?!
     A couple other quibbles - Loge was too compassionate.  Was this his acting or the direction?  I don't know.  But he seemed to feel sorry and be compassionate for Alberich and then the giants.  I don't agree.  Loge should be aloof.  He doesn't care for anyone - like fire!  He is manipulative and selfish. In fact I don't think he really has feelings.  He champions the Rheinmaidens out of a sense of justice.  But there should be no pity for Alberich.  Also, the costumes were pretty good for everyone - except Loge and Donner.  Loge's costume was a complete misfire.  The wig didn't work and the outfit made no sense to me.  And Donner's costume just didn't seem to fit.  And what is with the oversize (papier maché?) hammer? Over kill I think. (BTW - What happened to the anvil strike at the climax of Donner's invocation?!?)  There needed to be more Niebelungs and they need to scream!  It seemed to me like the director did not know what to do with Froh and Donner a lot of the time, they just kind of wandered aimlessly around the stage.  So why did they enter at the beginning of scene 2 with Wotan and Fricka?  There is no good reason and they seemed to not know what to do with themselves.  On the other hand, I really liked the video projections - very effective.  And what a great idea for Loge to put Alberich the toad in his pocket! Also, the costumes for the giants were terrific, as were the Rheinmaidens. (Why was Freia in pink and the rest of the gods in white?)
    In closing this review I have to note that I noticed some Tolkien "Lord of the Rings" references.  Was this just my imagination or did the director purposely put these subtle suggestions into the opera?  Alberich looked like Gimli (except for the beard) and the gods (except Freia) looked elves. Wotan removed the Ring of Power from Alberich's hand by cutting off his finger (a la Frodo and Golum).  But the major allusion was this: I could not help notice that at the very end of the opera the video effect looked eerily like the eye of Sauron.  These are not criticisms.  I actually thought these were kind of cool and it is possible I am imagining them.  But they did seem to jump out at me.
     I know the Ring Cycle very well.  I have seen multiple performances - live and on video.  And I have to say that this was, on the whole, a very effective and excellent performance.  And in many ways I found it more effective and engaging than the horrid LePage production that the Met mounted (which I saw partly live and partly in HD).  And I am sure Union Ave did not have anywhere near the budget that they had at the Met.  And yet, with great singers, creativity, cleverness, and maybe a little fearlessness - and probably lots of volunteer hours - Union Opera was able to give St. Louis a wonderful Wagnerian experience.  Bravo and Thank you!  Union Ave. Opera is a treasure!

Misquoting Shakespeare!

Ok - so I am in a bad mood and nobody will read this post so who cares - but one of my great pet peeves are people who think they are being smart by quoting Shakespeare but they have not only the quote itself wrong but also the context completely wrong, so their cleverness is just plain ignorance.  Here are some examples:
1. The number one most misquoted line from Shakespeare that I have experience is from "12th Night." How many times have we heard folks (even politicians and preachers) in an effort to be profound come out with this: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them."  Sounds so inspirational, right!  Wrong! It is not.  The context is that the line appears in a letter that Malvolio finds which he thinks was written by the Lady Olivia (who is his employer and his secret crush), but in reality was written by the maid Maria and her cohorts who are trying to trick and humiliate poor Malvolio - which, by the way, the succeed in doing.  The line in this context is pompous nonsense which Malvolio believes but we in the audience recognize is a ploy and is simple nonsense.  This is not profundity - it is trickery and manipulation!
2. "Romeo and Juliet" is not about love.  I just saw yet another silly Facebook piece of cleverness which attempted to be profound by spouting some eternal truth about "love" using R&J as the starting point.  Sorry - please go read the play.  The play is about vengeance, and revenge and hate, and how those things will eat you up and destroy you and everything you hold dear eventually (those who attempt to shore up their political power by manipulating hate and fear should take note - yes, I'm talking to you right-wing zealots!)
3. "The play's the thing!"  Isn't this such a nice quote to lift up the importance of theater?!  Sorry, not really.  The play's the thing to use to trick and manipulate the emotions of King Claudius so that Hamlet can determine if he is guilty of murdering his father!  The "play" is simply a vehicle to clarify for Hamlet the guilt of his uncle the King!
4. I have already written about the downright stupid ban of the play "Tempest" by people who obviously do not know or understand the play. 

The fact is that Shakespeare is perhaps the greatest writer in the history of western literature whose work is a deep reflection of the human experience - but it is not surface stuff.  What makes Henry IV, parts 1 and 2 incredible is not all of the battle scenes - it is the relationships between Hal and Falstaff and, especially Hal and his father. Shakespeare still has some incredibly profound things to say to us in our society.  I just saw a brilliant production of "Timon of Athens" and then a production of "Coriolanus." Both of these plays have a lot to say to us in our society - about the power and place of wealth and the political process. But please, please, please read the plays and if you are going to impress your friends by quoting him, know the not only the text, but the context too.

I think I need to watch something - let's see what will it be?  I have a "Winter's Tale," "Henry VIII." "Merry Wives," "King Lear," and "Hamlet" videos I have not yet watched.  In my current mood perhaps "King Lear" is not the best choice!

"The Tempest" - Banned!?!?

  I recently read an article that some group in Arizona - either the legislature or the state school board (it happened a while ago and I could find no articles which actually stated who imposed this ban) - has banned the "Tempest" by Shakespeare.  Apparently this is a part of some overall ban of some nebulous category they are calling "ethnic studies."  The whole thing seems ludicrous to me.  I completely and thoroughly reject banning books - every and any books.  As a society we need to be constantly considering ideas, we need to learn to consider and debate and reject ideas.  If those ideas are never allowed to enter public discourse then we do not learn, we do not grow and we as a society looses and are poorer as a result.  Banning books is done out of fear and ignorance - those who would advocate banning have allowed their fear of ideas and their arrogance to take over. This is a bad thing.  But back to Shakespeare.  I am trying to understand why in the world "The Tempest" of all of Shakespeare's plays would be the one chosen to be banned.
  Let's see.  It can't be sex - Miranda and Ferdinand are perhaps one of the most virtuous couples in all of Shakespeare.  In fact Prospero gives a speech mid-play which would make those who advocate abstinence proud.  And there is more sex in "Romeo and Juliet" and in "Troilus and Cressida."  How about violence?  Hmm - no one dies.  Unlike "Hamlet," Richard III," "Othello," "Lear," "Julius Caesar," and I could go on and on (not to even mention the bear eating the human scene from "Winter's Tale" or Shakespeare orgy of violence "Titus Andonicus.")  All of these plays remain unbanned.  Perhaps it is the magic.  There is the spirit Ariel, there is lots of magic.  But surely there is more magic in "Midsummer Night's Dream" (not to mention "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings").  Then what else. Gary Panetta in his usual astute way suggests that the reason has to do with the character of Caliban, and Caliban's relationship with Prospero.
   Ok. Caliban is often seen as a symbol of the peoples of the places that were just beginning to be colonized in the early 17th century.  Places like Africa and North America had human populations with darker skin and different cultural traditions.  They were seen as beastly, and novelties by white Europeans.  They were also enslaved, and England at the time of Shakespeare had slavery.  It has been argued that Caliban represents these peoples and Prospero in his relationship with Caliban represents the brutal and cruel white Europeans.  Perhaps.  It is true.  Prospero does not treat Caliban well.  And Caliban hates Prospero.  But Caliban also joins up with Stephano and Triculo who are not admirable white Europeans by any account.  Next to these fools Caliban looks downright wise.  So, is is always the case in Shakespeare, it is mixed.  There is no propaganda here.  Shakespeare didn't (I think) understand Caliban himself.  And one could argue that Caliban is one of the nobler characters in the Tempest.  And in the end Prospero renounces his magic and so Caliban is set free.
   If this is the reason for the ban - I still don't understand it. Colonization happened.  Many native peoples and cultures were destroyed in the process.  We need to be honest about this.  We need to look at this fact and teach and discuss it.  Are they trying to pretend it didn't happen in Arizona?  What good will that do?  That is idiotic- as is this ban.
   But ultimately what is The Tempest about?  In my view, it is about the high cost of vengeance.  Prospero seeks to be revenged upon the usurping Duke of Milan and the King of Naples.  And this desire consumes him, and ultimately it devours him.  He is able to confront his enemies and they too are changed, but it seems to me that it is Prospero who looses the most in this.  It is as though the evil done then continues to weave its spell until all of the actors are bound and destroyed by it.  The only hope is for the next generation - the lovers who are untouched by this hated.  Miranda and Ferdinand emerge unscathed and we hope for the future because of them.  Ariel and Caliban are also free.  Now, why is this play banned?
   I suppose we can't have our impressionable youth reading about adults who are flawed, and have done wicked things in order to advance in society, or who have appropriated wealth and title though deception and character assassination.  We don't want to pervert our young people with the issues surrounding colonization and justice.  Heavens who knows these young people might actually grow up to be thinking, mature adults for whom issues of justice are important.  We can;t have that - can we Arizona?
   In short - this ban is simply moronic - like all book bans.  Certainly The Tempest does not represent a danger to civil society.  In fact, studying The Tempest might actually help our young people to be thoughtful and insightful.  But don't let them read "Measure for Measure," that one is about the abuse of power and sexual abuse!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   I read about this idiotic ban just about the same time I received my DVD of the Julie Taymor/Helen Mirren "The Tempest."  If you want to brush up on your Tempest, get this film.  It is terrific.  The film is shot on location in Hawaii and certainly they found the island of the Tempest in this location.  All of the acting is terrific.  But the casting of Helen Mirren as Prospera is particularly noteworthy.  This character is Prospero in Shakespeare and is usually played by a man.  But you come away from this production thinking it is better with a woman in the lead role.  Certainly all kinds of dynamics are changed - the relationship with Miranda and then Miranda/Ferdinand now becomes a mother/daughter relationship which has all kinds of different dynamics than the usual father/daughter relationship (which was so important to Shakespeare).  There is heightened sexual tension with Ariel, and there is a different dynamic with the relationship with Caliban.  But mostly the issue of revenge, which is so central to this play, is really altered.  In other productions I have seen I have come away thinking that Prospero was just interested in getting even and regaining what he has lost.  But Julie Taymor pushes it all towards the issue of justice.  In fact, it is clear that Prospera will not be satisfied with getting even or getting back - she wants justice and hopes that her daughter and Ferdinand will bask in its glow so that their lives and the lives of those who are impacted by them will be better.  It is a hopeful note.  Surely this is not all Taymor - it is in the Shakespeare - but at the same time the sex change of the leading character but the acting skill of Helen Mirren herself bring a depth to this role that I have never ever before experienced.
   The remainder of the cast is terrific. I would make special note of Ben Wishaw as Ariel and Djimon Hounsou as Caliban.  Both of the actors were magnificent.  Ariel was the only member of the cast whose presence was not required for filming on location.  He did most of his work in a studio in London in front of a green screen and the rendering of his character in this film is one of the great wonders of this film.  In short - buy this DVD.  Enjoy this production of the Tempest which is like none you have ever seen before.  And while you are at it - buy an extra copy and send it to someone you know in Arizona.

Guthrie "HMS Pinafore" - PBS Broadcast: "Horrible, Horrible!"

Well I want to begin this review of the Guthrie Theater's misguided production of "HMS Pinafore" by simply stating that I am not, in principal, opposed to updated productions. I have seen many a wonderful opera or play updated or placed in a new time - examples: Sugar Creek Festival's brilliant "L'Elisir" which was updated to the mid-19th century America out west; the Met's "Macbeth," a magnificent "Midsummer Night's Dream" set by the Illinois Shakespeare Festival in New Orleans, "Comedy of Errors" by Chicago Shakespeare set during World War II or even a recently released on DVD production of "As You Like It" set in Japan. What did all of these productions have that was missing from this "Pinafore" - in a word: respect. Watching "Pinafore" last night on PBS one got the distinct impression that the production team just didn't believe in the work of G & S, that they didn't trust it or respect it enough to allow it to stand on its own. It needed fixing - it needed to be updated. This led them down the wrong path I'm afraid. All of the productions named above treated the material with deep respect and love. The Chicago Shakespeare production (directed by Barbara Gaines) was probably the most far afield but yet it was completely faithful to the work and captured the essence of the early Shakespeare play while still bringing a sense of poignancy and regret and hope that was allowed to emerge. It is one of my great sorrows that this production was not filmed for TV - it is perhaps the most magnificent production of anything I have ever seen - but I am digressing.

It might be instructive to compare this "Pinafore" with the Papp "Pirates." G & S purists still have mixed feelings about the Papp "Pirates." (Now, not the movie version - which is really bad - find the video of the stage version). Mostly, I think, because of the re-orchestration. But other than that the dialog is almost 100% complete, the libretti of the songs are only occasionally changed, two songs were added in the 2nd act, but they fit into the plot that Gilbert had devised (for the most part), the songs were only re-orchestrated otherwise they were sung intact - no extra music added, no re-harmonization, no adding silly extra drum beats. In my view the Papp "Pirates" starts with respect for the original work and goes from there. What do we have with this "Pinafore?" The music is completely altered - not just re-orchestrated, but re-harmonized and re-written. New music is added, Sullivan's music is mostly missing for mostof the show except for the faint wisp of his tunes. There are exceptions - the arranger apparently did not know what to do with "Kind Captain" so it was performed pretty much traditionally, as were parts of the 1st act finale and the glee - but then (Like having a 2x4 wacked over the head) suddenly we are jolted into some strange re-arrangement with brilliant choreography that had nothing to do with the show at all - like Act II "He is an Englishman" or "O Joy, O Rapture Unforseen." Then there was the silly sub-plot that the production team created for Dick Deadeye which meant we were subjected to a bunch of confusing extra dialog that made no sense and only diluted Gilbert's wonderful dark character and which culminated in the mind-boggling sequence with Queen Victoria at the close of the show. What did that add? What was the point? Granted the close of "Pinafore" is a little silly and unbelievable - but so is class stratification (that's the point). This subplot added nothing to the show - except time.

Reflections on the performance need to be prefaced with a story - which comes from the memoirs of Rutland Barrington - who was a member of the original D'Oyly Carte company and created roles such as the Captain in "Pinafore," and Poobah in "Mikado." Barrington had a reputation for ad-libbing and being a jokester and would often put extra bits into a performance. Gilbert had expressly banned such bits and silliness - but Barrington could not help himself. (This is paraphrased) Apparently Barrington hit upon a clever bit that was getting some laughs and he begin to do it regularly in each performance (in "Patience" I think, not sure of the show). Eventually word got back to Gilbert, probably from his wife Kitty who would attend performances specifically to look for that kind of thing. Gilbert told Barrington to knock it off. "But, it gets a laugh," protested Barrington. "You would get a laugh if you sat on a pork pie," retorted Gilbert. This is a famous exchange and so when G&S fans talk about pork pies, now you know what they are talking about. Well the point is that Gilbert was not interested in gratuitous laughs and funny bits that had nothing to do with the plot or the characters. For him, the comedy came from the work only if it was played straight and serious.

Watching the Guthrie "Pinafore" last night I thought a lot about pork pies. The show was terribly overacted and mugging for laughs was rampant. Again there seemed to be no trust that the work was funny without adding all kinds of stupid and idiotic bits: boob jokes, pants dropping, pratfalls - gosh one thing after another. None of it was funny. The worst offender was, unfortunately, Captain Corcoran. I am sure this was the way he was directed, but he was over the top in a terribly inappropriate way. Josephine and Buttercup were not quite as bad, but were guilty of being over the top too. Surprisingly Sir Joseph was not. I thought that Sir Joseph and the Dick Deadeye were the strongest members of the cast and were the only two who seemed to have any real respect for the material. Ralph sang out of tune throughout, The Boatswain didn't really exist as his part was cut up and given to several different members of the chorus or just cut. And Hebe was so annoying that she just became another one of this production's silly jokes.

There were a couple moments I want to highlight. There is a history around the character of Hebe which is, in brief, that Gilbert wrote the part with one older actress (Mrs. Howard Paul) in mind but she was eventually replaced by a much younger Jesse Bond. Jesse was a singer and had never been on stage before and was terrified of dialog. Gilbert cut all of Hebe's dialog as a result and left the part with only some singing. (You can read the entire story here: Hebe's Dialog by Marc Shepherd) The Guthrie "Pinafore" restored all of the cut dialog. That was kind of cool actually. I enjoyed the cabin scene with the dialog which is never performed (What, never? Well, hardly ever). While in other places they played fast and loose with the dialog, assuming that we 21st century Americans are so dumb that we wouldn't know the meaning of some of Gilbert's words (like "solecisms" for example) and so the dialog became heavy and stilted, nevertheless at least the two great lines were untouched: "From such a face and form as this..." and "...I am but a living ganglion..." True Dick Deadeye then launched into the silly and confusing subplot which blunted the power of that line and Josephine and Ralph then completely destroyed "Refrain Audacious Tar" by switching the verses around. And Sullivan's magnificent aria for Josephine "The Hours Creep on Apace" was also destroyed by the arranging. The choreography was brilliant and well danced - but irrelevant.  What did the tango sequence have to do with "Things are Seldom What They Seem?" The set designer was actually interviewed during the intermission and made a comment that he had created a ship from the time of G & S.  That is fine - I didn't mind that - the set was actually great.  But, I got the impression that he did not seem to realize that Gilbert had actually based his set design on the HMS Victory and that Gilbert's intention was a masted man-o-war.

I have already mentioned the Queen Victoria nonsense. But I must add that the role was actually played by the incomparable Barbara Bryne. So as idiotic as I found the entire sequence nevertheless the redeeming feature was the enjoyment of being able to see such a wonderful actress at work. Also, just a point of historical note - a midshipman was a junior officer and not a common seaman.

In closing perhaps the most telling moment in the production came right after Queen Victoria's entrance when Sir Joseph's dialog quotes Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's "Joseph and the Amazing...." - "Grovel, grovel..." This sums it up for me. This production team really did not want to be doing Gilbert and Sullivan. They displayed no respect for G & S. Rather, they were trying to turn "HMS Pinafore" into an Andrew Lloyd Webber extravaganza - and it was a miserable failure. Maybe the next time PBS chooses to broadcast G & S they will choose a production that is actually a "Great Performance!"

Rutland Barrington as Captain Corcoran - note that mast in the set behind him.

Wiener Philharmoniker - Summer Evening - PBS

A short note with some reflections on the wonderful Vienna Philharmonic concert this evening that was broadcast on PBS. The performed Liszt "Les Preludes," Paganini and Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" (in the traditional Ravel orchestration). It was a wonderful concert. The orchestra was wonderful. They have such a luscious string sound. The winds overall sound is different from American orchestras. I find the brass brighter, and the winds darker in sound overall. I have to say I do not know how anyone can follow Valery Gergiev. He conducted a beautiful performance - but as I watched him I could not imagine how the orchestra was able to follow him and they played behind the beat - which I find disconcerting. Best just to close ones eyes and not watch.

For me the highlight was the "Pictures" though for once I wish an orchestra would have the creativity to use a different orchestration than Ravel. (Immediately following the concert I went to iTunes and downloaded Leonard Slatkin's recording with Nashville where he has created a performance with a pastiche of different orchestrations - also Evgeny Kissin's recording of the work on piano). I did enjoy the dancers from the Vienna State Opera Ballet. The kids were cute and the pros were sensational. All the more because of the conditions, which seemed not so dancer-friendly. There was a nice wind and it looked to me like they were dancing on the concrete steps of the castle - I would think that would not be comfortable, but they were great and maybe they had laid down a different stage which I could not distinguish. One of the standouts in the orchestra was the contra-bassoon. What a great sound! No wimpy playing from that musician - he was ever present and his sound was solid - he blended in ensembles but you knew he was there. I loved it! This world needs more contra players like this guy! The oboist played beautiful - though his hand position seemed wrong to me - but it is a different style and what do I know. Except I don't think I could have gotten away with that hand position with my teachers Gomberg, Lucarelli, Thorstenberg and Mack. But, he played beautifully and he IS the principal oboist of the Vienna Phil - so it must work for him.

Listening to "Pictures" gave me one of the few pangs of nostalgia about playing. I really have not missed playing oboe/English Horn. I enjoyed it while I was doing it. I love playing the rep. I grew to hate being personnel manager in a mis-managed organization with all the power plays and diva fits. But there were moments - playing the EH entrance in "The Old Castle" with the shaping of the long note - high Bb (a difficult note to make sing on the EH) with a slur up to the high Eb in the midst of a decrescendo. I know the trick and I pulled it off every time! Doubling the strings in the Goldberg movement. Carefully blending and following the principal in the final promenade which is so exposed. It was a challenge - but I did it and I was good - once upon a time. I think I must have played this piece at least a half dozen times - not counting school. We played it in Caracas and I played it with every other orchestra I played with on a regular basis. So I enjoyed the concert - it was fun. It made me miss playing EH in orchestra - at least for the moment.

Gettysburg Gibert & Sullivan Festival

This year I spent the last week of June attending the 2nd International Gilbert & Sullivan Festival in Gettysburg, PA (of all places). Interesting location - especially considering the dates - June 24 through July 3. Now, if you know your American history you know that the Civil War battle of Gettysburg happened over July 1 - 3. As might be expected the closer we got to the battle anniversary the heavier and more challenging the auto traffic got. But even so, the Festival was fun. The main attractions were the evening main stage performances. These began with a special Victorian Orchestra concert to kick it off and ended with a Youth production of "Mikado" (I missed both of these along with the Festival performance of "Pirates"). In between there were a variety of companies - both British and American - who performed a total of 10 operas over 8 evenings! Quite an accomplishment. In addition to this there were daytime fringe performances and a lecture series. Overall it was really fun. I had a great time and enjoyed the performances very much.

There is not enough space for me to review everything - but I want to list a few of the highlights and then make a couple general comments about the experience. So here is a list of my favorite moments. It was so fun to finally get to see a production of "Ruddigore." The company from Maine did a good job. I enjoyed the well-danced Hornpipe by the Richard Dauntless - Fran Vogt. The Despard and Margaret were very good as was the Robin Oakapple and Rose Maybud. The chorus was particularly excellent and I really enjoyed the professional Bridesmaids - they were very funny at times.

Perhaps the best series of performances for the whole week occurred on Monday evening - the Triple Play. Three one act operas - two by Sullivan without Gilbert - "The Zoo" and "Cox & Box" - concluding with G & S's first (real) effort "Trial By Jury." "The Zoo" and "Cox and Box" were performed by a group of British performers - Charles Court Opera. "Trial By Jury" was performed by a combination of efforts from the Philadelphia and West Chester, PA G & S groups. It is hard to describe ow outstanding "The Zoo" was. The work was performed without chorus. But it is a work I barely know and I didn't miss the chorus at all. All of the 5 principals were outstanding. I especially enjoyed David Menezes as Carboy and Catrine Kirkman as Laetitia. They made an adorable nerdy couple of lovers who reminded me a little of Harold and his fiance on the "Red Green Show." The plot is really silly - and I don't think the music is Sullivan's best - especially the "aria" (if you can call it that) for Laetitia. But Catrine was so outstanding and made it work as an actress and what a beautiful voice. John Savournin played the Duke of Islington and he was great! This would not be the last time we would experience John this week. Savournin and Menezes were next joined by Sebastian Valentine for an outstanding "Cox and Box." Finally I felt that the Pennsylvania "Trial" was the best American production of the week. This "Trial" was flawless. The stars of the show were 1st - the chorus. This chorus was absolutely outstanding! I loved all of the extra chorus characters and all of the little bits of business - like the jury pulling out newspapers during the Defendant's defense. And their ensemble was flawless. 2. I really enjoyed Guillermo Bosch's Usher. 3. Sam Griffin as the Judge was terrific. The whole evening was outstanding.

Tuesday brought the British Nomad's production of "Sorcerer." I had never seen this live before. It was very well done. The cast and production were excellent. For me the standouts were: 1. John Savournin was John Wellington Wells (I loved his costume too!) and 2. American Richard Holmes as Dr. Daley. When I have read this script Daley comes across as such a drip - but not in the this performance. Holmes was terrific. There were at times a few coordination problems between stage and pit, but overall it was a very enjoyable production.

Wednesday gave us the English Trent Opera production of my favorite G & S - "Iolanthe." This was the only opera where the Festival had scheduled two performances - an afternoon matinee and an evening performance. It seemed as though this schedule might have been a little hard on the cast. A couple of the singers sounded fatigued in the evening. But otherwise I loved this show. The standouts for this production: 1. Andrew Nicklin is an outstanding conductor and stage director. I was really impressed with his musical control of the performance. 2. Nick Sales and Stephen Godward as Tolloller and Mountararat were top notch. 3. Bravo Chorus - especially the fairies 4. John Torr's Lord Chancellor was very well done - especially the "Nightmare Song." My favorite scene was the recognition scene between Iolanthe and the LC was beautifully done by Mr. Torr and Jessica Nicklin and I really loved the entrance of the Fairy Queen in that scene. Joan Self was perhaps the most diminutive Fairy Queen I had ever seen, but she did a wonderful job. She was very funny but she was also able to be effectively dramatic and serious.

Friday evening, and my last show, was another performance by Trent of my other favorite G & S - "Yeoman of the Guard." Again directed by Andrew Nicklin and again, this was also a fine performance. Nick Sales was a powerful and excellent Fairfax (what a beautiful voice too), Michael Tipler was an excellent Sgt. Meryll - it was fun to hear the restored song for Meryll (I wish they had let Strephon sing "Fold you Flapping Wings" in "Iolanthe!"). I also enjoyed Jessica Nicklin's Pheobe and Sarah Hughes' Elsie. John Savournin was back playing the Lieutenant of the Tower - he is fantastic and I loved his performance. But the star for me was Stephen Godward's Wilfred Shadbolt - what a terrific actor and what a beautiful voice. Even the rat bit was funny (gross - but funny) and his puppy dog devotion to the manipulative Phoebe was so believable and effective. I also enjoyed the Jack Point of Alastair Massey. On the whole - this was a great performance. The chorus was excellent. The sets for both Yeoman and Iolanthe were minimal - but they had to ship them from England so it was completely understandable and ultimately it didn't really matter because the acting and singing was so good by Trent. It was a real treat to get to experience these performances.

I have two other comments. I do not want to be critical but I found the Thursday performance of "Pinafore" troubling. The Sir Joseph might be a fine actor, but the choice - either his or the stage director - to play him so creepy I found very troubling. It reminded me of an Australian "Pinafore" from the late '90's. It is not necessary to make Sir Joseph creepy to make him "odious" to Josephine. He is "odious" because she is already in love with someone else. If you have ever been in love you know that even the idea of being with someone else is repulsive - and add to that Sir Joseph's healthy self-regard and there you have it. The only other thing I will say is that the cat bit was funny at first - but it got old. I really liked the Buttercup and the Captain was also good. I also enjoyed this company's "Fringe" performance of "The Racketeers."

I should also mention that I really enjoyed the Fringe performance of "Foggerty's Fairy" by the Maryland group. One never gets to see Gilbert's plays. What a treat! I really enjoyed it. I also really enjoyed the lectures - especially the presentation by Caroline Williams. The pre-performance lectures by Ralph McPhail were also excellent and very enjoyable.

Finally, I want to make some comment about the orchestra. As a former professional oboist, who had a career as both an orchestral player and a teacher which spanned over 25 years and who served for a number of years as a contractor and personnel manager for orchestras, opera companies and touring groups I would like to suggest that I do not understand why it is necessary to bring an orchestra over from England. There are so many absolutely outstanding orchestral musicians who are experienced and accomplished and who could do a great job. All you need is an good contractor. I could put together a top notch orchestra myself if I were not retired. I would encourage the Festival directors to engage a top notch contractor / conductor - from New York or Philadelphia and put out a call for players. Now, I do not think this will save much money for I would think that a few extra days of intensive rehearsal might need to be added to the schedule. But it still shouldn't be any more expensive than transporting a pit orchestra from England. But still, given the economic situation and the fact that many fine musicians need to find work I would strongly encourage consideration of this idea. (The concertmaster could be imported if some continuity between Gettysburg and Buxton is desired.) Now, I am not in any way being critical of the orchestra. They did a fine job. But I would hope that more American musicians could be engaged.

One additional comment about the orchestra - it was very disappointing to me that for "Ruddigore," "Triple Play," and "Sorcerer" an arrangement of Sullivan's orchestration was used which eliminated the bassoon. Caroline Williams points out in her book that Sullivan was very intentional in his orchestration and used the orchestration as a way of coloring the score. And the bassoon was one of Sullivan's favorite instruments. The Usher's song in "Trial," for example, was almost ruined by replacing the clever and funny bassoon solos ("From bias free of every kind") with clarinet. It's not the same and Sullivan would not have approved. Perhaps the pit was too small for a full orchestra (only ONE viola in the spinning song in "Yeoman"). If so, this might be another good reason to look for a different venue. And without the travel costs perhaps a couple additional players could be engaged to ensure that Sullivan's orchestrations are performed as he created them.

By the way - as an oboist I need to say hats off to the oboist. She played beautifully all week!

In closing, I really enjoyed my week at the Festival. I know that the attendance was not what would have been desired. Even so, I hope it continues. I hope to attend in the future. Thank you for this Festival and especially thank you to Rich Wiley for all of his excellent and outstanding work organizing this Festival.

So for all of the festival organizers and performers: Now give three cheers, I'll lead the way. Hurrah, Hurrah, Hurray!

Met Opera Radio

Well, here I am on vacation. And for vacation I chose to attend a Gilbert and Sullivan Festival - which has on the whole been great. But I will come to that later. I rented a car in Baltimore - a bright red Mini Cooper. It is a pretty sporty car. I like it, even though since the rental company removed the owner's manual I can't figure out how it really works. But it does include Sirius Satellite radio - which is cool, because they have a Met Opera Radio station. All Met opera - all day and all night. For the most part the programming is to alternate between full length broadcasts of recordings of Saturday afternoon performances with aria excerpts. So far I have listened to most of "Romeo and Juliette" from a 1974 broadcast, and parts of broadcasts of "Don Giovanni," "Parsifal," "Death in Venice,"Eugene Onegin," and "Aida." The "Aida" was particularly thrilling. It was a broadcast from 1994 I think and the cast included Juan Pons as Amonosro, Paul Plishka as Ramphis and Dolora Zajik as Amneris. I think she is the greatest Amneris ever and she was absolutely fantastic in this performance. The other two leads I did not recognize - but they were fantastic.
I got to listen to "Romeo et Juliette" by Gounod on my way from Delaware to Gettysburg and this 1974 broadcast had a cast of singers that I did not recognize for the most part - except for Charles Anthony who sang Tybalt and Franco Corelli who was Romeo. Corelli sounded as wonderful as ever - even though his French was weak, and I loved hearing Charles Anthony in a this great role. The soprano, from Canada, was also stunning. But I want to comment on the orchestra and chorus. Now I am a great fan of the Met orchestra and chorus. I think they are perhaps one of the greatest orchestra and opera choruses in the world. But, this recording reminded me that it was not always so. I was amazed at how sloppy both the orchestra and chorus were in this performance. The prologue was really a mess - singers making wrong entrances - nothing blending. And the orchestra was sloppy and in places the woodwinds were out of tune. Wow - I could not believe it. But this I think is pre-Levine. It is not the same orchestra and chorus as it is today. They have come a long way, thanks to James Levine. I think that one of the greatest contributions to opera by Levine has been to focus on excellence across the board. It is not enough to have great principals when the rest of the production is weak. Instead the outstanding principals are joined by an outstanding orchestra, outstanding chorus and so on and it makes a difference. So much gratitude to James Levine.

Robert Lepage and Wagner - Rheingold and Walküre at the Met!

Ok - I know, it's been like forever since I posted here. But I have been plotting some interesting posts and maybe I'll get to those this summer. Anyway, things have been really busy, and I have missed several of the Met HD broadcasts this year - much to my disappointment - but it could not be helped. However, I planned ages ago to make sure I made it to Walküre today and I did and I am so glad I did. It was sensational. Which was a surprise actually. I did not post any response last fall to the Met's Lepage production of "Rheingold" mostly because, well - I came away with such mixed feelings that I didn't know what to write. For the most part - I hated it. But was that fair? Maybe I was just really missing my beloved Otto Schenk production which I have watched many many times on video and then DVD. But today the clouds were lifted and I think I can make some clear comments about both productions.

Another reason I was not expecting the production to be so great today was because I had read a NY Times review in which they had talked about a mishap opening night involving the swinging beams and Deborah Voigt - the amazing, spectacular Deborah Voigt, by the way. Now, I am all for creativity, but when a production is so creative that it becomes a physical hazard risk for the singers then I'm on the side of the singers. No production concept is worth a potential serious injury to an artist. Note the debacle in Los Angeles with their Ring and how some cast members actually left the production because of the risk (not to mention the seemingly doomed broadway production of "Spiderman"). Anyway - false alarm - I think. There was no sign of it today (except for the late start). Everyone seemed at ease and comfortable on stage and - hats off - to Lepage. It is obvious that he also takes that responsibility seriously - as a viewer I was not made uncomfortable at all with any of the set gyrations in Walküre. That was not true for my experience watching Rheingold. I'll come back to Rheingold in a couple paragraphs.

First - Walküre worked a lot better. Maybe it is because the scenes are more static in this opera. Act I - in Hundings hut; Act II - on Wotan's rock outside Valhalla; Act III - another rock. That's it - so no descent into the Niebelheim like Rheingold, no swimming around the Rhein; no rainbow bridges. It worked a lot better. It was terribly distracting in Rheingold how those beams were moving all the time. Not so here. The highlights of Walküre are as follows in my opinion:
1. Cast - wow! What a cast! I still have a soft spot in my heart for James Morris and Hildegard Behrens - but Bryn Terfel is a magnificent Wotan. He was much stronger in Walküre I thought than Rheingold. And what can one say about Stephanie Blythe - she was incredibly effective and powerful as Fricka. I also loved Jonas Kaufmann as Siegmund and Eva-Maria Westbroeck as Sieglinde. They even looked like they could really be twins. Sieglinde's last incredible line before her act III exit gave me chills. I had seen Deborah Voigt as Sieglinde in Chicago several years ago - and she was good, but I thought her Brünnhilde was outstanding. Also, Hans-Peter König was a great Hunding and I loved the girls in Act III.
2. The orchestra! Is there another orchestra in the world as good as the Met Orchestra? I think not. Elaine Douvas (oboe I) played beautifully as did English Horn, Clarinet, Bass Clarinet and the entire brass section. Magnificent.
3. The simulated forest was very effective, and I really like the chases with the supers. It was effective. But the staging of the Act II battle was the best I have ever seen. Mostly I think this usually takes place off stage - but in this production it was front and center. It was riveting.
4. The Walküres in Act II were great. Maybe it was the Met acoustics combined with the set - but the sound those girls produced was more powerful than I can remember ever experiencing before. And the simulated horseback riding was really fun - very effective. (So much better than the silly trampoline bouncing in Chicago - BTW.)
5. Wotan's farewell was beautiful. It was wonderfully and tenderly sung. The orchestra sounded like a chamber orchestra allowing Terfel to sing ever so gently. And the fire and how they left poor Brünnhilde at the end (it was a dancer or a super - but still).
6. James Levine!
All in all - I loved Walküre. It was musically brilliant and the production worked.

Now, Rheingold. Why did it not work as well? And in my opinion it didn't. Vocally some of the singers seemed more tentative - the notable exceptions in my view were Blythe and the soprano who played Freia, Alberich and Mime. Loge was weak and there was something about the Giants. Fafner just sounded liked he was miscast, too light a voice for the role, or so it seemed to me. And right away the whole concept seemed to falter. The first scene with the Rheinmaidens simply did not work. It was boring and silly - they hung from the air a bit and then they sat on the planks and did nothing. No chasing, no playing, no nothing. It didn't help that they showed a rehearsal clip where one Rheinmaiden in particular made it clear she was completely terrified. This affected my ability to appreciate her work in the role. All I could think of was how scary it must be and how terrified she was in rehearsal. Anyway, it didn't work. The descent to Niebelheim was ok. I really missed the kids screaming - this whole section was completely inferior to Schenk. The tenor who played Mime was the only bright part of this scene. He was terrific. I thought the stacking the gold in front of Fria was silly and the rainbow bridge was a complete disappointment. In short - I hated Rheingold. Except for the orchestra and some of the singers I can think of nothing that I really liked in that production.
In closing my views of this production of the Ring are mixed. Walküre was a great success - Rheingold, not so much. It will be interesting to see what they do with Siegfried and Götterdämerung next season. Perhaps they might go back and rethink Rheingold. It would be a good idea in my view.

Don Pasquale - Met HD - Another Winner!

Well the Met has done it again. The "Don Pasquale" which was broadcast this past weekend was really terrific. I liked the production, the direction, and the cast. The 4 principals were really outstanding and worked very well together. This was another first for me, so I cannot compare this production with any others. But I liked it a lot. The Met orchestra is always complemented on its versatility and certainly this was much in evidence in this production. The overture was performed so beautifully and throughout this orchestra gave a stylistic and beautiful reading of the score. Bravi in particular to the Piccolo and Principal Trumpet. There is nothing worse than having a piccolo player who plays out of tune - not that I expected that from a member of the Met orchestra (she wouldn't last I suspect if she couldn't play in tune) - but this piccolo player not only is spot on with intonation, but her ability to blend and be a part of the whole ensemble is really remarkable. I was really taken with her playing in the overture. And then the chorus, which is pretty incidental in this opera just about stole the show. I should mention that the patter song was really fun and very well done. I was glad it got an encore!

Ok - I want to reflect a little on the plot. I actually found the plot line a little bothersome - as entertaining as it is at times - Norina and Malatesta really are very cruel to poor old Don Pasquale. Anna Netrebko actually alluded to this in her interview between the scenes of Boris. She told the HD audience that for her taste the "joke" is a little cruel - and she is right. What was it about the early 1800's that found making fun of old men so funny. Now, I suppose Bartolo has it coming - he is greedy and mean (he actually lets us know that he is really only interested in Rosina's dowery). Ok, so he gets what he deserves. But Don Pasquale is (as a friend of mine put it)a "dopey, dishevelled, well-meaning old man." As wrong as he may be about Ernesto (and I am not so sure he is all that wrong about Ernesto who strikes me as a childish, immature and sulky free-loader) he seems to be trying to do the "right thing." He just doesn't deserve to be treated like that. I hope Malatesta pays off all those bills!

I particularly loved Anna Netrebko and John Del Carlo in the scene where she slaps him. It was a moment in this comedy that almost provoked tears. Del Carlo was truly hurt and despondent and Netrebko reacted with guilt, regret and sorrow to her own behavior. It was beautifully done and added a really human touch into what could easily (in the hands of a less competent director) be a cruel farce. (John Del Carlo deserves special praise for creating a very sympathetic character in Don Pasquale).

Of course making fun of old people is a great tradition in some kinds of musical theater. For Donizetti and the Opera Buffa crowd it was the old rich man on the prowl for a young girl who bests him. And later in the 19th century W.S. Gilbert seemed particularly drawn to making fun of older women with fading charms and bulging waistlines. The two most obvious and most offensive examples - in my view - are Ruth in "Pirates," and Lady Jane in "Patience." (We might include "Little Buttercup" from "Pinafore," but that plot has a fatal flaw in it which is directly related to this character. I would not include "Katisha" from "Mikado" mostly because she has other attributes to make her, well, an acquired taste - her bloodthirstyness comes to mind). Thanks to Sir Arthur Sullivan who finally put his foot down and refused to compose any more operas with Gilbert that had that kind of character in it. So finally we get a wonderful character like Dame Carruthers ("Yeoman") for whom Sullivan writes one of the best songs in the show ("When our Gallant Norman Foes").

So, should we bench "Pirates" or "Don Pasquale" for being politically incorrect. No. They are wonderful works which need to be performed. But we need to be up front about their compositional context and be honest about their problems. The way Del Carlo and Netrebko handled that scene is a good example of one way to deal with it as it raised the issue. I think there are ways of doing this with Ruth an Lady Jane as well (like, let's get rid of the silly bass fiddle for Lady Jane!) I don't have solutions, but the issue was raised for me in this Pasquale and I wanted to reflect on it a bit.

Still, if you missed it last Saturday be sure to catch the encore presentation or wait for it to run on PBS. It is a wonderful performance and a very entertaining production!

Boris Godunov - Met H.D.

It has been a long time since I have been to see an opera that I did not know to some degree. But heading to the movie theater last night for the Encore Performance of the HD broadcast of the Met's new Boris Godunov I knew that I was in for a unique experience on several different levels. For one thing, I did not know the opera - that includes the music or the plot. I had planned to read through the synopsis but time got away from me and I didn't get to it. I had also heard raves about this production. My former roommate from college is a member of the Met chorus and he had written to me to say that this production was outstanding and not to be missed. He was right.

But I want to stay with the experience of seeing something for the first time. A number of years ago I attended a production of "Marriage of Figaro" at Lyric Opera in Chicago. This was not a first for me, for if there is one opera I know it is Nozze. But sitting next to me was a young woman who was, I think, not only seeing her first Nozze but I am pretty sure was attending her first opera ever. Now, the plot of Nozze has some odd twists and turns and you really have to stay with it. But those of us who have seen it 100's of times loose sight of this I think. We know, for example, that Figaro is going to discover that Bartolo and Marcellina are actually his long lost parents. It is a silly and unexpected turn in the plot, but Mozart gave us this incredibly beautiful sextet to move through this plot twist. Well, so there I was sitting there, "sua madre." And when they got to that line in the recit that immediately preceedes the sextet the girl next to me let out a whoop of surprise and amusement and joy. She hadn't expected it. And it completely filled her with delight. Me too, I was moved that this novice opera goer was so moved and entertained and filled with joy because of the brilliance of Beaumarchais, DaPonte and Mozart.

Fast forward to Boris. Boris is also a brilliant work - albeit very different than Nozze. I was captivated from the beginning. Even though I didn't understand everything that happened in the first scene (who was that guy who was all bloody? And there was a baritone in a green top who sang off and on who I could never figure out exactly who he was) but it didn't matter. The terror and violence conveyed in the first scene set up the rest of the opera. The Holy Fool almost became my guide through the events to come. I experienced the story more viscerally than I would normally. The wonderful surprises in this production for me were as follows: Boris' monologues where he progressively get crazier and crazier. I knew Rene Pape would be good - but he was fantastic in this role. The scene in the Inn was dramatically captivating. The council chamber scene, also. And the final very violent closing scene which took place after the death of Boris, was unexpected and really was shocking for its violence. I really expected the opera to be over when Boris died. That last scene came as a complete surprise.

I could now tell you what a fantastic cast performed in the production, or how amazing the chorus was, or how incredible the orchestra is - all of that is true. But other reviewers have stated all of that much better than I. So let me say that what really stuck me in addition to these outstanding performances put in by the entire cast I would lift up some other elements of this production. 1st and foremost - the costumes - wow! I was also really impressed with the work of the supers. They could act and they added so much to the dramatic intensity. I loved how the director choreographed his crowd scenes and how he was able to maintain dramatic intensity through the entire opera. I loved the large book, with the cyrillic lettering. I loved the authenticity of the props - for example, they paid attention to details like the difference between the Russian Orthodox Cross and a Roman Cross and it made a difference. I also loved the orchestration and the use of woodwind color.

Finally - the boy who sang the child Feodor was outstanding (I haven't read any other reviews that mention him). And in closing I want to note that I thought it was way cool that Mussorgsky begins the opera with a bassoon solo in the upper register of the instrument and then the very last sound you heard at the end of the opera is the the sound of the bassoon, now in the low register. Fantastic!

A Gilbert & Sullivan Clip for Halloween

I love G & S.  Ever since "when I was a lad" of 10 or so I have been addicted to Gilbert & Sullivan.  I devoured Martyn Greene's book and I memorized all of the shows - and I mean all of them.  When I was 12 I could sing all of the patter songs with all of the words from memory - especially "When I was Awake" from "Iolanthe" and "To Sit in Solemn Silence..." from "Mikado."  (I can still do the latter - and fast too!!!).  Over the years alas, my memory has dimmed and I can no longer call them up, unless I am listening to recordings.  I have always been partial to "Iolanthe" and "Yeoman of the Guard" and "Ruddigore" (in that order).  A few years ago I had the opportunity to conduct a G & S opera for the late Opera Illinois.  We talked about doing "Sorcerer" but the general feeling was that it might not attract an audience - I am sure that was probably right.  So we did "Pinafore" and I loved every moment.  We had a wonderful cast, a small but hard-working and determined chorus and a smaller but also hard-working orchestra and I thought we put on a great show!  It was an honor and one of those life experiences for which I am so thankful.

I am therefore always interested in catching G & S wherever I can, and there are not many places to do this.  I have purchased some DVD's.  They are mixed.  There is a series of 3 (Iolanthe, Mikado and Pirates) from Stratford in Canada which are pretty good.  The casts are good for the most part (the singer who plays the Mikado in Mikado is worth the price of the set - he is terrific).  Maureen Forrester (may she rest in peace) is a wonderful Fairy Queen in Iolanthe.  But there is way too much updating and in particular the popular practice or re-orchestrating Sullivan's music is particularly in evidence here.  Gosh I hate that - I cannot find the words without resorting to language that would be inappropriate to describe how I feel about all of these re-orchestration efforts - none of them work.  Why!  Because Sir Arthur was a brilliant orchestrator, that's why and there is no need.  We don't need harps or electric guitars or boogie woogie beats to make the music work - it works on its own!  I understand that sometimes there is no money for an orchestra and so I have heard performances with piano and a couple instruments.  That is not what I am talking about - and yes, I extend this criticism to the broadway Pirates.  As much as I liked it and thought Kevin Klein was the a great Pirate King, the re-orchestration did not work!  For the Opera Illinois "Pinafore" we rented a reduced orchestration which, when I received it made me sick - so I completely re-worked it so that Sullivan's orchestration was restored. (Hint - a trombone does not sound like a bassoon and it is not effective to use clarinets to cover every part that you feel you need to cut out of the score!)

Other media - well there is a series from England of all of the G & S.  This series is not worth the money.  Most of the performances are very poor.  The "Yeoman of the Guard" is particularly poor - why?  Joel Gray never seems engaged as Jack Point and they have cut half of the score.  Amazingly they even cut Fairfax's two arias, along with the trio with Leonard Merrill and the wonderful duet "Rapture, Rapture / Doleful, Doleful."  Each of these performances has some famous personality in one of the leads.  Vincent Price plays Sir Despard in Ruddigore, for example.  But most of them don't seem to get G & S and so it doesn't work.  It would have been better to have engaged John Reed.  The only exception to this criticism is the "Princess Ida."  This is the only one of the entire set which stands out as an excellent performance.  Frank Gorshin (of Riddler fame) plays King Gama and he is terrific.  He totally gets it and is very good.  The rest of the cast is good.  The production has its quirks but by and large it is very good. 

By far the best G & S on DVD that I have found are the performances from Opera Australia.  In particular the "Patience" and the "Gondoliers" are excellent.  Anthony Warlow is terrific as Grosvenor as is Dennis Olson as Bunthorne (he is less effective as Don Alhambra) and I loved Heather Begg's Lady Jane - (she actually plays the String Bass - badly - but she plays it!).  In "Gondoliers" the stand outs for me were Fiona Maconaghie as Casilda and Graem Ewer as the Dutchess of Plaza-Toro.  He is great.  The one negative was the cut of the Gavotte from Act II - makes no sense to me.  Don't cut G & S!!!  I wish they would perform and release "Yeoman" and "Iolanthe."

This brings me to YouTube and Halloween.  I was perusing YouTube the other day and, "oh joy oh rapture" I found clips from "Ruddigore," "Yeoman" and "Princess Ida" from the Houston G & S Society.  Now most G & S clips on YouTube are either D'Oyly Carte recordings with a picture of Martyn Greene on the screen the whole time or well intentioned amateur productions - either community theater or high school.  And I would not say anything bad about them, they do their best.  So imagine my surprise to find clips from a professional company - a professional company that is good!  The clips which are posted are top notch - well sung, professional, the chorus is large, extremely well-trained and sounds sumptuous and the orchestra is full and outstanding (no 1 string player per part here).  Listen to the violins in the "Yeoman" clips - this is not a walk in the park and these are pros.  Anyway - below are a couple clips that I love.  The "Ruddigore" is in honor of Halloween.  The others are because I love them.  There are others.  There is a clip from "Princess Ida" of "This Helmet I suppose."  It is not posted here, but you can find it.  It is pretty well done until the singer begins to try to ornament.  Now, I don't mind this in theory.  My feeling is that "Princess Ida" is Sullivan's homage to Handel and the score is very Handelian in many places.  But this singer, try as he might, does not seem to know how to ornament.  So it doesn't really work.  Too bad he didn't coach this with a Baroque expert - it had potential.  Anyway - here are the clips - enjoy and Happy Halloween.

Tower Warders from "Yeoman"
See what I mean about the chorus and orchestra!!!

Here's another:
 "Yeoman" Act I finale

And Happy Halloween:
"Painted Emblems" through "When the Night Wind" from "Ruddigore"

"Ring Disaster in LA"

I invite my readers to read the following article at Huffington Post:
How Do You Loose $5,960,000 on an Opera?

Then - check out these YouTube Videos of this production:
Rheingold
Walküre
Siegfried
Götterdämerung

Ok - now.  I love the Ring Cycle - I would consider myself what the writer of this blog calls a "Ring Nut."  But I have also had experience on the inside of an opera company and I know that opera is very, very expensive and that the overall financial health of the institution must come first.  This Ring has been doomed from the start.  It has gotten nothing but bad press.  At one point I considered going.  But the 9 day spread plus the absolute weirdness of the production put me off.  Also, and for me most important - principal singers from this production were quoted in the media as complaining that this production was THE most unsafe production they had ever appeared in.  This is absolutely beyond the pale.  I am amazed that Domingo did not step in here and put an end to this or at least insist on modifications.

I am a big Domingo fan.  As a singing actor and as an artist he is unmatched in the 20th century, in my view.  But, perhaps he needs to ask more advice of Peter Gelb, who is by far the finest opera general manager I have ever observed.  I cannot disagree with the writer of this blog when he faults Domingo for this.  The top executive is ultimately responsible for both successes and failures.  This is true at banks, car companies, insurance companies, churches and opera companies.  The buck has to stop with at his desk.  I do think that the comment about Simon Bocanegra was a cheap shot however and not really relevant to his basic argument.

In conclusion, we need new productions of the Ring.  But we need responsible productions.  It is possible.  In my years with Opera Illinois we had a financial crisis during our production of "The Ballad of Baby Doe."  We had to cancel the set and the costumes.  What to do?  Our inventive and creative stage director created a production with set pieces, props and projections at a fraction of the cost of the original.  It continues to be one of my most cherished operatic memories.  It was fantastic and it goes to show that it is possible to be creative and clever and inventive and not have to spend 6 million dollars to do it.

St. Louis Opera Theater - Eugene Onegin

One can never have enough opera and with Meistersinger and Marriage just a bit before we went to our last opera of the summer (alas) again to St. Louis Opera Theater's last performance of the season to see Tchaikowsky's "Eugene Onegin."  And it was wonderful.  I loved it.  We had gone to see their "Marriage of Figaro" and while musically it was a wonderful performance there was a lot of weirdness on stage that made no sense, to me at least.  But not here.  The staging was straight forward, faithful to the score and the libretto.  It reminded me a little of the Met production, but the key to the production were these movable walls in the back that could be put into a variety of configurations and they were used to great effect.

The orchestra was, as usual, very good.  Barbara Orland nailed every one of those low C#'s and played very beautifully throughout on 1st oboe and Tod Bowermaster played especially beautifully on 1st horn.  Also (and in Tchaikowsky this is important) the strings were sensational.  Conductor David Agler managed the performance very well.  Never did there appear to be coordination problems and on the whole the balance was good.

For me though, the star(s) of the evening were the chorus, which are made up of the Young Artist apprentices.  I loved the sound they made.  Chorusmaster Sandra Horst deserves much applause for her wonderful work with these young voices.  As a former chorusmaster I know how hard it is to get solo voices to blend into a unified choral sound.  One wants to allow the singers to sing out and be comfortable, but a group of soloists sometimes don't make a very good chorus.  Not so here.  The chorus was great!  My only quibble is that some of them need, perhaps to take some acting classes.  Nevertheless, I loved the sound of the chorus in this production.

The cast was excellent.  I was smitten with Sean Panikkar, who played Lensky.  What a beautiful voice and what a fine actor.  He made a likeable, affable, if immature Lensky and his death scene was exceptionally poignant - as it should be.  I am anxious to follow this singer.  I think he has a wonderful career ahead.  I also loved Christopher Magiera as Onegin - a fine actor and a beautiful voice.  Dina Kuznetsova did a beautiful job a Tatiana.  I enjoyed Andrew Drost as Trinquet and Oren Gradus as Gremin was, I suspect, luxury casting.  Oren Gradus is one of the finest basses working today and he was mesmerizing for the brief time he was on stage.  All of the smaller roles were sung and acted very well.

I didn't mind the English language translation as much for Onegin as I did for Marriage of Figaro.  Perhaps it is because I know no Russian at all.  I still object to this policy of this company.  I want to see their Pelleas next season, but I know I will have a difficult time getting past the fact they will be singing this in English instead of French.  (Thank you for allowing Triquet to sing in French during Onegin though!)  As I continue to live in this area I suspect this will be the primary reason that I will absent myself from performances of St. Louis Opera Theater.  Well, that and the terribly uncomfortable seats (see my Figaro comments).  It was fine for Onegin, barely fine for Figaro.  Pelleas and Fille du Regiment - in English - groan!  Not to mention Traviata or Boheme or Aida or Rigoletto or (can you imagine) Rheingold! and on and on - in English!  This is heresy!  I will not go to those productions if they are going to sing in English.  Besides, the policy makes no sense.  You can't understand the English anyway coming out of the mouths of the singers and so you are reading the supertitles.  So what difference does it make?  Except the artistic difference which favors the original language.

Anyway, I loved Onegin.  It was a beautiful performance of a beautiful opera!  We all need more Tchaikowsky in our lives.

Here's the Met doing the Onegin Waltz: Eugene Onegin

Magnificent Meistersinger in Cincinnati!

Well, the Cincinnati Opera really knows how to throw a party!  In honor of their 90's anniversary they began their summer season with a magnificent production of Wagner's "Die Meistersinger."  And I must say that this performance will be added to my short list of the finest live operatic performances I have had the opportunity to attend.  Everything about this production was sensational.  The singing - the orchestra - the chorus - the acting - the set... absolutely everything.  The time flew by and never once did I feel a temptation to look at my watch.  I was captivated the entire time.

This production had been plagued by several problems early on.  James Levine was scheduled to conduct (this is his hometown after all).  But unfortunately Mr. Levine has had some health issues which has sadly caused him to withdraw not only from this production but he did not conduct at the Met for the last part of last season (all the best for a speedy recovery!)  He was replaced by John Keenan, who I actually have worked with at Sugar Creek a few years ago.  He did a brilliant job.  The opera was paced very well and the orchestra was sensational - it is the Cincinnati Symphony after all, but even so.  Everyone did a great job but I want to give a shout out especially to the tuba player for playing that great tuba part with style flair and musicality = BRAVO!!! 

This is one of the few performances I have attended recently where the audience seemed actually to want to be there and were attentive, polite and supportive of the performers.  No excessive noise, no talking throughout the show.  The young lovers in front of us had big heads - but they seemed as engaged as the rest of us.  The lovely lady who sat next to us told us that once Jimmy Levine had canceled several singers - especially for the Gala (which I did not attend) - had also canceled.  She was upset and felt that it was pretty reprehensible for these singers to pull out and leave the company holding the bag just because Jimmy was not going to be there.  Now, I have no way of knowing who she is talking about or if this is actually true.  But I will say that IF it is true that some singers pulled out ONLY because Jimmy was not going to conduct then I agree with her.  How unprofessional and selfish!  But the info I received on the cast changes for Meistersinger indicated that the cause of the changes were health and personal issues and I am content to accept that explanation.

The cast was stellar: James Johnson sang Hans Sachs and he was fantastic.  Why is he not singing at the Met.  He was a captivating actor and he sang beautifully.  This role is not a walk in the park, but never once did we sense any fatigue.  Twyla Robinson sang Eva and she was so good I almost believed she was an adolescent girl - her acting was great, and what a beautiful voice.  I have been a fan of Maria Zifchak ever since I saw her perform  Suzuki in "Butterfly" in the Met HD broadcast.  She was wonderful.  John Horton Murry was a fine Walther as well.  If I continued like this I would have to list then entire cast.  There was not a weak link among them.  From Sachs the Night Watchman the cast was superb.  I need to mention two others though who just about stole the show: Norbert Ernst as David and Hans-Joachim Ketelsen as Beckmesser.  They were both terrific.

The sets were from Dresden - Cincinnati now owns them and I guess will rent the production out.  It was a traditional production and the sets were glorious as were the costumes.  I loved the staging.  Here are a couple of my favorite moments: the girls flirting in church, Beckmesser the marker in Act I; the Beckmesser serenade along with the riot which clears off just as the Watchman enters was very well done and the image of poor Beckmesser dragging his broken Lute down the street as the curtain comes down on Act II was really great.  The best moment was 2nd scene of Act III.  For the interlude they brought down the curtain and sent dancers out to do some mime, then the flower girls came through the audience handing out flowers.  When they finally got to the entrance of the Masters they all entered through the audience and in this way the audience was drawn in to be participants as the Master's waved at the crowd.  It was stunning!!!  And I can't forget the chorus which was supplemented by a split chorus in the upper balcony.  What a sound - wonderful!

I have nothing negative to say at all.  I loved this performance. Happy Birthday Cincinnati Opera!

Krips - the Entrance of the Masters

In the mood for excerpts from "Nozze"

Here are some wonderful clips I found of selections from "Le Nozze di Figaro" on YouTube....
Enjoy!!!

Non piu andrai - Philadelphia - Richard Bernstein 2006

Non piu andrai

Sul'aria - Cecilia Bartoli & Rene Fleming - Met 1999

Sull'aria

Dove sons - Rene Fleming - Glyndebourne 1994

This is incredible!!!

Dove sono

No so piu - Fredericka von Stade - Paris 1980

Non so piu

La vendetta - Enzo Dara - Firenze 1979

La vendetta