Running, standing and jumping Gaul
"Legendary maestro Tullio Serafin once said that trying to perform Bellini's Norma without a great soprano is as futile as attempting to cook risotto without rice. This month, the Metropolitan Opera experimented with such a recipe with less than palatable results."
Our Own JJ reviews Hasmik Papian's Druidess in Gay City News.
Our Own JJ reviews Hasmik Papian's Druidess in Gay City News.
POSTED at
6:14 PM
30 Comments:
I think this review is very honest, direct, to the point and free of self-indulgence.
I love how the he starts the review. I too believe that Norma should be shelved until there is a great singer to do it justice. There are very few operas that bear the signature of a singer so strongly that there is no point in revisiting them. I know this sounds fanatical but this is exactly why The Met Norma is being confronted with so much vitriol. A bad performance of Boheme, Forza, or Andrea Chenier would not arouse such strong feelings.
With great respect to Madames Sutherland, Scotto, and Caballe who have excelled in the role of Norma, this opera belongs to the great Maria Callas. She elevated the work to a point that cannot be matched. With access to her recordings I cannot imagine someone like Guleghina having the temerity to agree to sing Norma. What is wrong with these people? Are they unicorns?
Magisterial review.
I look forward to his review of Guleghina as Norma.
had seraffin lived, he would find out that today they make 'risotto' with barley and other grains.
oh sharon, the plural of "madame" is "mesdames".
Thanks Oprah Queen...I struggled with that one and finally..made a mistake
what's up with goerke? she sang norma before. haven't heard her name in a long time.
TDG: Actually JJ's colleague David Shengold reviews la Guleghina -- that should appear in the next week or so.
Incisive and honest. I heard it on Sirius and it bored me to death. A total miscast with the exception of Zajick who could not save the ugliness of this performance.
Great review! The brief mention of the ladies' costumes reminds me of a comment a European friend once made at the break between acts of a Sutherland/Tourangeau performance of Norma, in which Ms Sutherland (as was her wont) was gowned in a flowing, diaphanous Barbara Mattera creation.
"One has to wonder... those Gallic Druids lived in caves and rocks, but they sure could weave a sheer fabric!"
Christine Goerke had a baby girl last year. She sang Alice Ford in Philadelphia in April, and returns there this April for-- in fact-- NORMA opposite Kristine Jepson ( role debut), Philip Webb and Eric Owens; Corrado Rovaris conducts. Orchestral calibre apart, that's got to be more enjoyable singing and conducting than what the Met is shoveling onstage.
http://www.operaphila.org/07-08/production4.shtml
Goerke will also sing Chrysothemis opposite Susan Bullock and Irina Mishura at Washington "National"(PLEASE!) Opera in May. Come Spring we all might be getting on Amtrak , folks.
As for Madame Callas "owning" Norma-- yeah, OK, but let's not forget Madame Ponselle. Maestro Serafin certainly didn't, and shared the fruits of their work together on NORMA with both Callas and Sutherland.
Well, I stand corrected. While we are at it, let's not exclude Giuditta Pasta...unless of course you are on a low carb diet in which case you may also want to exclude Giulia Grisi.
Callas own Norma?!! Well, yes, if your idea of owning Norma is a ham fisted actress shrieking instead of singing, gargling instead of trilling and mal canto instead of bel canto!
Get a grip
Sharon Graham tells us that (apologies for the long quotation):
"There are very few operas that bear the signature of a singer so strongly that there is no point in revisiting them. I know this sounds fanatical but this is exactly why The Met Norma is being confronted with so much vitriol. A bad performance of Boheme, Forza, or Andrea Chenier would not arouse such strong feelings."
I don't understand this. Why? Why are people so humourless about this rather silly opera? It's not "fanaticism" btw, it's a total lack of a sense of proportion. I read some of the comments about this performance (which I didn't hear, since I don't care much for Norma or Bellini in general) and the intensity of feeling beggars belief. OK, so it seems to have been a mess. So what? This is not fanaticism; *I* am fanatical (notice my handle) but I try to maintain a grip, even if e.g a villainous Internet poster ever dares to express anything less than gushing admiration for Lucia. I will probably challenge him to a duel with pistols at 12 paces:-), but I will not be humourless about it.
So why are people unable to get a grip when Norma is discussed? This is an honest question. I'm mystified. Good -even great- music, don't get me wrong, but moronic libretto, and frankly there are greater operas, with better music and way better dramatic poignancy. But should e.g Don G, or La Trav, or La Boh-heem (TM) get slaughtered by a conceited director or incompetentent musicianship there is a collective shrug of indifference. But if you mess up the implausible tale of a hysterical druidess then it's all "BURN THE HERETIC!" bellows. Not even Wagnerites are that humourless (though they come close).
So, why? Enlighten me please.
Anonymous bravely stated...
"Callas own Norma?!! Well, yes, if your idea of owning Norma is a ham fisted actress shrieking instead of singing, gargling instead of trilling and mal canto instead of bel canto!"
Oh, of course, I see your point-- *Cheryl Studer* owns Norma. How silly of Sharon Graham and me... Maybe she's readying a Stich-Randall memorial production in Trier?
That whole notion of owning a role always gets people in a tizzy, especially when the name Callas is mentioned. I think what Callas did was set the standard for the part because of her combination of scrupulous musicianship and dramatic commitment. However, I don't think that standard has not been met. I think Caballe, Sutherland and Scotto had very valid Normas in them, even if they had some limitations. Callas did too, boy, did she ever, but what she did with the part was magical, even if it was short-lived.
Anonymous--
I wish a big ham would fist you until you shrieked instead of sang.
Dear Sharon
Surely you are not suggesting that Mme Callas achieved her unique "shrieking" with the aid of an outsize porcine dildo?
here's naglestad on youtube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7l_0_8KPGZg
she sure could sing norma, no? i can't tell how big the voice is.
"One has to wonder... those Gallic Druids lived in caves and rocks, but they sure could weave a sheer fabric!"
Thanks for contributing that. It's very funny. But I hope no one takes that as serious criticism. To get that literal about costume-style would be in the class with saying, "Did Gallic Druids have follow-spots?" or "How silly to have a big orchestra accompanying a barbaric priestess!"
We're doing bel canto opera here, not PBS documentary.
"I don't understand this. Why? Why are people so humourless about this rather silly opera? "
Leaving La Divina out of it for the moment, I seriously wonder if anyone with a soul can hear Caballé sing "Casta diva" or Sutherland/Horne sing the duets and say something like the above-quoted.
There are experiences of almost unearthly beauty that humans, who often suffer so much, can be forgiven for becoming quite devoted to. The term "humourlesss" -- intended for abuse -- doesn't begin to cover it. For religious people, these experiences will provoke thanksgiving; others will be just as pious in a less specific but no less other-worldly mode.
Thank you DirkVA. Well said.
Popp fanatic wrote: "why are people unable to get a grip when Norma is discussed? This is an honest question. I'm mystified. Good -even great- music, don't get me wrong, but moronic libretto, and frankly there are greater operas, with better music and way better dramatic poignancy. But should e.g Don G, or La Trav, or La Boh-heem (TM) get slaughtered by a conceited director or incompetentent musicianship there is a collective shrug of indifference."
Well, I guess one answer is that there are so many productions of these other operas, and so many bad ones, that folks just gets weary of complaining. Norma is a relative rarity, so any revival gets extra attention for all that pent up kvetching. But I recall reading some incendiary things about several recent Don Giovannis, the Salzburg Traviata and the "hopelessy bloated, reactionary" staging of Boheme at the Met. And, gran Dio, what about Wagner? The Wilson Lohengrin? The Chereau Ring? HERETICS! Talk about operatic jihadists! Fatwas were issuing left and right. Just mention the words "Renee" and "Traviata" in the same sentence, especially around here, and stand back. Check out the thread on Fleming's recent announcement.
If a "moronic" plot were any impediment to an opera's greatness, we wouldn't have many. But, on the 'lighten up' theme, isn't that part of the fun? Trovatore wouldn't be nearly as engaging if the plot were actually plausible.
It seems to me that Norma is dated -- to over-simplify it, but at the same time it contains some very great vocal music, and the female duets alone would justify it. I suggest the other reason we still respect Norma is that so many very great singers have included it in their repertory and made a reputation with it -- Ponselle, L. Lehmann, Milanov, Sutherland....etc. The fact they wanted to sing it, and some still do, confirms it is an important score. As for Goerke -- bizarre!
She does not have that role in her voice; last time I heard her (Santa Fe), she was bordering on mezzo. Flanigan flopped in it big time in Cincinnati. Naglestad may be able to sing it -- I can't tell from YouTube; but if she could really sing it, you can bet some major opera companies would be hiring her to do so!
Norma cannot survive in second-rate performances; it takes total vocal and stylistic authority, and given that -- it's a glorious experience.
MrMyster
dirkva and orestes: Thank you for your courteous replies. I said it was an honest question and I meant it. Although I am not fully convinced that it's the relative rarity of "Norma" revivals that is the real answer. Gluck's "Iphigenie" for example, a far more significant work in every respect, is performed even more rarely but there is nowhere near the same anguish here or in Opera-L in case somebody screws it up. I can come up with numerous other examples (Onegin, Hoffman, Nabucco to throw out just a few without having to go back to baroque examples) of popular operas which seem to me are performed as rarely as any of the Bellinis but which people seem to handle in a more balanced manner.
Nor do I think that the vitriol is of the same nature for some of the other examples you gave me. The moaning and gnashing of teeth that greeted Fleming's Traviata (which I didn't like either) or Netrebko's Puritani (which I did) had more to do with the dislike people feel for those singers -or rather the hype surrounding them. So something else must be the answer. Allow me to try to locate it in my typical roundabout and long-winded way:
It is true that I use the term "humourless" in a derogatory manner. For me the ability to laugh at the absurdity of life and the self-importance of humanity (with oneself topmost) is one of the greatest things one can aspire to. The fact that religion in particular (which was mentioned here as an argument) strips people of this ability to laugh at themselves is one of its more distasteful aspects - and one of the reasons I'm a convinced atheist. There is nothing "other-worldly" in the intense response we have to music, and opera in particular. It's -a very human- emotional response. You may have it with "Casta Diva" -and fair enough- I have it e.g with the Letter Duet from Figaro or with "Soave Sia Il Vento" (and so on, and on, and on). We may be moved to tears in front of such genius, but there is nothing mystical about it. The greatness of opera lies not in the superb music nor the elegance of the drama but in the fact that it can elicit such intense emotional responses.
That is also why I dislike cerebral criticisms of performances such as "great singing but she didn't hit the E flat" or "compelling performance but the coloratura was muddied". And I think this last one is the actual reason why people here are so -yes- humourless when it comes to Norma and bel canto in general, and respond so virulently to what the perceive to be a less than perfect interpretation of it. It's a typical American obsession with the bottom line. Sorry, but there you have it. Did she hit the top whatever? Was the coloratura rapid & clear enough? Did he get down to the "low whatever"? How big was the voice? Shopping list: check, check, check. It's the same reason that soccer will never catch on in America - the cultural difficulty to see the beauty in a well played scoreless draw. I don't mean to be abusive. We Europeans must appear super silly to Americans in a great many things, and probably with good cause, too. I just think that this is really the reason these predominantly American forums are so attavistically offended when the final tally in the bel canto scoreline is less than they expected. OK, now you can flame me :-).
To close (yes!), I don't dispute that "Norma" has its sublime musical moments. But the libretto (not just the plot, the actual verses) is infused with a stilted self-importance that I find greatly diminishes the opera as a whole. "Trov" or "Nabucco" may be super silly plot-wise as well, but I don'e get this feeling of self-importance. Probably because somewhere in the back of my mind I can imagine Verdi laughing his ass off at the ridiculous words he is putting such sublime music to.
'Onegin, Hoffman, Nabucco'
That's a simple difference: title male roles versus title female roll. In fact, we're willing to sit through a horrendous Hoffmann if the diva(s) and the bass are good. Nabucco and Onegin are BARITONE roles, so no wonder people don't get up in arms. No offense to the various voice types, but ever since Handel hit the scene, the prima donna has been in ascendancy, and Norma is a role of roles.
I do think Callas was instrumental for current listeners in sculpting and defining what the other roles like that are. Even if she didn't sing some of them very often, she made indelible associations with Lady Macbeth, Medea, Butterfly, Tosca, Anna Bolena, Norma, Elvira, etc, and those are the roles that singers and audiences after her really throw down the gauntlet. I'm sure if Callas would have specialized in Semiramide or Charlotte or Elektra, we'd be as fussy there, too. In fact, some of us who love those repertoires are VERY fussy (certainly in the Strauss!) when comparing current singers with our favorites of the past.
Popp Fanatic, while I think (if I understand you) I am sympathetic with much of what you are trying to say, there are so many mistaken assumptions in what you write that I can't begin to deal with them here and now, nor do I pretend to the superiority that would be required to answer your own.
But, for example:
You come to Parterre Box, of all places, to talk about "humourlessness"? Is there ANY subject too sacred for our own dear patroness, role model, and den mother La Cieca? Even Norma is far from safe from her unrestrained wit. And she sets the tone.
If you think religion is humorless, you certainly haven't been around its upper reaches much. (Ever been to a Jesuit party? The atmosphere with regard to religion is comparable to the Parterre take on opera.) Your denial of any transcendent role for music is unanswerable by me and must be referred to some of the greatest philosophers of all ages. Modern anthropologists have taken up the theme.
As for the examples you gave of other fantastic operas: the excellence of your Gluck example (which I admire enough to go see my second performance of it in a week this very afternoon) is so self-evidently in a different world from Bellini that I don't see how you can raise even an implied comparision. There is none, at least for purposes of the discussion that you intervened in. And the letter aria in Figaro? Comparing it to Casta diva is as useless as comparing the sublimest Shakespeare to Bette Davis's trip up the staircase in Dark Victory. Can't be done.
And do you really think it helps your confused case to come here and vaunt yourself on being European rather than mere American trash? The arts of persuasion are clearly not your strong point.
But I do nevertheless wish you well in whatever carefully non-transformative, decidedly non-spiritual enjoyment you find in opera.
Mrmyster: Re Naglestad
Naglestad did Norma a few years ago at the San Francisco Opera, hired by Pam Rosenberg. No idea how it was.
Did Gallic Druids have follow-spots?
To my knowledge, no; however, recent archeological digs suggest that Druids did employ vaguely parabolic-shaped mirrors in a follow-spot-ish manner.
Doug: Very interesting point about the "ascendancy of the prima donna" era leading to people being much less tolerant of female singer failures rather than male. You may be on to something here. Of all the theories so far, this seems to be the most plausible so far.
Dirkva: Hm, I obviously haven't got my point across very well. I don't have a "case" to make, I was genuinely mystified by the virulence of the criticism of this latest Norma revival as well as the original comment "if you can't do it perfectly don't do it at all", which I have never seen associated with e.g Don G. Hence the Gluck example, another wonderful and rarely revived opera that doesn't generate nearly enough the same amount of passion. I don't hide the fact that I am no great Bellini fan, though he certainly wrote some marvellous music, but I still can't understand why, say, die-hard Mozart or Puccini fans don't make nearly the same noise as Bellini-ites and Donizetti-ites.
As for supposedly looking down on Americans as a "superior" European (ha!), I thought I put in enough explanatory disclaimers. Oh well. One day I will use some examples of the ridiculous self-importance we suffer from in the Old World, so I can be blamed by Europeans as an Ugly American (TM) :-).
As for the "humourlessness" accusation, which seems to grate more than I imagined, I would never use it for the owner of this site, who as you say correctly is a paragon of tongue-in-cheek wit. I reserve that solely for (some of) the commentary (and not yours, before you start).
Anyway, I said "flame on", so I guess fair enough with getting a response such as yours. I only wanted to set the record straight(er).
Ladies, ladies! La Cieca, peace be upon her, has already cautioned us, in her unique, gentle manner, that we are on probation for undue seriousness. Shudder. I can take the point that NORMA has an icongraphic, perhaps undeserved, position in the repertory in America. But there you are, Jane, in the wheelchair. Cows are sacred in India, and there is no accounting for taste anywhere. Bad productions and performances are unevenly shredded all around, or they are shrugged off, depending on the audience. NORMA does require a unique performance by the prima donna - the soprano who created it made a palinode to Bellini just before the prima. This role, not the opera, has long represented, whether deservedly or not, a litmus test for the vocal and dramatic skills for sopranos aspiring to Olympus in the Italian repertory. There are greater operas, more technically challenging roles, but this role has established itself, in no small part because of the divae who have claimed it, as an imprimatur of fame. Americans, in our agonistic quandries, buy into that implied contest perhaps more willingly than others. And that, fellows of the cher public, is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Post a Comment
<< Home