Oh, I hate it when that happens
“…Mr. Sher may have done too much analysis of the work’s psychological subtexts.” [NYT]
Cher Public
- Bosah: Finally found Fanciulla in my local Target. Had to ask one of the kids stacking the shelves. I spelled it... 4:58 AM
- cosmodimontevergine: A. Poggia Turra brightened my day -I long to see “The Perfect American!” 4:48 AM
- bobsnsane: Thank u Blue 4 the very detailed review… I loved this so much that I am driving (six hours total)... 3:04 AM
- Camille: Caught in the shower, singing her Victory Cantata—La Divina CIECA!!!!!! httpv://www.you... 2:30 AM
- CruzSF: Frighteningly plausible, APT. 2:02 AM
- Baritenor: SAMSON ET DALILA 1. Ambelich and the Gran Pretre go all Gitmo on the Old Hebrew. 2. The High Priest has... 2:02 AM
- A. Poggia Turra: Aside: The Tosca in the previous Regie quiz is the production in which a scenery wall collapsed... 1:39 AM
- Camille: Parpignol–I& #8217;ve heard her simg Brünnehilde twice in Wallüre. It was a wonderful assumption of... 1:31 AM
colleagues
- A Liberal's Libretto
- AndrewAndJoshua
- Barihunks
- Cafeteria Rusticana
- Capital New York
- Civic Center
- Counter Critic
- Daniel Stephen Johnson
- Family Circle
- Handelmania
- Hugo Alvarez Domínguez
- Intermezzo
- ionarts
- Iron Tongue of Midnight
- Jumping Clapping Man
- Likely Impossibilites
- Mass Culture Mozart
- My Favorite Intermissions
- New York Post
- Opera Arts
- Opera Bouffe
- Opera Cake
- Opera Fresh
- Opera Rocks
- Opera Tales
- Opera Teen
- Operacast
- Operavision
- Out West Arts
- pArts
- Poison Ivy's Wall of Text
- Sandow
- SFCV
- Superconductor
- The Classical Beat
- The Classical Review
- The Opera Tattler
- Una butaca en el paraiso
- Vilane fille
- Wenarto
- Willy or Won’t He?
- Wo bleibt Elektra?
- WQX-Aria
- Yankeediva
- Zachary Woolfe
53 comments
Today's Events
Upcoming Events
Chats
- May 19 at 1:00 PM: I Capuleti e i Montecchi (webcast from Bavarian State Opera)
La Casa della Cieca →
Topics
- anna anna anna
- barihunk
- bel canto
- blind item
- blog bloggity blog
- broadcast
- camp
- cancellation
- chat
- cher public
- contest
- critic
- diva
- dvd
- filth
- gala
- gay gay gay gay gay
- happy birthday
- hd
- jj
- l'evasiva
- la cieca ci guarda
- la scoopenda
- maestro levine
- man of steel
- mp3
- need you ask?
- new york post
- new york times
- nyco
- our own
- our own jj
- peter gelb is...
- regie
- review
- sad
- the met
- unnatural acts of opera
- wagner
- youtube
im starting to get tired of ToniTomm.
One can NEVER do too much research into a play or opera’s psychological subtexts–any more than one should use all of them in the production. But the full range must be researched so that informed choices can be made about the ones on which to focus.
And not a “strapping” or “dusky-voiced” in the entire piece.
No “dusky-voiced,” but Alan Held was “husky-voiced.”
I haven’t seen Alan Held on stage, but he was mightily impressive in a DVD I saw of ‘Cardillac’ from Paris. The production, shifted to the 1930s, looked fabulous and the musical side of the performance was impressive overall … shame about Hindemith’s music, though. It sounds like it belongs to another scenario entirely. I wish a real opera composer had set the libretto, which is full of opportunities for wonderful theatrics.
What is “husky-voiced”? When I think of huskies, I think of dogs or football.
Never mind. I found this: “hoarse with or as if with emotion” in a dictionary.
“Alluringly androgynous”?
Maybe Tony T. is bi-curious?
In a strapping, dusky voiced Johnny Depp sort of way
What a predictable sop to the House of Gelb. Really a cowardly review: the edition is all wrong, but Levine uses it so we should cheer. Calleja is in straits but he’s young and promising so all is well. Gubanova- well, what to say?
Not a word of course about the use of the sung French language
And yet when i made a fuzz about it in the chat room people’s reaction was who cares? and when I mentioned how poor Nebby’s French was the reaction was but her voice is so pretty and she is such a wonderful actress, why do you care about her French/
I remember happening on the Romeo et Juliette broadcast a few years back (whenever it was) without knowing what was being broadcast that week, and I honestly couldn’t figure out what language the opera was in for about five minutes (Russian was my initial impression). I remember pulling out of the driveway after switching from the home to the car radio when it finally dawned on me — oh, it’s French, must be Romeo et Juliette. I’m not making this up or exaggerating for effect.
Did we ever really care about the quality of Joan Sutherland’s French? In fact, were we even aware that is WAS French?
Actually, since 1970 on, Sutherland had to hear all too often about her mushy diction in any language she sang.
Now, if La Stupenda herself was faced with that criticism, rightfully so, why is La Bella Anna been given a free pass? Or at least, how come are so many people out on her defense when they would make fun of La Stupenda for the same thing?
Because apparently, that ‘s the ONLY thing they could make fun of her with. Life is hard when you’re almost perfect.
“None of the versions of the work that have appeared over the years, some of them corrupted, can be said to be authentic”
OK, everyone, I’m getting on my soap box again! The above is a pretty loaded statement. Tommasini should clarify how he defines the word “authentic”. If by “authentic” he means a version which can be, without question, traced back to the original source – the composer himself – then he is dead wrong. As I’ve said before, we now know exactly what Offenbach wrote – all the way through the end of the Giulietta act, and all the material is autograph in the composer’s own hand. Can you get any more authentic than that?
I should probably clarify what I said above. I meant Tommasini is wrong when he says that no version is “authentic”. The forthcoming Kaye edition IS, because it only contains actual material penned by Offenbach for the opera in question, and indicates which versions were Offenbach’s final ones (in cases, for example, like Nicklausse’s aria in the Olympia act where three versions exist – two eventually abandoned by the composer).
Even if you concede Tommasini the point about there being no absolutely “authentic” edition (which, as you point out, he doesn’t really argue successfully), you have to question his conclusion. Just because performing Hoffmann will always require some level of editorial intervention, then (he implies) pretty much anything goes, one decision is as good as any other, and whatever James Levine decided to do in 1981 and 1993 will be valid forever. That’s just not true because we do have much more complete materials now than we did back then. (And even then, a lot of the “Levine edition” decisions were questionable.)
A hybrid edition is always going to be problematic. For example, if you keep in the spurious Septet in the Venice act, then that tends to overshadow the “Des cendres de ton coeur” finale. (It’s just an awful lot for an audience to take in that late in the evening, and so the second time the grand concertato gets moving, their attention tends to wander.)
The correct thing to do of course is to omit the Septet. The old corrupt way of doing it, including the Septet but with a very short epilogue, I think can also be valid in the theater. But both these pieces don’t belong in the same performance.
My uneducated instinct about this issue is that, like most practical composers of his era, Offenbach overwrote with the idea of using the best and most suitable material and jettisoning the rest. Had he survived to continue work on his score during rehearsals and finally bring the show to an opening, he would have continued to cut and adapt to get it into a practicable shape, i.e., I don’t think he would have delivered an opera that ran 4 1/2 hours. But since we don’t know what the composer’s own decisions would have been, I think we need to begin consideration by looking at all the material he did produce; then, from there we can try to impose a shape on it. That’s not the same thing as mixing and matching bonbons from Offenbach, Choudens, Oeser and Kaye and calling that Les Contes d’Hoffmann.
Do we know of there are any performances or recordings planed of the Kane Edition.
Is this edition going to be considered a critical edition?
The Kane version would no doubt star Susan Alexander in all 4 roles and be re-orchestrated by Bernard Herrmann.
Excellent, I am quite in agreement. I should mention that my saying that ALL of the manuscript material is in Offenbach’s hand is incorrect; it is actually a very complex issue and far too intricate to go into here. My statement was misleading. Of course, Offenbach would have made many changes during rehearsals and (probably) even after the first few performances – this was his usual MO. There is no disputing this. But you are so right when you state that this does not give us leave to try to do this work ourselves, and by “mixing and matching” between editions, all we end up with is a giant mess.
I’ve heard five different editions of the score in four different productions of this opera at the Met, and I rather agree with the guy who said that ALL editions of this opera are corrupt, and that’s FINE, since all of them can be performed with pleasure. I’ve enjoyed it with one diva and with four and with three (I’m not sure I ever saw just two). Giulietta has so little to do and her seduction of Hoffmann makes so little sense (“I could never love you … but as long as you’ve mentioned it, I’m in love with you” — it might work in Noel Coward, it’s inane in Barbier), that I’ve never taken her very seriously as a character, and who sings her doesn’t intrigue me. The best Giulietta was the one who astonished most, and that was Sutherland descending from the top of the stage in a gondola on wires.
My question concerns the brief final uplifting chorus sung in the present edition. I’m pretty sure I’ve never heard it before and can’t imagine where they got it. The text seems to refer to the redeeming power of love, and as that is directly contrary to the meaning of the opera, it makes no sense and should be dropped posthaste. The old ending (dead drunk or scribbling to the chorus of insensitive students) was terrific — its bitterness made the whole tale more realistic and effective and true. Hoffmann is a drunk who hallucinates impossible tales: welcome back to reality.
So does anybody know where they found this bit of twaddle for the end?
Tommasini also writes about the version in use:
“I will have more to say on this question later.”
This suggests he is planning a column about all this. Can’t we see what he says before jumping on him?
Taking up the limited space in a performance review with musicological issues would be a mistake, IMO.
It’s bad enough he feels compelled to retell the plots of operas that have been popular for a hundred plus years.
To quibble on this, Tomm could get himself off the hook with the argument that no edition can claim to be the one the composer supervised through performance, as he didn’t live to do so (even what he left in performable form, who can know how he might have altered and adjusted it during rehearsals?).
But that IS quibbling. The Kaye edition is a responsible, thorough, critical edition of the materials, the only one we have. (And it provides for alternatives.) The reason international opera houses don’t use it is a sadly predictable “practical” one (the same reason they continue to do Don Carlos in Italian, and are reverting to Carmen with recitative): it’s the one “everyone else” does, so their stars can fly in and do it without relearning anything, and they can double- and triple-cast it (and call for emergency replacements) without worrying that they’ll run out of people who know it in the form they use.
The Kaye edition is in the repertoire of some 20 theaters in Europe and many different erforming versions of the opera have been based on the edition. The next incarnation of it will be in Zurich, when Grigolo will sing the title role for the first time. Often that fact that opera companies have cast the role of Giulietta as a mezzo-soprano years in advance has prevented theaters from using the authentic Giulietta act.
“Often that fact that opera companies have cast the role of Giulietta as a mezzo-soprano years in advance has prevented theaters from using the authentic Giulietta act.”
Given that companies cast 4-5 years in advance, and given that the Kaye edition has been available for nearly 20 years, there is no reason that productions today could not have been cast with soprano Giuliettas were companies so inclined.
Lacking a real diva to sing all of the heroines as Offenbach wrote them, opera companies WANT to perpetuate the myth that Giulietta is a mezzo-soprano.
With Tommasini the NYT gets the critic it wants and deserves, simultaneously condescending and middle-brow, a measure of how low the Grey Lady has sunk..
Ain’t THAT the truth.
Oy this was written from crib notes.
Squirrel: nice orchestra and lots and lots of boobs
JJ: production not gay enough
Tommasini: What’s the name of this again?
HA!
Questions for those who argue the Kaye should be used instead of the Choudens or “Levine” versions: 1) have you seen a performance of the Kaye version, 2) did you enjoy it more than performances of the Choudens version, and 3) why? [And saying you enjoyed it more because it honors the composer's original intentions is not a valid answer- why was it a better theatrical experience?] I’ve not had the pleasure and am genuinely interested.
It’s not the fault of an edition if the result looks like this:
Ingo Metzmacher: “What’s more important, now the Giulietta Act has the same importance (weight) as the Olympia and Antonia Acts”
(Notice Angela Gheorghiu sitting on the organ bench in this video from recording sessions.)
Yes, i have seen the Kaye edition in performance, and I have listened to the two recordings of it many times. When I first saw the Kaye edition in 1988, I found it revelatory – not because it represented Offenbach’s original ideas (although it does so), but because suddenly the opera, one I had known and loved for most of my life up until that time, made dramatic sense. When hearing the work in Choudens (or even in Oeser) I had always felt like there was something “missing” that I didn’t “get” something. Now, with the structure of the Giulietta act restored and the dramaturgy in place as Offenbach and Barbier & Carre had envisioned it (although the ending for the Giulietta act in the Offenbach’s final version – not performed in LA in 1988 -was entirely Barbier’s invention, based loosely [perhaps] on a similar scene in Hoffmann’s “The Devil’s Elixirs”)it all came together as a whole. Others who are familiar with the Kaye edition (such as Kent Nagano) have said the same thing. This version is darker, perhaps, not as light and frothy, more disturbing, but finally I realized that the work was a very successful piece of music theater as well as having a fascinating premise and beautiful music.
I would suggest that you listen to Nagano’s recording and decide for yourself. I feel that the reason some people are resisting the Kaye edition is because they’re comfortable with the version they know. We all resist change, it’s human nature. But at least give it a chance.