parterre box

178 comments

• Drammy says:

  Just me or is the tempo slowed down quite a bit??

  on February 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM
• Lindoro says:

  Cieca:

  Did you mean to attach Something? I am waiting for my copy to arrive from Amazon. I will be writing something about it soon.

  One thing that has hit me (although not shocked me) is the amount of hostility this recording has generated. I know that some of it is based on the fact that some people do not like Bartoli, so that didn’t even make me wink.

  What has shocked me is the underlying hatred because she dared to take a “Sutherland” or a “Callas” role. Even in the face of the fact that the recording is based on a new critical edition, i have heard complaints about how much transposition “SHE” had to do to achieve the recording.

  Never mind that the role was originally composed for what could be considered a mezzo. Forget the fact that it is based on a new critical edition (and by default at original score pitch), and let’s not even discuss the novelty of hearing the role as it was originally conceived, even if to say we heard it and didn’t care for it.

  I guess I am asking myself what is it with this opera that makes it so untouchable? Why would people not even give it a chance to fail?

  on February 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM
• DottoreMalatesta says:

  THis has been avaliable in Europe for quite a while now. As a fan of Cecilia, I have to say that I was really really disappointed with this recording. She always resorting to mannerisms a la Fleming and doesn’t really sing enough. It’s all crooning to the microphone.

  The orchestra plays beuatifully, though, and both Florez and Ildebrando sing gorgeously. However, Cecilia kind of missed the spot with this one.

  on February 25, 2009 at 2:01 PM
• wotan_in_inman says:

  For me, it was absolutely loathesome. “Malibran version” indeed. She just transposed it down so it would lie easily within her range so she could hit all the notes which she does impeccably. Moreover, she demonstrates a palpable feel for the music, maintaining a beautiful singing line — as if legato were all there were to it.

  To top it all off, she plays on her own natural ebullience to inject a bit of personality into a character who is a . . . (what’s the female equivalent of wimp?) Her diction is clear and well-articulated, as if she never heard of the need to droop and mush her way through. Totally gone are the squeaks and squawks at the top which make this role such a joy.

  And then she had the unmitigated gall to align herself with an Elvino who is damned near her peer.

  Let’s all go out and picket the Italian Embassy.

  on February 25, 2009 at 2:08 PM
• Lindoro Almaviva says:

  I think the problem is that many think this recording is of as “Malibran version”. What people do not realize is that this opera does not exist in a lowered version.

  I will give the opera a chance to at least fail. I know i might miss an Eb here or there, but I might also learn something about Malibran, even if it is my hearing someone who might (well, definitely) not be her equal.

  on February 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM
• Cocky Kurwenal says:

  Crooning into the microphone is sort of what she is best at though, isn’t it, with her teeny tiny voice? I have no problem with her recording Sonnambula – after all, I don’t have to buy it or listen to it, and she isn’t without her charms – but it doesn’t sound like it could ever work at all, live in the theatre. She’s made for the modern age really – records well and scrubs up well for the photo shoot. But I do find it ironic that she’s cashing in a lot on this whole Malibran comparison thing. Malibran managed to get intercontinental fame by singing operas in opera houses before the age of the recording industry, which is no mean feat, yet Bartoli’s career consists of very little these days other than recordings and concert tours to promote them. Excepting the odd production in Zurich, Bartoli hardly ever does what Malibran did.

  on February 25, 2009 at 2:15 PM
• Lucretius says:

  DottoreMalatesta, I have the recording as well and I have to agree with you. I enjoy Bartoli’s singing. However, in the love duet, Florez’ singing is so damning on Bartoli. Next to his immaculate legato and line, Bartoli’s mannerisms sounds even more fussy and overly precious.

  on February 25, 2009 at 2:18 PM
• Willym says:

  Funny seeing Bartoli on stage I wasn’t particularly aware of her teeny tiny voice – infact she seemed more than capable of filling the Sala Ste Cecilia with golden sound. Granted it was a – shudder – concert.

  on February 25, 2009 at 2:27 PM
• CasualOpera Fan says:

  To me it sounds like her style of coloratura is not well suited to Bellini in general.

  on February 25, 2009 at 2:47 PM
• scifisci says:

  I got the recording yesterday, and have only had a chance to listen to bits of it, so I cannot really comment on it. I am not generally a huge fan of Bartoli, but I love florez and I love the idea of listening to a complete and more authentic version of the opera, rather than the “diva” version which I am accustomed to.

  I always feel as though she is miked entirely too closely, which enables her habit of crooning and singing under her breath. I also found it strange that three numbers were taken down, considering that the impetus for her to record it was that the original score in the original pitch is itself a “mezzo” version. If this were true, then nothing should have to be taken down for her, since she is after all, a mezzo.

  The duets with florez are lovely, however, and the orchestra plays very well from the parts I have heard.

  Lindoro: I ordered my copy from bn.com and it arrived the same day it was released even though I got free shipping…amazon has never been able to do that for me.

  on February 25, 2009 at 3:40 PM