Who's the missing star?
La Cieca was just wondering about something yesterday on opera-l, and doggone if Anne Midgette wasn't wondering about the same thing today in the New York Times. (That woman haunts my dreams, I tell you. It's like she's inside my head. Now, where was I? Oh, yes...) The point that dear Anne and I (among others) have mulling is this:There was a time when Norma was considered a rarity or at least an opera that could be revived only when a very special prima donna was available and willing. The first Met Norma, for example, was Lilli Lehmann, the house's biggest female star of that era. Even given Lehmann's réclame, her appearance as Norma was considered by at least one critic (W. J. Henderson in Times) to be a sort of stunt:
The opera was chosen by Fräu Lehmann for her benefit, and from a financial point of view her selection was a very wise one . . . . From an artistic point of view the choice does not seem to be so commendable. There is no artistic reason why Lilli Lehmann should present herself to the New York public as a colorature singer. She may have been actuated by a not unnatural desire to display her versatility, but to get up a performance of Bellini's "Norma" for her benefit savors rather of self-esteem than of a strong devotion to honest art . . . . She demonstrated that her voice possessed far more flexibility and that she had a greater command of the pure ornamentation of signing that anyone suspected ... It must be said, however, that Fräu Lehmann took many of the elaborate ornamental passages at a very moderate tempo and sang them with very evident labor, thus depriving them of much of that brilliancy which the smooth, mellow, pliable Italian voices impart to them. Fiorituri without brilliancy have no "raison d' étre," and no Italian diva of standing would have received half the applause that Fräu Lehmann did for singing these passages as she did. The audience was excited by astonishment at the fact that she could do it at all.Well, that was a longer pullquote than La Cieca originally intended to use, but, goodness, that is such excellent critical writing, isn't it? Anyway, back to the argument. Lehmann, Rosa Ponselle, Gina Cigna, Zinka Milanov and of course Maria Callas were all big established stars when they took on Norma at the Met. So were Joan Sutherland and Montserrat Caballé. If Shirley Verrett, Renata Scotto and Jane Eaglen received mixed reviews for their Met performances of the opera, it wasn't because of lack of star power or clout -- they were all extremely important names on the Met roster at the time of their casting.
Then there are performances from the likes of Adelaide Negri and Marisa Galvany -- (covers who had to go on) and Rita Hunter, one of the many jumpers-in for Caballé. The presence of Hasmik Papian at the beginning of this year's run of Norma should be understood in the same spirit, i.e., a late-in-the-game substitution.
Papian is going on for Maria Guleghina, who was pulled out of the beginning of the Norma run to perform the new production of Macbeth. So the question is, who ever dreamed up the notion of Guleghina singing Norma at the Met? True, she won a big popular success here with Abigaille back in 2001 and she more or less owned the role of Tosca at the house for about five years. But nothing in those performances (or, to be frank, her few attempts at the Bellini opera elsewhere) really shouts "this woman must do Norma at the Met." So why would a revival of Norma be put in the pipeline five years ago for a singer who neither then nor now promises to display anything special in the role?
Which is why La Cieca poses the question: was this revival of Norma originally planned for a different singer? And if so, who? Deborah Voigt? Violeta Urmana? Renée Fleming?
Labels: bel canto, caballe, critic, fleming, met, midgette, nyt, scotto, voigt
POSTED at
9:48 AM
55 Comments:
Very interesting "lead-in" Cieca. I would guess the answer to your final question is: "No, no, and no." I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you brought up Guleg's big success in Nabucco. She was really at her peak then (such as it was), and I have a feeling her charisma and vocal amplitude simply gave her a lot of weight to throw around. That is, when asked by the MET about her future plans, I bet she ambitiously mentioned Norma. At the time, Eaglen's near-disaster at the MET still stung in the ears of the collective public, and it may have been plausible casting to bring in Guleg (even if calmer minds MUST have known the result would be uneven at best). At the time of the Eaglen production, there was also much sentiment in the press and public (if memory serves) that NORMA had been too long out of the repertoire at the MET. (I still agree with this, and do NOT think we should wait around for the "perfect" interpreter). MAYBE (caps on purpose) there had been discussions with Gruberova for a potential return to the MET (she is currently singing the role with fair-to-excellent success in many European venues), and perhaps Grubie thought of it, then pulled out. Perhaps Vaness thought of a return to the part (before her vocal resources gave out so emphatically)? Or maybe Sweet wanted to give it a shot at the MET. Who knows. Certainly, if Voigt ever considered the role (GOD FORBID) she has thought better of it by now. Urmana would probably be pretty good - maybe even very good. I doubt that Fleming's ambition extended to the supreme demands of this role at the earlier point in her career when this revival was being planned. No, all speculation aside, I bet it started and will end with Guleg who these days has more balls than voice. I shudder for Bellini, but somehow still admire Guleg for her sheer courage and attitude.
How far ahead are these revivals booked?
Agree with EvenHanded that her successes in Nabucco may have led to the evolution of these Normas. However, while Abigaille may be more difficult to sing than Norma in some ways, Norma requires absolute technical finesse. This is something Guleghina has NEVER had.
I am surprised that she didn't withdraw from this assignment earlier on. But then again, she is the type of singer who just goes on and does her thing no matter what.
I don't know who it was planned for, but Urmana would make the most sense right now. Too bad gelb didn't get her for it! Has voigt really considered signign norma?!
Cieca, darling, I think we need to look first at the "Macbeth" casting. All early versions of the Met casting prospectus often showed a projected new "Macbeth" production with usually Juan Pons and Guleghina listed as the leads. I think the uncertainty about scheduling the new production of "Macbeth" had to do with the problem of finding a suitable baritone star since Pons seemed to be on the wane vocally. Probably the Met had discussed the role and promised it to Guleghina around the time of the "Nabucco" or even before. Comes 2001 and Andrea Gruber really sings the sh*t out of Abigaille and later does an impressive Turandot. The Met thinks it has a fresher, more reliable new dramatic soprano star. Gruber is moved into the new production of "Macbeth" and they have to do something for La Goolie. So they offer her the role of roles as a consolation prize since she is a useful member of the company and sings killer rep (how she sings them is another matter but she is still standing at the end of the show). Plus they have a fairly new "Norma" production that though it looks like a high school or college level production cost a lot of money and with Eaglen no longer around, sitting there useless. They can get at least one revival out of it.
In comes Gelb and looks at the casting that Volpe, Friend and Billingshurst planned and isn't happy. He has heard Gruber's Aida during his observation season and was not pleased. He is worried about the lack of "star" heat around the big "Macbeth" moviecast and the premiere. Lucic and Ataneli are solid dramatic baritones but not "stars". So something has to be done about the Lady.
Gelb was impressed with Guleghina's Giorgetta in "Il Tabarro" and her Santuzza last year wasn't chopped liver either. Now both of these roles do not require the coloratura skills or range that Lady Macbeth or Norma have. So Gelb decides to dump Gruber who already had lost her Minnie in "Fanciulla" for this season being replaced by "Satyagraha". With a lot of money and probably some very bad will and hurt feelings on Gruber's side, she is sidelined from the first performances and the radio/movie broadcast and Guleghina is in.
They are stuck with the "Norma" and it is decided to go with the most experienced and well-respected current singer of the title role - Hasmik Papian.
In some ways we are win-win. We get to hear both Papian and Guleghina as Norma and Guleghina and Gruber as Lady M. The Aidas that Guleghina was to sing aren't the greatest loss since she probably can't sing it well at this point in that it calls for controlled lyric-dramatic singing in higher keys. Guleghina had already done Aida at the Met strikingly several years ago but Lady M and Norma are new roles for her.
So Papian and Guleghina come out ahead and the once considered hot and promising Gruber is out in the cold.
Of course who will emerge the real winner or loser at the end of the day has not yet been revealed to us.
However, I think that "Norma" was always Guleghina's as a consolation prize for not doing the new production of "Macbeth" in favor of Gruber.
from what I've heard, 5-6 years ago, Volpe thought Guleghina was going to be a huge star, and basically set up anything she wanted (hence the Turandot contract, and I think Adriana Lec, iirc). He also had a new production of Norma that had been a disaster, but needed to get some mileage out of it. Guleghina has NO concept of her true vocal capabilities (she at one point was seriously trying to get someone to hire her as Lucia), and obviously wanted to do this part, so it fell into a disastrous place that way.
Papian (or my choice would have been Anderson) was the only available fallback for the house when it became clear that Gruber couldn't do Lady Macbeth, and clear that they wouldn't want to expose Guleghina to opening night reviewers. I'm just amazed at this point, after her horrific singing in Macbeth, that they haven't bought her out of the Normas that she's scheduled for - I'm sure Papian wouldn't mind the fee for them, and it's not like they are going to make boxoffice on this show anyway.
Last year, during a Sirius intermission interview, Urmana said that she would be singing Norma but said that she could not tell Juntwait the name of the theatre - she was a little coy -probably meant NYC
did Ghouleghina score a success with ABigaille back then? are you sure you are not thinking of Gruber? 'cuz i was there a few years ago (ok, maybe it was 2004) and Ghouleghina ducked out of some of the more difficult passages, skipping whole sentences in Act I.
as for Eaglen ,i cannot imagine her singing Norma any more than i can imagine Ghouleghina. ugly tone throughouth, no sublety, no variation. boring.
would Sondra R. be able to sing Norma? i hear Gelb doesn't like her though.
Has voigt really considered signign norma?!
To be honest, I'd be more interested in seeing Voigt sign the role than in hearing her sing it.
Joe Volpe could answer that, or Levine, as they both approved the revival some 5 years ago. My guess is that it was indeed meant for Guleghina. If so, it wasn't their first casting mistake. The question of who this revival was meant for is a bit irrelevant, the important thing is who is it was ultimately given to.
Midgette's review is accurate, especially her opinion of the conductor, who managed to distort every other page of the score. Clive Barnes on the Post seems to have liked Papian better even though, unfortunately, he too is haunted by ghosts, Stignani, Sutherland, Callas.
sacrilege! I apologize to Dame Joan, she's not a ghost yet.
Sieglinde has a slightly off the wall analysis of the missing Norma.
http://balconybox.blogspot.com/2007/11/missing-norma.html
She's an admitted Fleming flapper, so her conspiracy theory is centered on Renee. But he points to the fact that the Norma remained uncast till very late, at least according to the metmaniac site. So Cieca may be on to something with this little mystery in our midst.
I don´t think Urmana should be shy to say she would sing Norma in the Semperoper in Dresden. She got enthusiastic reviews for her debut.
As for Voigt, I remember an interview in the old Parterre Box site, in which she said she was considering to sing the role in Baltimore (?).
Meretrice Vieira: "Maria Guleghina ...gives a fearless, exciting and dangerous performance. She fills the hall with gleaming sound, and in her disheveled blond wig has an amazing wild-eyed look. But the heavy-duty singing takes its toll, and in the few reflective moments her voice is shaky. Still, Ms. Guleghina is the Abigaille of the day." Tommasini, NYT
"Guleghina met most of those demands with impressive, even hair-raising, conviction. She kept up a volcanic torrent of sound, holding her own in the ensembles and mustering a round, firm tone even at top volume -- which is to say, most of the time. Perilous moments there were, some high notes that went dry, some uncertain negotiations of the coloratura passages, but it was a bravura vocal performance nonetheless. It was also a dramatically exciting one. Not subtle, to be sure, but subtlety is not Abigaille's strong suit, and Guleghina's general ferocity and violent wringing of annoying documents (was she imagining a particular page of the score in her hands, perhaps?) was certainly captivating." Isherwood, Variety
"While sometimes bowed, Maria Guleghina is never beaten by these energy-charged vocal lines, music that requires a soprano as skillful at handling agile coloratura as she is with forceful declamation. If a top note occasionally goes haywire or a passage of soft singing curdles, Guleghina's fearless, even reckless account of this impossible role is surely the best we can hope for in the here and now." Davis, New York
Guleghina may have been a magnificent Abigaille, but it's still a leap from Abigaille to Norma, in many respects. I don't know who can make this connection with credibility: fabulous Abigaille, therefore fabulous Norma. It's simply a logic I wouldn't follow.
Very interesting topic. There's no doubt that Guleghina had a big success as Abigaille. And the two roles have alot of similarities. They both require big-voiced singing with coloratura writing sprinkled throughout the roles.
The theories suggesting that the production was originally meant for Guleghina sound right. GM's suggestion that Lady M was originally designated for her and that Norma was a consolation prize is also interesting.
I really don't think that this production could have been planned with Fleming in mind. She has flirted with the idea but she would not have planned to sing it at this point in her career, maybe a few years later.
It is a great shame that June Anderson is out of favour at the Met. She was wonderful in the role in Toronto. She lacked the blazing power and some of the fast passages were sung at a fairly deliberate speed. But at least all the coloratura was accurate!! And she had some truly great moments in Act II. Also, the voice is very healthy. She skipped the high D at the end of Act I but her high Cs were great.
Full disclosure: I'm a relative opera novice. I'm going on Friday, because I'd read that Hasmik Papian was about as good in the role as one could find these days, because who knows whether there's another 20 year absence of Norma on the Met horizon, and because of the opera's reputation as being the most [insert adjective here] bel canto opera ever.
Okay. So, like I said, I'm new to all of this. But after the Times review, and reading a few more "if it can't be done well, why do it at all" opinions, I'm now questioning my decision to trade my tickets for Papian in Norma on Friday. Did I err?
I was surprised that Papian repeated the cabaletta verse to Casta Diva-- is that customary ?
And if so, shouldn't it be embellished?
Yes, Guleghina just does her thing, regardless of what the composer has written. She was scheduled for these performances for a few years, since she did some Normas in Sevilla (I think) and Ms. Sally heard them and said "Dear, that's a perfect role for you" at the Met. A year or so later she fllubbed her way through 2 concert performances in Miami, where she sang "Farts and Variations on Norma" Obviousely, Gelb wants her to be happy. (IMO she must be on happy DUST)
The fact is, Norma, which used to be considered justifiably fearsome (sensible singers like Flagstad, Tebaldi and Price declined the honor; foolish singers like Scotto and Sills did themselves no favors with it; Eaglen ... I still don't get Eaglen ... in any role, on any stage ... I'm a deer in the headlights: what IS that? and WHY? and isn't it in defiance of nature?), but I will point out that Hunter and Papian have been highly praised for it at other houses. (Also Anderson, a great bel canto soprano, perhaps the greatest since Caballe, who has not been treated at all fairly in New York.)
But somehow, Sutherland made it look and sound so EASY (in part because she and/or Bonynge rewrote so much of it to suit her natural tessitura) that every girl who looked good in classical white (and many who did not) thought she could take it on too. That explains why the Met has revived it for ANYONE (mistakes all) since Caballe gave it up.
- Hans Lick
P.S. But Henderson is always wonderful, even when he's preposterous. Wish they'd publish his complete reviews, or a good selection of them.
The only singer around these days whom I have actually heard and actually think competent for Norma is Stoyanova. She's never sung it anywhere, IIRC, but she sang the piss out of Anna Bolena, her technique is flawless, her coloratura is good, and she can be ANGRY without singing harshly.
- Hans Lick
giorgio -- The original Abigaille, Strepponi, was famous throughout Italy for her Norma; she had been known to sing it as often as four times a week. (Which probably explains why her career was over by the time she was 35.)
bannister -- I'd say, Go. Papian should have recovered from her opening night nerves (she still can't act, though), and really it was as enjoyable a Norma as you're likely to hear these days.
- Hans Lick
I believe originally Gelb was thinking of Gheorghiu & Bartoli in NORMA, which might have been interesting if they'd staged it in List Hall with a chamber orchestra.
In a similar vein, there was talk of the Three Tudor Queens: Renee in DEVEREUX, Netrebko in STUARDA and Gheorghiu in BOLENA...and apparently there was some calling around to agents to see if tenors could be found; but then the project was dropped.
I do not believe Urmana has the vocal 'grace' to be a satisfactory Norma; to me she has sounded increasingly like Eva Marton as time goes by: big, one-colour singing. Someone proposed Christine Brewer for Norma but I do not think she has the agility nowadays (not that that has stopped certain prior sopranos from having a bash at the role) and also the last time I hear her I thought her top was getting a bit short.
In my opinion Sondra Radvanovsky is the one viable candidate to sing the role today: she has the amplitude, the range, the dynamic control and the technical facility. And I would like to hear her with a soprano Adalgisa, possibly someone like Ekaterina Siurina or Julianna di Giacomo.
I believe Marina Mescheriakova is the cover for the current run of Met performances; at one time I thought she was going to be THE Verdi soprano of the next few years but she developed too much vibancy, from over-singing.
others who sang abigaille and norma: bumbry, callas, cerquetti, souliotis, deutekom, dimitrova ... not saying how they sang them, just that they sang both roles.
Hmmm: A previous poster suggested Sondra Radvanovsky as a Norma...
From a vocal perspective she may in fact be ideal.
Does she have the temperament, though?
Thoughts?
personally, i'd rather die than listen to that.
I dunno- I just don't "get" Norma. I've seen Joan do it live and listened to it in many versions but it just doesn't do it for me.
I know other musicians have a lot of respect for it- just wish I could be similarly enchanted.
LaCieca, thanks for the work in digging up those old reviews. the night i went to see Guleghina as Abi, she was disappointing, as i said, specially compared to Gruber the year before.
other alternatives for NOrma: Devia (hasn't she sung this yet?), Theodossiu, Coelho (although these 2 only sing in europe , it seems), Pendatchanska (she was great as Ermione at NYCO). and i';d definitely go see Radvanovsky or Stoyanova do this role (although Krassimira seems to have a voice that's a bit too light for the angrier moments).
besides Goerke, GOrchakova has also sung this role recently.
I think it's Guleghina. At the time of the mentioned Abigaille she was already toying with the notion of singing Norma (she sang Casta Diva at her Lincoln Center recital). That's when the casting happened.
The only other option is Voigt, who actually had a Norma scheduled in France, I think, and withdrew.
The real question is why the MET does not give Norma to Zajick, and cast Adalgisa with a lyric soprano (Ruth Ann Swenson for example).
a singer once said to Milanov that she could sing both Isolde and Norma easily, to which Milanov responded "but you can't sing both roles well" (I think the singer was Johanna Meier but am not sure)
So, of the possible names thrown out:
Goerke Stoyanova Gorchakova Stoyanova
Rodvanovsky, who do you think would make the most effective Norma?
And of course what about Zajick as Norma?
how about Gruber as the druidess?
just kidding...
Guleghina's Casta Diva:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBBImTR-jO0
ok, it's not half bad...
Gorchakova sang Norma in San Diego in 2003 and wasn't very good. She seemed unsuited for the part both dramatically and in terms of vocal agility. Catherine Naglestad was much better when she performed it in San Francisco the following year. I'd like to hear Sondra R do it.
graustark
you know What I was thinking about we are constantly commenting on the fact that we have normas who can not really pump out sound why not do a scaled down norma I mean the orchestras that we use today for norma are far greater than what bellini used so scale it down give it to some less volume endowed soprano and try it like that that way we get a norma that can be heard and for the scale of the opera was gorgeous and one than can easily navigate the coloratura and then we are all happy
you know What I was thinking about we are constantly commenting on the fact that we have normas who can not really pump out sound why not do a scaled down norma I mean the orchestras that we use today for norma are far greater than what bellini used so scale it down give it to some less volume endowed soprano and try it like that that way we get a norma that can be heard and for the scale of the opera was gorgeous and one than can easily navigate the coloratura and then we are all happy
I want to hear Zajick do Norma, with a lyric soprano Adalgisa. This is bel canto after all, transpositions are completely faithful to the spirit of the works.
Michael Farris: I would be interested in Zajick's Norma too but do you think it would work with a lyric soprano Adalgisa? I'm having trouble 'hearing' it in my head. As I've mentioned in another thread, since Adalgisa sings in thirds below Norma during those duets, I'm afraid that having a powerful mezzo sing the top line would just drown out the bottom line.
Would there really be a problem with Zajick as Norma and another full-ish mezzo singing Adalgisa? Although whoever said Violeta Urmana is right on - she RAWKED THE HAUS as Ariadne, although I've never heard her do any bel canto, so who knows.
But there are some really good young mezzos out there right now, and I don't mean the pipsqueak pretty ones - I mean really FINE singers with full lyric, heading toward dramatic voices that could complement a zajick Norma very nicely.
And PS: Did everyone read midgette's review? How totally MEAN was this:
"The soprano Julianna Di Giacomo, in her company debut as Clotilde, seemed to be part of a plot to surround Norma with larger women who were better singers."
I mean, COME ON, do you really have to be so underhanded and cruel? You couldn't separate the two thoughts - really good singer, big girl - into two different sentences so that she could AT LEAST have a nice quote from the NYTimes about her Met debut to put on her website????? Unnecessarily mean I thought. I hope I'm not spreading around the meanness by posting it here - I wish they would put a ban on cruelty in reviews - be honest, don't be afraid to hurt someone's feelings, but you couldn't throw a young singer a bone and at LEAST give her a nice quote? Nasty.
"Would there really be a problem with Zajick as Norma and another full-ish mezzo singing Adalgisa?"
Not with me, I lurve mezzos, the fuller voiced the better.
I like the way you think Farris.
It really upsets me how everyone in this blog is bitching about Papian's Norma. I certainly think that she gave the Druid priestess a most credible performance that I have not heard in many singers who have attempted the role's vocal chops. I don't think Guleghina could do it properly. If she has the right timbre for the role, she cheats her way through the difficult vocal writing. If Papian's Norma was not in the mould of Callas or Caballe (and let me tell you that this will not happen because there was only one Callas and one Caballe), she at least gave a respectable performance of a role butchered by large ladies.
Not to mention that Miss Papian actually showed up.
As a non New Yorker, I was astonished to see how late Miss Anderson's name cropped up in this very interesting discussion. To me Miss Anderson has a lot going for her, and I have seen her a few times over the years - her Daphne in Venice was extraordinary. I heard Miss Papian as Odabella in Zurich, she came in at the last moment to replace Miss Zampieri, and I thought myself to be lucky to her someone so good. For someone of my age, it's interesting to see the contenders for the role these days, because when I was a girl, there was Miss Sutherland, with Miss Caballe's first Norma eagerly awaited, and south of the Alps was Miss Gencer, Miss Souliotis and a rather wonderful lady called Radmilla Bakoveic. For you young people who are just starting out; don't trade tickets on the strength of a bad reviews, you may never know know when you'll see the work again onstage.
I heard Dimitra Theodossiou sing Norma this summer in Macerata, Italy, with Daniella Barcellona as Adalgisa. I know some past postings about Theodossiou on various websites have been mixed, but I thought both ladies were superb. Theodossiou both sang and acted the role at the highest international level, and her duets with Barcellona were gorgeous. (Barcellona sang a couple of performances at the Met with Eaglen, and totally outshone Eaglen - admittedly not difficult to do.)
Norma should be allowed to RIP until someone who comes along who can actually sing the role in the cavernous Met. The Met's casting of the title role since Dame Joan and Caballe (e.g., Scotto, Rita Hunter, etc.) has ranged from ridiculous to atrocious.
Martin Bernheimer's FT review (http://tinyurl.com/222ywz) nails it. I heard Papian a few years ago in Baltimore and was NOT impressed. I can't imagine she's faring any better at the Met.
Something I have wanted to ask, but have been timid to do so--but besides being able to sing the music does the Norma need to have a physical look, to make the story convincing as drama? Is it of any importance to convince an audience that this priestess could turn a Roman soldier on enough to get 2 kids out of her(before he meets up with Adal), and then get fried beside her? The video of Montsie standing in the wind at Verona with Vickers makes Norma look like an old algebra teacher, besides looking older than her father. I know, the same thing could be said about Aida et al, but I would like to be filled in on what a convincing Norma would look like.
I think that the role of Norma puts such a unique combination of demands on the soprano that I'm just happy if someone can sing it as it ought to be sung.
I don't know the libretto that well, but I don't recall references to Norma's physical appearance.
When Covent Garden announced a new production of Norma for Callas in 1952, there was uproar at the idea of money being spent on 'shaking the dead bones of Norma.' Cut to 1967 and more uproar over the non-revival of a production that was only staged for 11 performances, when Dame Joan was announced for a new production of Norma.
I think it would be best to let Norma rest awhile.
Well, I think the point in letting it rest is that it's only really worth doing as a star vehicle for someone who can really sing the shit out of it. It's not like Boheme, or Tosca, or something like that, which are just so FRIKKIN' good that, even though they are so overperformed they are almost cliches, they are still kind of good and engaging with mediocre singers in them - at least for people who haven't seen a million performances of them already.
But Norma is only going to be an engaging and interesting piece if the Norma totally blows the singing out of the water.
Firstly, Norma was originally created for Giuditta Pasta, which is absolutely pertinent to how it should be performed. For instance, "Casta diva che inargenti" was originally written in the key of G major, which is a much higher feel. However, Pasta asked Bellini to transpose the aria down, to the key of G flat, which ends up being much easier to negotiate. This, is how/why the traditions of today ask for the singer to sing "Casta diva" in the key of G Flat. Quick side note, Pasta was also the first Amina (how you like them apples?). So, what angers me the most about how Houses treat bel canto, especially Norma today, is they expect a huge voice to negotiate the tessitura, and fioriture. Do you know any girls that are singing Norma AND Amina? No, why? Because what the public expects today, is NOT what they expected then. Norma is not a dramatic soprano role, it doesn't fit any vocal fach. If you can sing it, you can sing it. If you can't, well then see ya. Norma needs to go on the shelves for a while. This is not 1840, big voices aren't trained to sing fioriture right now, they're too busy trying to sing Tosca, Leonora, Turandot, and Aida. It baffles me that no one has mentioned Callas in a bigger limelight. She was THE Norma. Caballe didn't match her ability to sing that role. Callas sang all the fioriture, had the power, the acting, and the royal presence. Sutherland recorded the original raised keys, and sang many performances of both versions of the opera. Gruberova should never have been allowed to sing past 2000. She literally sounds like a wailing cat in heat. Her Roberto Devereux's were just ridiculous she has an annoying tendency to do a strange scream/wail/straight tone off the voice thing, that just frightens. Sondra R has a good chance, and apparently Fabiana Bravo is an up and coming Miss Thing in Norma. Btw, something has to be up with Guleghina being hired again and again. It's as if a big bowling ball is resting on the core of her upper-middle, and head voice. The tone ALWAYS falters when she attempts to sing up there. Why the girl is singing Abagaille, I shall never know. Same for Lady Macbeth, don't these directors, conductors, house managers know that these roles require more than just attempts and fioritura? It has to be THERE. Not iffy, and hell. Verdi wanted a nasty voice to sing Lady M anyway so... I guess Guleghina achieved that at least.
baritoneIf we talk about Zajick as Norma, which is a brilliant idea, how about Larmore as Adalgisa? I've heard Zajick's Adalgisa on youtube and she's perfectly capable of scaling back her voice for more lyric moments. And I think Larmore has deserves a resurgence at the Met. I also thought the comments about Norma and Amina being sung by the same singers during the 19th century were quite cogent. A lot of the distinctions in voice types and repertoire are more recent then that. WHen I watch the vids on youtube, I'm amazed by how hard the Normas are working to sing bel canto, so that everything winds up sounding like Turandot.
Christina Lamberti, who Sutherland called "the Norma of the next century" will sing her first complete performances of the role in Regensburg in 2008.
Larmore is shot in my opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home