Save the date
La Cieca is proud to unveil what she hopes will become your second-favorite calendar: The New York Opera Calendar at Parterre. This handy resource includes an exhaustive list of opera and opera-related performances for the 2010-2011 season, the better to plan your busy social life. Opera companies and members of the cher public who have events they want to include in the calendar (or who can provide your doyenne with an introduction to one of the dieux du stade) are asked to email La Cieca with details.
We can not talk Patti Lupone without talking about the great Patti Lupone Freak-out of 2009.
I love Patti Lupone but I have to say good manners in the theatre goes both ways. I would hate to be in an audience when an show is ruined from onstage or out in front – and that includes booing or tanty’s onstage. There are other better ways of dealing with it.
Yeah, she should have kept singing while walking into the audience and punching the offender in the mouth.
Now Cruz, is that the right attitude for a Friday morning
No, but it’s a perfect attitude for late Thursday afternoon!
I disagree. There is a place for both booing and demonstration both on and off stage.
You come talk to me the day you are working your ass off trying to create a moment up there, with all that it involves (staying in character, remembering your lines, remembering your notes, fighting the ache on your toes, back, neck and arms and the stress on your vocal folds, looking at the conductor, etc, etc etc) and some stupid motherfucker startles you with a flash and BOOM! all your hard work and your concentration went to the shits.
I fully support what this woman did. Many will find it ridiculous, but lets remember that 1. she is right, there were plenty of announcements being made and the patrons knew they could get kicked out for doing exactly what they did and 2. she was working her ass off and someone with very little regards for what was going on up there decided that they were above the rules.
Also there’s something fitting about her having this meltdown in the middle of a meltdown number like Rose’s Turn. And I agree its also totally acceptable for performers to remind the audience that they are LABORERS, not just automotons on the stage, a major theme of Gypsy now that I think about it. Also, so much credit to her for restarting the number from the beginning. And just because I totally love Lupone, has everyone seen that the entire opening night (audio) of Evita is available on youtube?
1985:
Yeah, Flemming will be forgotten faster than Marie-Marguerite Vuillaume, but Steber will remain in the pantheon.
Back to Sutherland/Price “wonderful technique” question: I totally agree with Cerquetti Farrell’s post. I saw both singers’; Met debuts and most of everything they sang in NY until 1971, and some afterwards.
I marvel at Sutherland’s technique when I happen to hear her, but I don’t own one of her recordings; same goes for Leontyne, except that I marvel at her beautiful voice. Never thought of her in terms of pure technique. Not interested.
I loved her Leonora, Aida, and Elvira. A bit less less so her Forza Leonora and Amelia. Was not crazy about her Butterfly or Tosca.
So, the bottom line is, after a few hearings, I get nothing further from either singer in any role, neither musically, dramatically ; but, that’s just me.
On the other hand, I keep listening to singers like Callas, De los Angeles, Crespin, Rysanek, etc. I wonder why? ;+)
This discussion is immensely interesting.
Both L Price and Sutherland’s contribution to the art of singing in the 20th century is considerable and unquestionable. Both had an agenda, intended or not, Sutherland’s to salvage a fading and obscure repertoire, Price’s agenda was, admit it or not, tinged with social / ethnic issues. Her efforts are laudable, she has clearly achieved a lot.
Yet somehow both are artistically unsatisfactory for me. With Sutherland, after 1962 or so and beside the late French repertoire in which she was, indeed, something of a cause celebre, and other rare flashes of delight (parts of her Wagner recital, her Turandot, parts of her Suor Angelica), the reasons for displeasure are more easily discernible, as mentioned by myself above.
With Price, I can’t really put my finger on what’s “wrong”. I tried listening to the Ballo duet (the Leinsdorf recording) but quit after 3 minutes. I couldn’t stand it. The voice is admittedly gorgeous, free, soaring and wide-ranging. The singing in itself is extremely warm and generous, very “giving”. The text is clrearly registered and handed out. Yet somehow there is an unwillingness (or inability?) to enforce a sense of decorum, of aristocracy, upon the musical phrases, IMHO essential to middle-to-late Verdi. The ability to sustain an “instrumental” line: when Price sings her interjections, it all amounts in my ears to whimperings and crudeness. Rhythmic values are not respected, dotted eighths are way off the mark, the line is extremely uneven. I can’t relate to this and it causes me to feel alienated from the music and from the dramatic situation. I always think that more is less, and here the whole thing is overpowering, vulgar in a way. Not liked.
Interesting that Luvtennis should mention Patti as a paragon of technical perfection. When I listen to her recordings, made in her sixties, the voice is surely past its best (how can it be otherwise?) and the formidable technique is very prominent. It’s always very interesting, BTW, to hear late recordings of great singers, because you “hear” the mechanism working. I think especially of Flagstad, Ponselle’s Villa Pace recordings, the very late Melba, late Lemnitzes and Teytes and even Geddas.
But when I listen to Patti, there is so much more besides mere technique and preservation of vocal color and partial range. “La Calasera” shows me immediately why she was considered “queen of song”, and believe me, this has almost nothing to do with technique. No, I immediately sense the sheer JOY of singing, of enunciating the text, spinning the melody, hitting the high notes firm and true. Patti has managed to preserve the enjoyment of a person singing a popular melody, much as laymen sang while working, nannies singing a lullabye, washerwomen singing to themselves while working. There’s nothing artificial or washed-out in her interpretation: just sheer enjoyment of the voice and the song. Whenever I listen to Patti I feel as if a veil has been lifted and I am put face to face with a sheer force of nature. Much the same happens when, for example, POnselle sings Pace, Pace in her later, electric recordings. Besides adhering to the score, she brings to the music an uncanny sense of the popular song, topped on above some highly responsive music-making. And frankly, I think this is something that can’t be taught. I hope I’m getting myself across.
A good example is Arditi’s Il bacio, first Patti:
and now Sutherland
It is one of her most successful recordings, yet the sheer primal enjoyment, the natural “elan” is gone from the music. Given that Patti’s instrument, as recorded, is faded and the singing is on this side of aggressive, and Sutherland was recorded in her prime, yet there is some unexplainable, haunting quality to Patti’s singing which Sutherland totally lacks. Maybe it is called -- enjoyment.
I guess we all hear different things. In Sutherland’
s recording I hear someone having a lot of fun. Someone smiling and dancing around. Someone laughing while showing off. Look how easy this is for me and all the things I can do with it. The joy of singing for me.
Actually, I think Sutherland has a very big smile on her face while singing this and I feel one myself listening to her. I think she loved these old chestnuts (as do I) and also felt freed from the need to be Dramatic, something that was never her strong suit. She often seems a terribly self-conscious person who can’t relax and get out of her own way stage-wise in “serious” stuff, but here … delightful. Yes, this is an earlier recording and they are generally better as some of her mannerisms aren’t calcified yet, but I think she’s enjoying singing this in exactly the way you attribute, correctly, to Patti: She’s reveling in the physical act of singing this (rather charming in its way — sorry for those too sophisticated to enjoy it) song. She’s freed from the need to inject her all-purpose droopy “Mrooop” sound that’s supposed to indicate “serious stuff is happening here.” The muffled, goopy sound (Gawd, that Traviata) that prevents me from enjoying her middle- to late-period recordings is blessedly absent here and I find myself not only enjoying her performance but thinking, “Gosh, I’ll bet she was a boatload of fun!” The still picture of her holding a ginormous bouquet that appears at the end of the YouTube clip captures an aspect of her that’s completely lovely in a way I don’t usually associate with her, and I think very much captures the charm of her performance.
HOWEVER, I would agree that this doesn’t really measure up to the Patti in terms of rhythmic verve, but I would lay that blame at the door of Hubby. Which is where I’d pretty much always lay the (copious, to my way of thinking) blame for their duo performances. What a tubby, four-square, just downright dumb approach to this song. At no point does she get to take wing. Does she want to? Were they a folie-a-deux? I can’t say. She clearly thought he was the making of her, so I guess it’s presumptuous of me to think he was the problem, but … I do. Not something I want to argue (certainly not here, where I could never hold my own), but as I get (steadily) older I have realized more and more, partially on account of some very cogent arguments by La Cieca’s protégé, JJ, that what really matters to me is rhythm and shaping the phrase, not beauty of trill or tone or whatever.
How odd to find myself defending Sutherland, a singer I generally find of no interest whatsoever. And by “defending” I don’t mean to suggest I thought you were attacking her. Just to acknowledge that your very interesting posts make me think about This Stuff.
Re “Hubby”: I find it telling that two of the complete opera recordings by Sutherland that receive nothing but good reviews and are seen by some/many as definitive are with other conductors. Turandot with Mehta and Don Giovanni with Giulini. Listen also to the Met broadcast of Giovanni with Bohm conducting. They could get something out of her that Hubby never quite did.
The Hubby recordings, including Lucia, Puritani, etc., seem to be often admired but with a few caveats. There’s always a bit something missing in them.
Thanks for these thoughts. I agree that there is evident joy in Sutherland’s Il Bacio (and I love this pretty trifle) yet what I miss is the uncanny belle epoque connection to the essence of the music, I really can’t put my finger on it. Oh well.
The glories of Utube! I just found this -- marvelous and frustrating. Despite the recording being a wreck, this is absolutely stupendous singing. Everything I look for is here : tension, sensitivity to harmonic progression, color, TEXT!
The hissed “ceraste, serpenti” is absolutely original and spot-on.
And I don’t mind the unwritten top C.
If only… if only…
I have never heard the low “un ferro di dolore” so clearly enunciated so clearly and malevolently. This is singing to take home with you and to ponder upon.
Yes, as Il Tenore aptly points out, the non-Bonynge recordings (incl. the early Molinari-Pradelli as well as the Don G) ultimately to me are a whole lot more listenable than the later Sutherland Inc. LLC All Costumes Included items. By a long shot. But I guess from her point of view he made her whole career possible (and let’s not talk about enabling!) so I’m not second-guessing her on that. Well, clearly, I am, but let’s agree to let that go.
Patti was born in 1843. Arditi composed Il Bacio in 1860. Sutherland was born in 1926. So Sutherland is, inevitably, historicizing where Patti is singing popular songs of her day. I do think that contributes to Patti’s freedom, although I would never argue that Sutherland ever had Patti’s sense of joyfulness, nor her very strict (and thus free) rhythm. Honestly, Sutherland often sounds to me like she’s working very hard but not having a very good time, and thus I’m not, either. But, oddly in light of her very contrived sounding method of vocal production (voice by Sir James Dyson, I sometimes think), it’s on songs like this that I enjoy her. The Normas etc. aren’t something I can enjoy in any way, so it’s doubly pleasing to love her on stuff like this, because how nice to occasionally not feel all bitter and lost to simple enjoyment.
Oh, I feel like I’m berating you over this, and really don’t mean to. Just, I am (again) amazed to find myself on the Dame Joan team. I absolutely detest most of her recorded legacy (and am too young to have seen her live — yes, I know that’s a very different kettle of song) and yet I do so love this number as performed by her. Maybe it’s a function of her being how I discovered it (OMG, my ignorance!). I know she’s no Patti, and, I must add, no Bori and no Berganza and no Callas, not even a Philippe Jaroussky rhythm-wise, and, yes, she flunks the swing test Big Time, but … she’s off my hook on this one totally and 110% .
Like she cares. But if a cat may look at a king, I may look at a Queen, which I don’t dispute she was, just not a reigning one in my very tiny country.
And, of course, I stand corrected yet again by the clip above which for all my whining about Sir Richard is conducted by him and is balls to the wall (on the part of both of them) in the most wonderful way. I guess I just missed her!
Cerquetti Farrell, sorry I can’t write wonderful, illuminating posts as you do. I am just a simple girl . Bravo! I really do enjoy your writings.