Comments on: Brief encounter

By: m. p. arazza

m. p. arazza — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:51:13 +0000

That’s an interesting question, and there must be people here who could really answer it. One (somewhat earlier) example that came to mind is John Alexander as Walther (and maybe also other roles). Another: Dominic Cossa as Germont (and maybe other roles). But there must be lots of examples if you include cover singers (which I assume Cossa was) who were already doing their roles with NYCO, and would return to them at NYCO. Maybe you’d only want to count singers who (like Turay, as far as I know…?) sang their roles at the Met first (and/or, debuted at the Met first).

As a related note, what ever happened to NYCO’s performance archives, which were supposed to go online in summer ’09, according to a press release I came across?

By: CruzSF

CruzSF — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:20:56 +0000

I’d pay to see your “Billy Budd.” Sounds inspired.

By: Alto

Alto — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:20:21 +0000

We may see a good deal more of that.

By: prunier

prunier — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:36:34 +0000

Regarding Gregory Turay: can anyone think of another example of a singer performing a role at NYCO that he or she had previously done at the Met?

By: laragazza

laragazza — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:36:14 +0000

No wobbles, no pitch problems, fine technique, beautiful singing across the board, good acting, good looks. One of the most consistently good casts I have ever seen at NYCO (in 13 years of experience). And all young singers, fulfilling the mission of NYCO to promote new talent. I knew those people were out there somewhere, and the new hiring administration is finding them, even on short notice. So there.

By: Vox

Vox — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:08:30 +0000

There is some evidence that Caterina Bondini, the singer Mozart chose as Zerlina for the Prague premiere, may have been a light mezzo. Not only is Zerlina a role with no “high notes”, but a look at the score shows Zerlina taking the lowest female parts in the ensembles. In addition, Zerlina was a rustic, normally represented musically in the classical era by lower voices in triple meter. Bondini also sang Susanna, a role premiered by Nancy Storace, another singer thought to be a high mezzo and for whom Mozart composed “Ch’io mi scordi di te”, one of the lowest of the Mozartean concert arias.

By: 98rsd

98rsd — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:48:58 +0000

We’ll agree to disagree–If Keri Alkema is what your Hercules likes, then I’m not on the same page. I’m surprised you let pass the “preferable to cast a mezzo as Zerlina” as if this were a given, and not a very recent (and, in my mind unfortunate) attempt at “variety.” Zerlina is a classic light soprano role, but because it doesn’t have high notes, it can be sung by mezzos with an inappropriately dark timbre.

By: richard

richard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:21:42 +0000

OK, so now both Tony T and Ercole Farnese have been accused of being ego motivated.

Are there perhaps one or more NYCO-istas “visiting” this site today?

Both reviews actually sound like reports of the VERY mixed level of vocal performances I’ve heard over the last several years at NYCO.

I think our own local as well as NYT reviews are not the only ones with egos…….

By: La Cieca

La Cieca — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:19:22 +0000

Well, here’s the thing. Every review is an expression of opinion, and what’s more each review gains meaning in the context of the writer’s body of work. Obviously since “Ercole Farnese” has had only two pieces published on parterre.com, it’s not easy to derive a detailed idea of his aesthetic of operatic performance yet.

But on the other hand, I think you must admit that Ercole makes clear what his standards are for the various roles, then compares the performances he heard to those standards. He is also quite specific when he offers evidence to back up his judgments — which is why I think his style of review is more interesting than one that uses vague language like “signs of strain.” (Though, to be sure, Ercole is writing for a very specialist audience and Tommasini a much broader one.)

By: 98rsd

98rsd — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:49:09 +0000

I promise not to beat a dead Commendatore, but it was the uncommonly harsh tone about rather a good performance and my feeling that the purpose of the reviewer was not to tell us what the performance was like but to stroke his own ego that made me respond.

I agree completely that how much the singer is paid or how hard he or she worked is the point, but I think what was being said is it’s easy to come up with a snide remark and hard to do the work.

I’ll go further. I didn’t hear the “signs of strain” in Turay’s work that Tomassini did and I think he threw that in because he was reluctant to be entirely positive about someone who’s sung some very dodgy performances. This was not one of them. Yes, he took a breath in the long runs, but if there are more than one or two tenors with listenable voices singing the roles who can do the aria in performance without sneaking a breath–I haven’t heard them. I think most readers would have been very happy to have heard Turay in any DG performance. When someone starts with wanting “more chiaroscuro” (there WAS variety in tone and he differentiated in volume between the opening and the reprise) and “hardly the most accurate” (in what way? when? Sounded pretty accurate to me.) I know I’m in trouble…

By: VoiceOfReason

VoiceOfReason — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:08:24 +0000

A known reviewer might post a review that people would value based on a respect for the author. This is not that. This kind of anonymous sniping is simply narcissistic and serves no purpose whatsoever (except to the narcissist), although a naive reader may assign some undeserved credibility to it.

“If I hear what I think is a less than
good performance, I don’t really care how hard the singer worked to produce it.” Maybe not, but to go to the extra considerable trouble to post your unkind opinion… why?

By: richard

richard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:48:34 +0000

VoiceofReason, do you understand the concept of the term “review”??????

It’s to evaluate the performances, which the reviewer did.

It may not seem fair but if the singers were hard working and/or low paid, it really doesn’t have much to do with the issue, that being what the reviewer thought of their RESULTS, i.e. their performances.

98rsd disagreed with the evaluations themselves, which is fine. It’s all just opinion anyway. But honestly, if I hear what I think is a less than
good performance, I don’t really care how hard the singer worked to produce it.

By: VoiceOfReason

VoiceOfReason — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:31:47 +0000

Amen. To anonymously trash hard-working and not-to-mention low-paid artists… and why? Pure and simple: ego gratification. I would ask “who does this guy think he is,” but obviously, he thinks he is someone important. Wrong! Ridiculous, irresponsible, and disgusting.

This review should be given all the attention it deserves: none.

By: 98rsd

98rsd — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:04:39 +0000

Completely disagree about the singers… Alkema was a bit of a screamer. Harvey sang beautifully; the rest were at least up to the task. You give the impression that Non mi dir was some Elinor Ross-like disaster and it was at least average for City Opera or the Met.

The review reeks of someone eager to display his superiority.

It was a consistently interesting and often musically satisfying performance.

By: rysanekfreak

rysanekfreak — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:35:18 +0000

Perhaps I could interest NYCO in my High Concept “Billy Budd,” in which everyone wears only jockstraps. (To save money, it’s not set on a ship. It’s in the postgame locker room at Kansas State U.)

And the “Pearl Fishers” duet makes a lot more sense if the tenor and baritone are wearing just the skimpiest of loincloths.

By: ellerveira

ellerveira — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:03:33 +0000

Couldn’t more money have been saved, and the opera made more up to date if everybody had appeared in his or her underwear? Why waste money on clothing?

By: Alto

Alto — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:21:11 +0000

Won’t see it till Thursday, but — given the caveat that voices are a matter of personal taste very often — this review carries conviction. I can’t wait to see a GIOVANNI that is as theatrically unified as this account, and many others I’ve heard, make it sound.