Roundhead roundup
Five newspaper reviews are in for Anna Netrebko‘s Met Puritani, and the score stands at four postive, one mixed:
“With the smoky colorings and throbbing richness of her sumptuous voice, Ms. Netrebko was an unusually vulnerable Elvira. Bel Canto purists may find fault with her sometimes imprecise execution of coloratura runs and roulades. But I admired her way of treating florid passagework as organic extensions of an arching vocal line, not as a series of fast notes to be nailed with cool accuracy.” Anthony Tommasini, New York Times
“She has that bel canto gift of singing like a windswept lark on a bright day, and an acting style combining the natural with the daring.” Clive Barnes, New York Post
“Elvira should be beautiful; Netrebko is. Elvira should be so delicate of brain that the shock of being abandoned on her wedding day unhinges her completely. Netrebko raved gorgeously, but she also expertly controlled the whipping spray of notes and the rainbow colors of her voice. She proved herself a master of extreme opera, that volatile mixture of emotional distress and consummate technique. That’s what we need divas for.” Justin Davidson, Newsday
“And how about the mad scene, one of the greatest stretches in all bel canto opera? From Ms. Netrebko, it was an unshowy tour de force. What I mean is this: It was a tour de force, all right —but it had complete musical and theatrical poise. Ms. Netrebko displayed phenomenal control. And she was pathetic in the original sense — evoking great pity, sadness, and even wonder. This is simply a smart singer.” Jay Nordlinger, New York Sun
“She didn’t sing a false note, but she struck one. It was as if this charismatic performer, whose stage instincts are usually flawless, was overcompensating for the fact that she simply couldn’t conquer all the vocal challenges of one of the most demanding bel canto roles in the repertory.” Mike Silverman, Associated Press
Our publisher JJ hears the production on Saturday night; look for his review in Gay City News next week.
Well, that’s baffling. I mean she wasn’t terrible or anything, but I honestly thought it was almost objectively not a huge success. Granted, my impression was 100% aural.
It’s not so baffling. With the exception of Martin Bernheimer, most of the print critics are becoming shills for the Met. They acknowledge problems with her singing, but brush them aside as if they don’t matter. If she were not beautiful and charismatic, would they still make excuses for her?
I don’t think so.
It seems to me a windswept lark is likely to give a less than optimum performance, even if it is a bright day.
Anthony Tommasini should retire, if not, I suggest, hell, beg him to clean out his ears and listen to Netrebko’s mad Mad Scene again.
Sieglinde is fuming in her blog regarding Tommasini’s rave review of Anna’s Puritani. Oh, wait, I have a better idea, why doesn’t Sieglinde just replace him? She writes far better than anyone in the blogworld, that’s for sure, and her knowledge of all the technical aspects of soprano singing verges on the scary, so why not? Anthony Tommasini should have been put out to pasture ages ago, like the time when he proclaimed Renee Fleming’s 2003 Violetta the best thing that overrated soprano ever did.
Anyone care to sign a petition?
I think Tommassini is clearly a shill for the MET or for particular singers/conductors (Netrebko, Fleming, Voigt, Levine seem to be his four favorites while Villazon and Florez don’t seem to do much for him) but I don’t think you can make that same claim about Jay Nordlinger at the Sun. He is often very critical of the MET.
The line I found baffling is the one about “Bel Canto purists.” So we now have a definition of a purist as someone who wants the singer to sing the notes accurately and without muddy coloratura?
That’s a “purist?”
The reviews seem to be overly complimetary. They go out of their way to actually state her singing was well controlled and fluent. It was not. She has a nice voice, it’s a very attractive natural timbre, and it isn’t a total wash technically. But hse certainly is lazy about pulling it all together and she can’t or won’t trill and she is wayward of pitch. If there was a very deep interpretation going on to compensate she would get more slack from me, but there wasn’t anything special. It was a good enough job by a nice soprano who is a bit technically challenged. But I suppose the critics want to build a superstar.
I also take umbrage at the comment about “bel canto purists”. Why the slur. Expecting accuracy of musicianship is something to look down at? If Netrebko can’t deliver the basics why attack the people with ears that can hear the vocal problems? Attack the source. She should not sing what she cannot sing. Besides, in this repetory the vocalism goes hand in hand with the drama. The accuracy is necessary to be able to expressively interpret the musical notes because the drama is expressed through the music.
“bel canto purist” = anyone who in
(a) evaluting artistically and
(b) deriving pleasure from performance in a Bellini opera
(a) applies general standards and
(b) relates to musical and interpretative insight into an opera
rather than
(a) applying unique, ad hominem (or more importantly, ad feminam) standards and
(b)relating to expressive qualities without reference to the work or the composer, or to understanding of the latter.
Or, in a word,a “bel canto purist” is someone who thinks he is at an opera, rather than a concert. I don’t think it could possibly mean someone who doesn’t care EVER that the right notes are sung, etc. Only those who care about that ON THIS OCCASION, and would let that get in the way of their forming another PRECONCEIVED view of the performer.
Listen, Netrebko is currently and with reason, the flavor of the month. She will continue to be the flavor for many more months, probably years. Tommasini wants to be in on the hoopla, so he writes positively. This is what gives these reviews the feeling that they were written beforehand or are press releases. It seems that if a favorite sings badly it is passed over just as when a pet peeve singer does a good job it is glossed over or ignored.
One egregious example of Tommasini reviewing the reputation or status of the performer rather than the performance itself was his NY Times review of Renee Fleming in her Kaplan Penthouse recital. Evidently, she was in her most tortuously affected mode as captured on the PBS telecast but Tommasini in his January 6, 2001 review was totally complimentary. He did say that some might question her taste but that this was “good for the cause”. Brian Kellow in Opera News read her correctly finding her pop choices fussily done and oversung.
Frankly, Netrebko is a gifted, lustrous vocalist and a stage animal. She has paid her dues in the U.S. and Europe. If you want to pick at little notes, that is fine. Evidently, Tommasini liked what he saw of the big picture.
Besides, it was her first performance of the role anywhere. She will improve as will her less successful male costars, health permitting. Clearly, this is only the opening night and Tommasini felt there was room for improvement which will be forthcoming. So he didn’t slam them for a patchy first night. He very carefully kept his criticisms of Kunde brief while commending him for jumping in.
Let’s give them a few more cracks at this Bel Canto behemoth before we consign them to filth. I am going on January 3rd and I will be listening carefully.
I am waiting to see what (if anything) the London “Financial Times” has to say about Puritani. The paper’s arts reviews are for serious people! The last two occasions on which the FT reviewed Netrebko were:
(1) a concert in London with Villazon: “Netrebko, the Posh Spice of opera… The voice doesn’t melt the heart but soars magnificently… With Netrebko the emotions are applied whereas Villazón exposes himself.”
(2) The Met’s recent Boheme with Villazon: “Everyone’s favourite mini-diva, Anna Netrebko was cast as the sad little heroine… The fans came out in force. She looked very pretty and sounded very pretty, though she didn’t offer much expressive nuance and didn’t break my heart. Rolando Villazón provided the poignant counterforce of a genuinely ardent, uncommonly boyish, musically sensitive Rodolfo.”
So… okay, but not great (and a lot put on from the outside). This sounds terribly like the opinion of a “verismo purist”.
I find the following from the N.Y. Sun absolutely fascinating considering how the critic then goes on to praise her unstintingly. Is there some sort of fix in? I mean, I really don’t want to beat up on Ms. Netrebko, but this type of inordiannt hype just begs for a backlash:
“Bellini’s “I Puritani,” from 1835, represents the apex of bel canto, a style of intricate and graceful lacework in the vocal line. Authenticity junkies – and bel canto attracts an inordinate number of them – might reasonably grumble about the vagueness of Netrebko’s syllables, or her tendency to slow a phrase in order to pack in an extra dose of expressiveness, her willingness to let the beat go slack.
But her performance was not about authenticity, nor dramatic momentum, nor even about the opera as a whole. It was about herself. I wonder whether she has deep feelings for Bellini, other than gratitude for providing her with a flattering vehicle. She didn’t lose herself in Elvira so much as allow the poor girl to share a dress with her. In this opera, Netrebko can be forgiven such heights of public self-regard; that’s what we need divas for, too.”