Headshot of La Cieca

Cher Public

  • Buster: Upcoming: the Salome of Mireille Delunsch! Singing it, not directing it. She will direct Dialogues des... 2:05 PM
  • Clita del Toro: Right but I bet their executives are still giving money to anti-gay causes! I will do some... 1:59 PM
  • Camille: Salomanda, Thinking now that you are a pretty sharp cookie as my husband agrees with you on every point... 1:58 PM
  • Henry Holland: please keep in mind I live in an operatic wasteland, commonly referred to as L.A., and I’ve... 1:54 PM
  • tatiana: Not for me–I have Daniels/Domingo/Mi lnes and heard the other one in the House . . . no, thank you,... 1:46 PM
  • Camille: Barbara Daniels’ hysteria at the end of Act two is the best take on this difficult ending... 1:30 PM
  • Loge: Since the title references Cole Porter I will guess Kiss Me Kate 1. Wunderbar 2. Brush up your Shakespeare... 1:18 PM
  • oedipe: OT (sorry!): The Salzburgerfestspie le, whose artistic director is Cecilia Bartoli, has announced its... 12:49 PM

The Player from Aquileia

Ildar Abdrazakov_attila“It is easy to understand why Mr. Muti admires Mr. Abdrazakov, his young, imposing Attila.” [NYT]

34 comments

  • rommie says:

    this si so confusing and the commenters seem to be dead quiet today. but is riccardo muti actually saying that this is his final performance at the met? JJ’s article seemed to point that out in the parenthetical parts but La Cieca’s syntactical investigation last week provided a possible other meaning.

    • rapt says:

      As I read La C’s previous citation of the source of Muti’s comment, Muti is simply reported as saying that his appearance is an accident of timing, and so, given his busy future, not likely to recur; the comment seems intended not to shut a door but only to discourage speculation about future Met assignments (i.e., interpreting this appearance as a sign of more to come). I don’t think JJ’s parenthetical allusion affirms more than that. If I had more time, I’d have said this in fewer words–like JJ, that prince of pith!

  • Jay says:

    Why is the NY Post critic able to write an incisive, informed review of 359 words that makes you wish it was 2-3 times as long. And the NY Times publishes a review of the same performance, by a different critic, that rambles on and on for 1,173 words, inducing nausea and an urge to hurl?

    Just askin’….

    • Signor Bruschino says:

      quite agreed with the above- JJ is there anyway your readership can lobby the post (send gift baskets to rupert perhaps) to get more column inches (or maybe a new walker for cindy adams? or rentboy for michael riedel?)

    • Mrs Rance says:

      The best ATTILA review is Bernheimer’s in the Financial Times.

  • MontyNostry says:

    Something that intrigues me … why does the NYT say ‘Mr Muti’, ‘Mr Abdrazakov’ (surely a candidate for TT’s favourite epithet,’strapping’) while most media –certainly those in the UK — would simply use the surname on its own? It does end up sounding both old-fashioned and rather fawning.

  • Orlando Furioso says:

    Using the honorific like “Mr.” for anyone living is Times style. Sure, it sounds old-fashioned, but it’s such a famous part of their image, I’d miss it if they changed. And it’s applied impartially to everyone, so I can’t get any “fawning” out of it.

  • La Valkyrietta says:

    I think the Post review is quite more to the point.

    Coming back to those Prada loafers, TT writes, “Working with the set and costume designers, Miuccia Prada and the architectural team of Herzog & de Meuron, all making Met debuts, Mr. Audi has attempted to stage the opera in a “poetic, stylized way,” closer to “Greek tragedy,” he writes, than historical spectacle.” Does this mean that those red shoes were cothurnus?

  • herbinetta says:

    Quick – off topic question for y’all:

    Coming to NYC this weekend. Bringing the husband who “likes” opera, but not too sophisticated. Should I subject him to Attila? He’s warming to the idea of Barber on Friday night. Looks like a great cast (Damrau, Brownlee…)

    Any suggestions? Any other shows you recommend?

    • operaghost7 says:

      Barber and Boheme, if you can get in. Attila will be too boring for him.

      • scifisci says:

        In my humble opinion, barber would be much more boring than Attila….it’s like eight times longer and doesn’t play well in the big ole Met. Plus, Attila has the excitement of a NP, Muti, etc. I’d go for the other Barber….across the plaza.
        There’s literally no chance of getting into Boheme, unless you go a bit before to buy tickets from someone selling on the plaza or if the box office has returns (or rather, cancellations). It really is worth it though.
        Don’t forget Carnegie and the other Lincoln Center constituents, not to mention City Center. Simon Keenlyside is giving a recital on Sunday, though not everyone is into that sort of thing. Hope this is helpful.

    • La Valkyrietta says:

      If il marito “likes” opera but not loves it, then perhaps Boheme is safe, Barber and Attila might be, but if you don’t want to “risk” divorce take him to a play too, for example, to “A Little Night Music”.

  • Sanford says:

    Herbinetta, I vote for both. Take a quick toke and then do Barber and Attila.

    Bravo to Mr Tommasini (or just Tommasini) for not describing someone as “strapping” or “dusky voiced”

    • Lucky Pierre says:

      what? no one in the cast had any nordic cool?

    • Mrs Rance says:

      I’m sure it was difficult for him.

      But his “Still,”s and “Yet,”s remain.

      • quoth the maven says:

        So do “vibrant,” “robust” and “earthy.”

        • Lucky Pierre says:

          in his defence, there’s only a limited number of adjectives to describe singing and voices, no? i mean, how many more can you come up with to describe that je-ne-sais-quoi of a voice? “ochre-colored”? “burnt sienna”? smoky? dusky? bright?

          interesting cause TT wrote “defiant coloratura” to describe odabella’s music and JJ wrote “jagged coloratura.” both are so apt.

          i enjoyed bernheimer’s review, although from pics, i’d think this production is more interesting than he found it to be. he mentions urmana’s “limited flexibility”, which is my main concern, but from all the youtube samples, that is a problem that plagued MOST of the divas that tried this part, isn’t it, incl. gencer, guleghina, chiara, etc. unless you are a sutherland or deutekom, you are never going to sing this cleanly. all the coloraturas have voices too small/too light for this, and all the big voices are too slow to move it fast enough.

        • quoth the maven says:

          LP—It is possible to do better than TT generally does; in your very post you name two critics whose responses and language are almost always fresher than poor Tony’s. Still, I would agree that this is one of his better reviews. He seems to have actually been there, for once, and sorted out for himself what was most important about the performance–i.e., Muti’s work. Maybe I like this one because I’m in basic agreement.

  • Nerva Nelli says:

    One senses that this man never goes to the legitimate theatre, has no idea what theatre is, has never heard ATTILA before…

    Incapable of not being a Met booster, isn’t he?

  • Tamerlano says:

    Just found this…completely insane and totally awesome.