Cenerentola at the Met: An Aria Encore Friday Night

[MrMiniver]

Explain Nixon In China.

 

I didn't think I needed to add "except for any opera that specifically calls for amplification" did I?

[MrMiniver]

Sets - cheap. How about a damn PALACE instead of everything taking place in front of huge white doors, or in the corridor? The only difference I saw between Magnifico's run-down home and the Prince's palace is that the latter was cleaner. Some OPULENCE would have been nice - especially to help the perception that Magnifico and family have never seen the interior of the palace before. That wedding cake idea for the final scene must have sounded good on paper, but it looked awkward as a practical set piece (she didn't look that comfortable having to get up and down from it, etc.) Why was the male chorus so dark, joyless and creepy? Staging of moments like the "rolled r" sextet were just nonsensical and didn't add anything to the visual aspect of the moment (why the hell was Ramiro tying up his valet with the whole Magnifico family? etc), let alone that awful spaghetti scene at the end of Act I with the kindergarten-like game of musical chairs? (Sorry, make that pre-school.) Alidoro was, like the male chorus, so severe and joyless - the reveal of the "wings" was kinda funny, but not nearly whimsical enough - same goes for the whole production. I wouldn't exactly call this a "regie" staging, but it sure was dismal. (The comic abilities of the cast made some of even the the most tired schtick funny - like the way-overused "broken couch" bit - but really, this thing didn't look the least bit directed to me.) It really looked thrown together, like no one really wanted to spend any time and energy making it anything special. Thank god the music wasn't treated that way. (That has happened, in the recent past, very noticeably with Fledermaus, which was a musical shambles.)

 

I see opera as theater, as drama .... not as a series of nice sets. Different strokes for different folks. Don't ever go to opera in Europe, as you will be very very disappointed.

[Andy2]

Sets - cheap. How about a damn PALACE instead of everything taking place in front of huge white doors, or in the corridor? The only difference I saw between Magnifico's run-down home and the Prince's palace is that the latter was cleaner. Some OPULENCE would have been nice - especially to help the perception that Magnifico and family have never seen the interior of the palace before. That wedding cake idea for the final scene must have sounded good on paper, but it looked awkward as a practical set piece (she didn't look that comfortable having to get up and down from it, etc.) Why was the male chorus so dark, joyless and creepy? Staging of moments like the "rolled r" sextet were just nonsensical and didn't add anything to the visual aspect of the moment (why the hell was Ramiro tying up his valet with the whole Magnifico family? etc), let alone that awful spaghetti scene at the end of Act I with the kindergarten-like game of musical chairs? (Sorry, make that pre-school.) Alidoro was, like the male chorus, so severe and joyless - the reveal of the "wings" was kinda funny, but not nearly whimsical enough - same goes for the whole production. I wouldn't exactly call this a "regie" staging, but it sure was dismal. (The comic abilities of the cast made some of even the the most tired schtick funny - like the way-overused "broken couch" bit - but really, this thing didn't look the least bit directed to me.) It really looked thrown together, like no one really wanted to spend any time and energy making it anything special. Thank god the music wasn't treated that way. (That has happened, in the recent past, very noticeably with Fledermaus, which was a musical shambles.)

 

 

While I would not be so bold as to say that the Cenerentola production was "cheap", it did strike me as much MUCH less accomplished than the sets that have made the Met world-famous--such as Rosenkavalier (which is being retired after this season), Madame Butterfly (I love the new sets), Turandot, etc. And I am not a dinosaur in this respect: I really like a lot of the "modern" sets in new productions such as Parisfal, Butterfly, and Frau ohne Schatten.

 

So I agree with BostonMan that the spare settings for both Magnifico's Palace and Don Ramiro's Palace were not artistically effective and did strike me as unwise economizing. (To be petty, I had the same reaction to Les Troyens several years ago, when the Trojan Horse looked like a giant hand puppet. And don't get me started on the Russian production of the Ring Cycle several years back, atrocious sets!)

 

But for me the spare sets did not detract in the least from the excellent music and superior singing and performing. This Cinderella was a surprising treat for my friends and me.

 

I had a similar reaction several nights later, when I saw I Puritani for the first time. The plot is even sillier/less logical than the plot for Cenerentola (that the Puritans would allow the widowed Queen of England to roam the fortress essentially unsupervised is quite daffy). The set was not spare in the way that C's set was--but it did strike me as quite dated, well past its due date. But I enjoyed the music and the performances a great deal.

 

In both cases, especially Cenerentola, the disappointing sets represented a lost opportunity for the Met to make a memorable experience deeper and more enjoyable. Music and singing and performance are the key things for me, but a great set really seals the deal for some operas, especially the Bel Canto ones.

[bostonman]

While I would not be so bold as to say that the Cenerentola production was "cheap", it did strike me as much MUCH less accomplished than the sets that have made the Met world-famous--such as Rosenkavalier (which is being retired after this season), Madame Butterfly (I love the new sets), Turandot, etc. And I am not a dinosaur in this respect: I really like a lot of the "modern" sets in new productions such as Parisfal, Butterfly, and Frau ohne Schatten.

 

So I agree with BostonMan that the spare settings for both Magnifico's Palace and Don Ramiro's Palace were not artistically effective and did strike me as unwise economizing. (To be petty, I had the same reaction to Les Troyens several years ago, when the Trojan Horse looked like a giant hand puppet. And don't get me started on the Russian production of the Ring Cycle several years back, atrocious sets!)

 

But for me the spare sets did not detract in the least from the excellent music and superior singing and performing. This Cinderella was a surprising treat for my friends and me.

 

I had a similar reaction several nights later, when I saw I Puritani for the first time. The plot is even sillier/less logical than the plot for Cenerentola (that the Puritans would allow the widowed Queen of England to roam the fortress essentially unsupervised is quite daffy). The set was not spare in the way that C's set was--but it did strike me as quite dated, well past its due date. But I enjoyed the music and the performances a great deal.

 

In both cases, especially Cenerentola, the disappointing sets represented a lost opportunity for the Met to make a memorable experience deeper and more enjoyable. Music and singing and performance are the key things for me, but a great set really seals the deal for some operas, especially the Bel Canto ones.

 

To clarify, I was basically ok with the Magnifico set (even though he is supposed to be nobility as well - it did seem a bit too "peasant" with the sparseness) - the fact that the place was run down was fine (the leaks in the ceiling during the storm was a nice touch - though i thought the bit with the fire from the lightningbolt was odd and not staged well) - but in contrast, it would have been much more effective if Ramiro's palace had been something truly grand, instead of just a few roll-on door units, etc.

 

But it was also the way the staging was handled - some things were quite wonderful, like the awkward relationship between Angelina and the disguised Ramiro in their first duet - but other things, like the aforementioned Act I Finale and the Act II Sextet just smacked of "let's throw in some unrelated schtick here and see if it, um, schticks"...I personally would have rather seen something truly connected to the dramatic moment, then just unmotivated schtick for the sake of unmotivated schtick. (Does it make any sense at all that they'd be having a provincial spaghetti dinner, complete with stereotypical checkered tablecloth, at the palace, instead of something more ostentatious? And you can't tell me that they didn't have one more damn chair somewhere? And wouldn't Ramiro and Dandini be above the silly musical chairs game, even if the Magnifico family wasn't? And besides, that spaghetti looked like something out of a horror film, lol.) Even with the Act II Sextet, way before the stupid nonsense with the "rope" started, the whole thing got off on a bad bit of staging where Ramiro and Dandini had to cross paths to "get into position." That was just "Bad Directing 101." Could have been easily fixed. But then, when you realize, ALL that was about was so that Ramiro could be on the end of the line so that he could tie the rope around everyone else? Really? What did ANY of that have to do with the opera????

 

Also - and I know part of the blame here falls to the librettist Ferretti, perhaps - but why is it so easy for everyone to just walk into Magnifico's home whenever they like? Seems odd that Alidoro as the beggar would just be allowed to walk in off the street...or even the Prince's valet, etc (they didn't even knock, did they?). Might have been nice to have a set that included an exterior? The Met surely could afford that, doncha think?

 

I "see opera as theatre...as drama" as well. This production didn't have enough of that, except for the fact that the cast had chemistry enough to establish some convincing relationships with each other, etc. But the world of the story wasn't conveyed very well, and that's important too. Granted, I'm not always very fond of sets that are nothing but abstract and bare (the former Onegin a good example, even though I thought it worked ok on TV), but I feel in comic operas especially, something more whimsical and colorful really does help. Why couldn't the drab nature of the Magnifico's place be dramatically transformed when Alidoro reveals himself to Cenerentola, for instance? (And again, what the hell was that bit with her being lifted into the air in that clothes closet? Icky - not funny, nor magical, just icky.) It just seems like the message here was that it really is a cruel world (accentuated by the creepy, dramatically disengaged statue-like henchmen played by the male chorus - what the hell were they supposed to be and why couldn't they fucking lighten up?) ...but to me, that's not what Cenerentola should be about. It certainly isn't what Rossini's music conveys.

[bostonman]

I didn't think I needed to add "except for any opera that specifically calls for amplification" did I?

 

You DID say: "I feel I can say, unequivocally, that no singer has ever been 'amplified' at the MET." I just took your statement as literally as you seemed to be presenting it. (But while we're on the subject, aren't there instances of offstage singing being amplified for obvious reasons - such as Fafner as the dragon in Siegfried, etc? I would assume so.)

 

And you're sure about Bartoli?

[hornytwells]

This is nonsense about singers being "miked" Think about it! if one singer is miked then any time they sing a duet/ensemble or anyone else gets close to them, they will pick up on their body mike and upset the balance, it doesnt make any sense, Plus there is a VERY different sound from someone who is miked and someone who is not. it is just one of those rumours that constantly gets thrown around, fuelled as mr. miniver says by the fact that mikes are sometimes used for both the radio transmissions and the HDs, sound recording reasons, NOT "amplification"

[+ WilliamM]

I see opera as theater, as drama .... not as a series of nice sets. Different strokes for different folks. Don't ever go to opera in Europe, as you will be very very disappointed.

 

While I am sure you have seen many more operas in Europe than me, I agree with the possible exception of Paris.

[MrMiniver]

You DID say: "I feel I can say, unequivocally, that no singer has ever been 'amplified' at the MET." I just took your statement as literally as you seemed to be presenting it. (But while we're on the subject, aren't there instances of offstage singing being amplified for obvious reasons - such as Fafner as the dragon in Siegfried, etc? I would assume so.)

 

And you're sure about Bartoli?

 

I really didn't think I needed to mention instances where it actually "calls for" amplification since what was being discussed was instances of singers supposedly being amplified when there is no call for it. Maybe that was too obvious.

 

Yes, I'm sure about Bartoli. But don't rely on me. Ask any sound designer who works on Broadway .... there is simply no way to amplify one singer while leaving the rest of the sound design as is ... oh, and I'm curious ... where do people think the speakers are that transport her amplified sound into the auditorium are? In Levine's hair??

[whipped guy]

Some quick responses and observations to a bunch of the above postings.

 

Regarding Don Magnifico's rundown estate.... That's in the libretto. Yes, the broken couch was a bit overdone, but it is a comedy!

 

The trying up in the "Questo e' un nodo avviluppato" ensemble gives a description of what's implied in the libretto. However, I have always hated the overly rolled rrrr's and explosive pppp's. Something that became prevalent in the 70's and associated with the famous Jean Pierre Ponnelle production.

 

As for the production itself, I disliked it when new and had not seen it since then. The blue wallpaper is overdone, but I tolerated it much better this time around... as in it did not bother me much at all. Perhaps that's because the singing compensated for any visual failings.

 

Still, the worst part is the "cassaforte" being lifted up by a crane during Alidoro's aria with Cenerentola in it. It ruins the scene... as do the silly wings...(Yeah I know! Ali d'oro = wings of gold!) and that's my favorite aria in the piece!!! It was added in 1820 to replace a piece by Luca Agolini... long story... as originally Alidoro was a minor role... and often Rossini farmed out such arias to assistants. Rossini eventually had second thoughts, decided to amplify Alidoro's role, and added the orchestral recitative and composed the new aria in a grand more semi-seria style. It musically sets Alidoro's apart as being somehow a bit supernatural. The MET has him sprout wings. Ponnelle much more effectively played the scene with the lighting producing an enormous shadow that made him seem larger than life.

 

Regarding, Florez... He is already hall of fame material... as I said above "a force of nature".

 

Regarding Camarena, as I noted in another thread, I see him eventually going the way of tackling the more heroic Rossini roles such as Otello... while Florez will probably always be a Rodrigo. Eventually, he might even go beyond the more robust Bel Canto roles. I already noted that his high C was more powerful than what one normally gets from a Ramiro.

 

With any luck he won't end up like Barry Banks... a singer who in his day gave great pleasure. Fabulous as Orestes in Ermione at City Opera... A bit less good when they later did La Donna del Lago... and unfortunately downhill from there. He was short in stature (as the king in Donna one review said that he looked like Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons) but when "on" one did not care.

[bostonman]

Some quick responses and observations to a bunch of the above postings.

 

Regarding Don Magnifico's rundown estate.... That's in the libretto. Yes, the broken couch was a bit overdone, but it is a comedy!

 

The trying up in the "Questo e' un nodo avviluppato" ensemble gives a description of what's implied in the libretto. However, I have always hated the overly rolled rrrr's and explosive pppp's. Something that became prevalent in the 70's and associated with the famous Jean Pierre Ponelle production.

 

Still, the worst part is the "cassaforte" being lifted up by a crane during Alidoro's aria with Cenerentola in it. It ruins the scene... as do the silly wings...(Yeah I know! Ali d'oro = wings of gold!) and that's my favorite aria in the piece!!! It was added in 1820 to replace a piece by Luca Agolini... long story... as originally Alidoro was a minor role... and often Rossini farmed out such arias to assistants. Rossini eventually had second thoughts, decided to amplify Alidoro's role, and added the orchestral recitative and composed the new aria in a more semi-seria style. It musically sets Alidoro's apart as being somehow a bit supernatural. The MET has him sprout wings. Ponelle played the scene with the lighting producing an enormous shadow that made him seem larger than life.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply Magnifico's estate shouldn't be rundown. ;-)

 

The broken couch was funny the first 3 times. After that, basta, please!

 

Having a golden rope tied around the singers is a rather lame way to "illustrate the text" - which really doesn't have to be done anyway, does it? Plus, the visual itself didn't wind up making sense, with Dandini being tied up with the Magnifico family. (And funny - it reminded me a bit too much of another "bit" that worked slightly better - Frosch in the old televised Covent Garden Fledermaus putting a rope around the entire company and trying to haul them off to jail at the end. That also didn't make literal sense, but somehow it made more sense than this did to me, lol.) There are so many ways to stage this number (or not - as I've also seen it be really just a "stand and sing" concertato) - I just didn't think the whole rope bit was necessary. (For that matter, I feel the same about the "literal" anvil coming down at the end of Act I of the Sher Barbiere - but at least in that case, it's a much sillier, more whimsical idea. The rope in this case was kinda meh...)

 

Also, doesn't the overdoing the rolled r's etc go back much earlier than that? I thought that was a long-standing tradition.

 

Yup - the "flying closet" was just inane - it didn't even get that far off the ground, for god's sake. If that was supposed to be a nod to the traditional "magic carriage" etc, it wasn't very effective at all - and more importantly, yes, it took focus away from the aria. (The only thing kinda fun about it was what only the HD audience got to see - DiDonato being let out of the thing backstage, and a stagehand running off quickly with the dress.) I think it would have been much more fun and joyful to reveal her in the dress, seeing her amazed at her sudden surprise fortune. (Though I also have to say that, at least on camera, that dress didn't look as nice as I hoped it would, aside from the sparkles, which was a great touch. I hope it looked more glamorous in house.) But as I said, I also found Alidoro a bit too joyless anyway, especially at the end of the opera.

[whipped guy]

I didn't mean to imply Magnifico's estate shouldn't be rundown. ;-)

 

The broken couch was funny the first 3 times. After that, basta, please!

 

Having a golden rope tied around the singers is a rather lame way to "illustrate the text" - which really doesn't have to be done anyway, does it? Plus, the visual itself didn't wind up making sense, with Dandini being tied up with the Magnifico family. (And funny - it reminded me a bit too much of another "bit" that worked slightly better - Frosch in the old televised Covent Garden Fledermaus putting a rope around the entire company and trying to haul them off to jail at the end. That also didn't make literal sense, but somehow it made more sense than this did to me, lol.) There are so many ways to stage this number (or not - as I've also seen it be really just a "stand and sing" concertato) - I just didn't think the whole rope bit was necessary. (For that matter, I feel the same about the "literal" anvil coming down at the end of Act I of the Sher Barbiere - but at least in that case, it's a much sillier, more whimsical idea. The rope in this case was kinda meh...)

 

Also, doesn't the overdoing the rolled r's etc go back much earlier than that? I thought that was a long-standing tradition.

 

Yup - the "flying closet" was just inane - it didn't even get that far off the ground, for god's sake. If that was supposed to be a nod to the traditional "magic carriage" etc, it wasn't very effective at all - and more importantly, yes, it took focus away from the aria. (The only thing kinda fun about it was what only the HD audience got to see - DiDonato being let out of the thing backstage, and a stagehand running off quickly with the dress.) I think it would have been much more fun and joyful to reveal her in the dress, seeing her amazed at her sudden surprise fortune. (Though I also have to say that, at least on camera, that dress didn't look as nice as I hoped it would, aside from the sparkles, which was a great touch. I hope it looked more glamorous in house.) But as I said, I also found Alidoro a bit too joyless anyway, especially at the end of the opera.

We actually are mostly on the same page!

 

I agree the broken couch was overdone... In the second act when they are in a differently furnished room I was surprised that the couch did not self-distruct!

 

Regarding the rolled rrrrrr's. I first heard it done live that way when I saw the La Scala production in the mid 1970's with Valentini-Terrani as a fabulous Cenerentola and it bothered me as it was totally overly done as in a parody. The Abbado recording from the early 1970s also exhibits the trait, if in a bit more tasteful manner. I however don't recall it being overly prominent in the Decca recording from the 1960's with Simionato. However, the 1949 RAI/Cetra recording of excerpts definitely has the overly rolled r's. Prior to the Ponnelle production and subsequent Abbado recording Cenerentola was not given much, that's why I used the phrase "prevalent in the 1970's". Incidentally, I have not heard the old 1950s Glyndebourne recording under Vittorio Gui in years and have no recollection if he allowed the rolled r's. In any event, the wit is in the music and there is no reason to accentuate the r's... Also, while I pointed out that the rope trick at the MET mirrored the libretto I didn't mean to imply that it was a stroke of genius. In the final analysis, it was just as silly as those golden wings, even if it did not really bother me as I assumed that the stage director wanted a bit of action for what is obviously a static moment frozen in time. Still, I recall seeing it performed with everyone totally "still" as in frozen and it worked.

 

Totally agree about the stupid "cassaforte" aka "flying closet"!!!!!!

[bostonman]

Totally agree about the stupid "cassaforte" aka "flying closet"!!!!!!

 

Sometimes I have to wonder if moments like this are dreamed up and tried out only for the director to actually realize how lame it actually looks. But then, of course, it's too late - the thing has been built, there's no better viable solution to the moment - so it gets left in. Or something like the Sextet could have been a case of realizing too late that the singers were too static, and this was a bit thrown in at the last minute to give them *something* to do. Especially with the short rehearsal times given the productions, it's no wonder that sometimes the stagings seems rather "unfinished" or just not well thought out. In this case, I tend to think the director really didn't know *what* he wanted.

[bostonman]

Funny - I just found this assessment of the first run of the production (with Bartoli) from James Jorden, aka La Cieca - someone who is himself quite opinionated, but I tend to find I agree with him fairly often...

 

"The staging was drab and unfunny, with a handful of weird and

irrelevant ideas. Cesare Lievi's idea of comedy is people falling

off a rickety sofa (which lost some of its wit after about the tenth

time), and of course that old standby the foodfight. I do not agree

with the introduction of this particular bit of business into a

Rossini opera, perhaps because it is so unfair. After all, no one

ever sings roulades in an 'Animal House' movie, do they? Maurizio

Balo's set consists of (ready? all together now!) an EMPTY BOX --

this one decorated with a depressing soldier blue wallpaper and an

amateurishly built cornice, like the lobby of a disused hotel. He and

Mr. Lievi have the decidedly unoriginal idea of wheeling in for the

finale a 10-foot tall wedding cake with Bartoli and Vargas posed

prettily on top (a la 'Dames at Sea'), one of several dangerous-

looking and pointless effects slathered on what is really a very

simple and human opera. I do not know whether the chorus scenes were

based on Magritte drawings or the film 'Men in Black'...but I will pass on further

discussion of the origin of all these guys in the dark suits and

bowlers. Gigi Saccomandi is very much a member of the modern school

of lighting designers, which means a very obvious cue every five

minutes or so, regardless of plot or music."

 

Sounds like he saw the same production I did, lol.

[whipped guy]

Funny - I just found this assessment of the first run of the production (with Bartoli) from James Jorden, aka La Cieca - someone who is himself quite opinionated, but I tend to find I agree with him fairly often...

 

"The staging was drab and unfunny, with a handful of weird and

irrelevant ideas. Cesare Lievi's idea of comedy is people falling

off a rickety sofa (which lost some of its wit after about the tenth

time), and of course that old standby the foodfight. I do not agree

with the introduction of this particular bit of business into a

Rossini opera, perhaps because it is so unfair. After all, no one

ever sings roulades in an 'Animal House' movie, do they? Maurizio

Balo's set consists of (ready? all together now!) an EMPTY BOX --

this one decorated with a depressing soldier blue wallpaper and an

amateurishly built cornice, like the lobby of a disused hotel. He and

Mr. Lievi have the decidedly unoriginal idea of wheeling in for the

finale a 10-foot tall wedding cake with Bartoli and Vargas posed

prettily on top (a la 'Dames at Sea'), one of several dangerous-

looking and pointless effects slathered on what is really a very

simple and human opera. I do not know whether the chorus scenes were

based on Magritte drawings or the film 'Men in Black'...but I will pass on further

discussion of the origin of all these guys in the dark suits and

bowlers. Gigi Saccomandi is very much a member of the modern school I

of lighting designers, which means a very obvious cue every five

minutes or so, regardless of plot or music."

 

Sounds like he saw the same production I did, lol.

Actually, LOL!

 

In truth, that's how I perceived things when it was new!!! In fact, when the MET released it's vocally excellent DVD version with Garanca and Brownlee I purchased it at an almost "give away" discount from Amazon only to transfer the audio to my hard drive for listening in my iPod and for burning to CDs. I NEVER WATCHED THE DVDs! However, I have been enjoying the audio and have not had to see any golden wings, rope tricks, wedding cakes, or (heaven forbid) blue wall paper. I was surprised when I was not overly annoyed when I saw the production a few weeks ago in the house, but as I said the singing made up for it...

[MrMiniver]

Some quick responses and observations to a bunch of the above postings.

 

Regarding Don Magnifico's rundown estate.... That's in the libretto. Yes, the broken couch was a bit overdone, but it is a comedy!

 

The trying up in the "Questo e' un nodo avviluppato" ensemble gives a description of what's implied in the libretto. However, I have always hated the overly rolled rrrr's and explosive pppp's. Something that became prevalent in the 70's and associated with the famous Jean Pierre Ponnelle production.

 

As for the production itself, I disliked it when new and had not seen it since then. The blue wallpaper is overdone, but I tolerated it much better this time around... as in it did not bother me much at all. Perhaps that's because the singing compensated for any visual failings.

 

Still, the worst part is the "cassaforte" being lifted up by a crane during Alidoro's aria with Cenerentola in it. It ruins the scene... as do the silly wings...(Yeah I know! Ali d'oro = wings of gold!) and that's my favorite aria in the piece!!! It was added in 1820 to replace a piece by Luca Agolini... long story... as originally Alidoro was a minor role... and often Rossini farmed out such arias to assistants. Rossini eventually had second thoughts, decided to amplify Alidoro's role, and added the orchestral recitative and composed the new aria in a grand more semi-seria style. It musically sets Alidoro's apart as being somehow a bit supernatural. The MET has him sprout wings. Ponnelle much more effectively played the scene with the lighting producing an enormous shadow that made him seem larger than life.

 

Regarding, Florez... He is already hall of fame material... as I said above "a force of nature".

 

Regarding Camarena, as I noted in another thread, I see him eventually going the way of tackling the more heroic Rossini roles such as Otello... while Florez will probably always be a Rodrigo. Eventually, he might even go beyond the more robust Bel Canto roles. I already noted that his high C was more powerful than what one normally gets from a Ramiro.

 

With any luck he won't end up like Barry Banks... a singer who in his day gave great pleasure. Fabulous as Orestes in Ermione at City Opera... A bit less good when they later did La Donna del Lago... and unfortunately downhill from there. He was short in stature (as the king in Donna one review said that he looked like Mayor Quimby from The Simpsons) but when "on" one did not care.

 

Barry Banks served one useful purpose: he makes Lawrence Brownlee look tall Seriously, he was in something at NYCO and I swear he looked like the Mayor of Munchkinland!

[MrMiniver]

Actually, LOL!

 

In truth, that's how I perceived things when it was new!!! In fact, when the MET released it's vocally excellent DVD version with Garanca and Brownlee I purchased it at an almost "give away" discount from Amazon only to transfer the audio to my hard drive for listening in my iPod and for burning to CDs. I NEVER WATCHED THE DVDs! However, I have been enjoying the audio and have not had to see any golden wings, rope tricks, wedding cakes, or (heaven forbid) blue wall paper. I was surprised when I was not overly annoyed when I saw the production a few weeks ago in the house, but as I said the singing made up for it...

 

To me, it's Rossini, so I don't much care. Now if they muck with Wagner or Strauss I'd probably be upset

[whipped guy]

To me, it's Rossini, so I don't much care. Now if they muck with Wagner or Strauss I'd probably be upset

Mr. M... That is so Twentieth Century... Rossini is where it's at these days... Of course the Cenerentola production does date from the last century so I'll give it a pass. Still, even though I'm not the biggest Wagnerian... and Strauss (unless we're talking Johann... and we ain't ) is at the bottom of my list... I would still be quite disturbed if they were mucked with by some inept production. So far the new MET Rossini productions this Century have been relatively sane... Not perfect but all get a passing grade. Regarding next season's La Donna del Lago, it looks promising.

 

http://www.metoperafamily.org/video/search/watch/la-donna-del-lago-201415-new-production/3193161334001?term=am95Y2UgZGlkb25hdG8=

[MrMiniver]

Mr. M... That is so Twentieth Century... Rossini is where it's at these days... Of course the Cenerentola production does date from the last century so I'll give it a pass. Still, even though I'm not the biggest Wagnerian... and Strauss (unless we're talking Johann... and we ain't ) is at the bottom of my list... I would still be quite disturbed if they were mucked with by some inept production. So far the new MET Rossini productions this Century have been relatively sane... Not perfect but all get a passing grade. Regarding next season's La Donna del Lago, it looks promising.

 

http://www.metoperafamily.org/video/search/watch/la-donna-del-lago-201415-new-production/3193161334001?term=am95Y2UgZGlkb25hdG8=

 

I know I was being flippant but I just don't think it matters with stuff like Rossini or most of the bel canto rep. I mean you just go to hear the singing no one cares about the stories .... it's not Wagner or Strauss or Verdi

 

Strauss and Wagner. They're the "bomb" as my students would say!

[bostonman]

I know I was being flippant but I just don't think it matters with stuff like Rossini or most of the bel canto rep. I mean you just go to hear the singing no one cares about the stories .... it's not Wagner or Strauss or Verdi

 

Well then, shouldn't they just stop doing all these costly productions of bel canto operas and present them as concerts instead? I mean, if the music is really all that matters.

[whipped guy]

I know I was being flippant but I just don't think it matters with stuff like Rossini or most of the bel canto rep. I mean you just go to hear the singing no one cares about the stories .... it's not Wagner or Strauss or Verdi

 

Strauss and Wagner. They're the "bomb" as my students would say!

There's a lot of valid drama in Bel Canto. It is just expressed in a different manner than Wagner, Strauss, and just about anything else that came afterwards. Superficially there are the Rossinian crescendi and all that florid writing. Listen to something like the trial scene from La Gazza Ladra... yes a "silly" opera about a "silly" bird who does some "silly" things... meld the words to the music and one hears fioritura and crescendi of despair, desperation, and hopelessness. It drove audiences of the time to tears. It's not the way Wagner or even Verdi would portray anguish, but it worked then and can still have such an effect on audiences today. Plus the music has a kinetic energy that can draw the audience in... Get some sets, singing actors, and a cogent staging and who would ever want to hear it in concert from... Not I, as it's opera... and drama... not a concert in costume!

 

I don't mean to knock institutions such as OONY who specialize in opera concert. They perform a service by presenting operas that one would otherwise not hear live... and not surprisingly I have been know to attend some of their performances of Bel Canto operas. It's just that the entire enchilada is so much better!

 

Just some thoughts from a helpless Bel Canto Maniac!!!

[bostonman]

There's a lot of valid drama in Bel Canto. It is just expressed in a different manner than Wagner, Strauss, and just about anything else that came afterwards. Superficially there are the Rossinian crescendi and all that florid writing. Listen to something like the trial scene from La Gazza Ladra... yes a "silly" opera about a "silly" bird who does some "silly" things... meld the words to the music and one hears fioritura and crescendi of despair, desperation, and hopelessness. It drove audiences of the time to tears. It's not the way Wagner or even Verdi would portray anguish, but it worked then and can still have such an effect on audiences today. Plus the music has a kinetic energy that can draw the audience in... Get some sets, singing actors, and a cogent staging and who would ever want to hear it in concert from... Not I, as it's opera... and drama... not a concert in costume!

 

I don't mean to knock institutions such as OONY who specialize in opera concert. They perform a service by presenting operas that one would otherwise not hear live... and not surprisingly I have been know to attend some of their performances of Bel Canto operas. It's just that the entire enchilada is so much better!

 

Just some thoughts from a helpless Bel Canto Maniac!!!

 

And I agree with you - my comment about concert performances was just a response to MrMiniver's dismissal of bel canto opera as valid theatre, which it certainly can be. (It can be valid theatre, that is.)

 

To take two other examples where moments in even the silliest comic operas become all too human - the wonderful "Adina credimi" in the Act I Finale of l'Elisir d'Amore where all of a sudden the music goes minor and dark (with those simple but evocative french horn "sighs" between Nemorino's phrases) - all of a sudden we know this is not fun and games anymore for Nemorino - this is real. It is not hard for a tenor to break my heart with this music.

 

And a similar moment in possibly my favorite Rossini opera, l'Italiana In Algeri - in an Act II ensemble, Taddeo, who is at the losing end of gaining Isabella's hand, pours out his emotions for the lady he adores, with the words "hai capito questo core pensa adesso come sta" (essentially, "do you understand how my heart thinks of you thus right now") sung in music that has suddenly migrated to minor. Taddeo may be a silly clown, but at this moment his pathos is achingly real.

 

If a director lets moments like this go by without a requisite human touch, just claiming how silly it all is, he's completely missing the point. Bel canto may be stylized, but so is Verdi,. so is Wagner, and so is Strauss. And each style is only "on the surface" if you choose not to delve in. There are many people who feel that all that spear-and-magic-helmet Wagnerian ho-to-yo-ho-ing is equally silly, or if you've heard one Verdi baritone vengeance aria, you've heard too many, etc. Any style can be ridiculed - conversely, any style can be validated.

[whipped guy]

And I agree with you - my comment about concert performances was just a response to MrMiniver's dismissal of bel canto opera as valid theatre, which it certainly can be. (It can be valid theatre, that is.)

 

To take two other examples where moments in even the silliest comic operas become all too human - the wonderful "Adina credimi" in the Act I Finale of l'Elisir d'Amore where all of a sudden the music goes minor and dark (with those simple but evocative french horn "sighs" between Nemorino's phrases) - all of a sudden we know this is not fun and games anymore for Nemorino - this is real. It is not hard for a tenor to break my heart with this music.

 

And a similar moment in possibly my favorite Rossini opera, l'Italiana In Algeri - in an Act II ensemble, Taddeo, who is at the losing end of gaining Isabella's hand, pours out his emotions for the lady he adores, with the words "hai capito questo core pensa adesso come sta" (essentially, "do you understand how my heart thinks of you thus right now") sung in music that has suddenly migrated to minor. Taddeo may be a silly clown, but at this moment his pathos is achingly real.

 

If a director lets moments like this go by without a requisite human touch, just claiming how silly it all is, he's completely missing the point. Bel canto may be stylized, but so is Verdi,. so is Wagner, and so is Strauss. And each style is only "on the surface" if you choose not to delve in. There are many people who feel that all that spear-and-magic-helmet Wagnerian ho-to-yo-ho-ing is equally silly, or if you've heard one Verdi baritone vengeance aria, you've heard too many, etc. Any style can be ridiculed - conversely, any style can be validated.

Great examples, by the way... and my comments were not aimed at your posting. Still, one must delve in!!! It's just that most of the Bel Canto operas that survived were either comedies or were treated as mindless showpieces... and as a result were considered to be second class citizens... and this in spite of Maria Callas and others. In any event, she and others built the foundation, but it is only now that a sturdy edifice is being constructed on that foundation. I always liked Rossini, but it is only relatively recently that I really have come to understand him... and that has happened by seeing that the pieces can indeed come to life on stage... Plus, in the days Callas, Sutherland, Sills, Horne, etc. there were few male singers who could help carry the show. The Callas Armida is the prime example... None of the tenors could sing their parts and even the venerable Maestro Serafin had no clue what the piece was about. Think of Sutherland's performances of Semiramide. How could the piece be presented when half of it could not be adequately performed by the male contingent in the cast. Same for Sills in her MET and Scala debuts in L'Assedio di Corinto. No cogent drama was possible in a way that the composer would recognize. Fortunately matters have changed in the past few years!!!!

 

Plus, for anyone here who still does not believe any of this regarding the emotions of which these operas are capable, I advise them to read Balzac's short story Massimilla Doni to see the effect that these operas had on the opera going public of the time.

[Andy2]

Bel Canto as Serious Opera: Lucia by Donizetti

 

My two cents.

 

In my view, it is wrong to characterize Bel Canto operas as silly comedies without gravitas. Donizetti's wonderful Lucia di Lammermoor is an excellent example--there is gravity galore in this opera (as well as more than its share of great music). Lucia's mad scene is one of the most weighty in the Canon. The most affecting performance I have seen was Natalie Desai (I believe) at the San Francisco opera house--where the mad scene was accompanied by a glass harmonica (which was the original design I believe). The eerie and exotic sound of the glass harmonica was a backdrop which created a heart-breaking performance. I cried and was kinda frightened (even conjuring up this memory gives me a thrill).

 

Elvira's mad scene in Puritani is also quite affecting, though nothing as overpowering as that in Lucia.

[MrMiniver]

Well then, shouldn't they just stop doing all these costly productions of bel canto operas and present them as concerts instead? I mean, if the music is really all that matters.

 

Not when they do them like that Maria Stuarda at the MET which was stunning drama ... but painted backdrops will be just fine for the canary fanciers, don't you think?

[whipped guy]

My two cents.

 

In my view, it is wrong to characterize Bel Canto operas as silly comedies without gravitas... I cried and was kinda frightened (even conjuring up this memory gives me a thrill).

Well since you were the first to admit it, I have been known to shed a tear or two at these operas as well. There are certain moments in opera that give one that extra chill and thrill... Wagner, Verdi, Puccini... and yes, even Bel Canto operas.

 

A few years ago I exchanged a bit of correspondence with a certain escort who told me that he cried at the conclusion of Bellini's Norma... At that moment I knew that we would get along splendidly.

 

At at times it is simply the musical aspects of the piece that grab one emotionally. One such moment is the Act One finale of Rossini's La Donna del Lago. There is some loud warlike orchestral bombast and then suddenly the orchestration is reduced to a fine thread... simply the harp... with pizzicato strings. The effect is cooling and chilling as thus begins the "Chorus of the Bards"... This gets combined with a march theme previously heard that involves a stage band to bring the act to a thrilling conclusion. What is interesting is that there is no orchestral postlude as normally would be the case. The beauty of that harp theme... and the fact that it comes out of nowhere can't be overemphasized. Somehow it evokes the Scottish countryside albeit from an Italian perspective. Mesmerizing! Just the thought of it gives me a chill... and a thrill...