Headshot of La Cieca

Cher Public

  • MrGuy1804: You are right on the money. I was not terribly impressed with any of the singing. There were a few... 12:29 AM
  • Camille: That was fun, thanks! I had completely forgotten Eastern Airlines, the Wings of Man. With a name like... 12:22 AM
  • Henry Holland: Thanks! Too bad they didn’t do Der Zwerg instead of the (wonderful) Puccini. The LA Opera... 12:09 AM
  • Camille: Thanks Blue, for the review. Lord, what are “earthy colorings”? 12:06 AM
  • Gualtier M: Here is Carmelita Pope in the actual 70′s era Pam commercial at 2:36 in: httpv://www.you... 12:03 AM
  • CruzSF: kashania, please tell us more about these performances. Who? How presented? And don’t neglect the... 12:03 AM
  • bluecabochon: Lucky you, Bob! I;d see it again if I could. Here’s TT’s New York Times review:... 11:53 PM
  • kashania: HH: I thought of you tonight while watching the COC’s double of Florentine Tragedy and Gianni... 11:28 PM

+ Comments feed

Glitter and be Gelb

by | 10:33 am | Feb 21, 2011

“A dash of pizazz would have been welcome in announcing next year’s schedule, which looks respectable but safe.” Our Own JJ previews the Met’s 2011-2012 season. [New York Post]

22 Comments

22 comments

  • florezrocks says:

    OT – TERRIBLE Armida Review in the NYTimes – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/arts/music/21armida.html?ref=music

    wow.

    on February 21, 2011 at 12:06 PM
    • louannd says:

      ouch. Zachary Woolfe does a good job of helping folks understand the nature of Bel Canto in this review, as well. Thanks FR.

      on February 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM
      • florezrocks says:

        Indeed!!! – I agree with his observations about the vocal writing being SO essential to the characterization!

        This, in combination with the “freedom” and abandon (attributed to Lawrence Brownlee only) are what make Bel canto thrilling. Otherwise, yawn…..

        on February 21, 2011 at 12:31 PM
    • PokeyGascon says:

      I was listening to Friday night’s Armida this AM and fell asleep somewhere in Act II but not before thinking that it was even worse than I remembered. I only stirred from my slumber when Brownlee sang. I found the HD last year so dull and I am normally a Rene fan but she is definitely over reaching here. I will listen to Act III on the strength of this review. I heard Brownlee saying the other night that they made many cuts from last year.

      on February 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM
      • atalaya says:

        It was worse than last year – although not as bad as last year’s opening night. I went a few times last year and again on Friday.

        It should be an exciting night – at the very least musically – even if the production is crap. It’s not. Armida is an excellent opera.

        As for taking risks, I wrote this last season, Renee definitely held back in the four shows I went to until the last 40 minutes of the final show of the Met season. When she let it rip, it was pretty intense. Everybody around me in the balcony commented afterwards (paraphrasing) “Where the f did that come from?!?!” and then wished the whole night had been like that instead of a snoozefest. She’s capable of generating excitement.

        I’m not sure if it’s Renee who is asking Frizza to keep things at a slow (sluggish) tempo. That’s my conspiracy theory as I think he should be able to do better. That music should be dancing and thrilling.

        When I went to get a ticket Friday there were a lot of people selling their tickets outside. The most I’ve seen and I go to the Met frequently. A few of the tickets I looked at had prices of “0.00 Promotional” – I haven’t seen that before. So the Met was giving tickets away for this and there were still a bunch of empty seats. I’m very frustrated as I’m guessing this will probably be the only Armida the Met will do for the next 40+ years.

        There was a standing ovation on Friday too. The most egregious one I can remember.

        on February 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM
        • Bosah says:

          I’m guessing Renee and everyone else will be mighty darn happy when this is over.

          Just one point… yes, it’s probably the only Armida the Met will do for a very long time. But, the only reason it’s being done at all is because Fleming pushed for it. Clearly, she shouldn’t have. But, it exists almost solely because of her insistence.

          on February 21, 2011 at 8:14 PM
          • Iphigénie says:

            It’s because of Fleming that DiDonato may revive Armida in a couple of years from now.

            on February 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM
          • Bosah says:

            Very good point. I think that would be wonderful. I only wish Fleming had had a vehicle to do Armida even 5 years ago.

            It occurs to me that this review and performance is in such stark contrast to her Carnegie recital. She really does seem to me to be leaving opera behind. She’s so much more of an art song singer at this point, and seems to find stimulation & excitement there. If you don’t find something exciting, how do you make it exciting for an audience?

            It’s telling that, when asked during an interview what her goals were now, she said, “There’s nothing I’ve wanted that I haven’t achieved” and, “There are no roles I feel the need to do. I’ve reached all the goals I set for myself.”

            on February 21, 2011 at 10:47 PM
          • atalaya says:

            Great point about there being no Armida without Renee. It’s so easy to be cynical and disdainful (guilty!) but I definitely appreciate that it’s being done at all. I’m frustrated that it’s not nearly as good as I think it can be.

            However, I’m quite pleased that the decision was made to do it. I need to be a little more circumspect in my criticism. I applaud Renee for (probably) pushing to get this done and I wouldn’t come close to saying they never should have done it all.

            on February 21, 2011 at 11:21 PM
          • Bosah says:

            I agree, atalaya. It had so much more potential.

            I actually loved Act III on Friday. Thought Renee actually hit it much better than I’d heard it previously. But, Act I was really tedious – not just because Renee fell behind some of the time. All tenors but Brownlee were off. In fact, Siragusa was painful at times. I wondered if he was ill.

            I really wish there had been a stronger director – one who could reign in the entire production as well as the diva who thinks she knows exactly how to sing it. ;)

            on February 22, 2011 at 1:26 AM
          • Alto says:

            “It occurs to me that this review and performance is in such stark contrast to her Carnegie recital …”

            This reviewer is in even greater contrast to the one who reviewed her Carnegie recital.

            on February 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM
          • Bosah says:

            What do you mean, Alto? Am I missing something?

            on February 22, 2011 at 9:24 PM
  • rysanekfreak says:

    Can someone with more leisure time than I have (and someone who knows how to use the Met Opera database without getting lost in the system) do a little searching and tell us the last time the Met had a season without any Richard Strauss?

    on February 21, 2011 at 4:28 PM
    • fartnose mcgoo says:

      This will have been the first season since 1996-1997 that they have not performed a Strauss opera in the house. They did perform a concert version of Ariadne in Frankfurt that season.

      It seems strange that they don’t have Strauss at the Met this season given the economy. Surely a Strauss opera like Elektra or Salome would be cheaper and just as popular as a Billy Budd, Ernani, or even their current Tosca.

      I want Nina Stemme to sing Salome at the Met. That would be awesome.

      on February 21, 2011 at 4:51 PM
      • auracentral says:

        I was answering for another list and missed the 1996-1997, but i would ascribe the concert Ariadne in Frankfurt to the 1995-1996 season (when they did the Malfitano Salome). To me the 1996 season began on opening night. For post 1950 Richard Straussless years there is 1954-54, 1958-59 and 1974-75 in addition to 1996-1997. The old centennial print annals was much easier to follow for this question. I did the first 35 years post 1950 in less than 15 minutes.

        on February 21, 2011 at 8:26 PM
    • mrblathers says:

      A fairly boring season besides the new ring, which has so far been unimpressive. So glad I cancelled my subscription last year.

      Boo for no strauss but also no berg, prokofiev, shostakovich, tchaikovisky.

      Yay for Khovanshchina (esp. petrenko) and maybe Budd.
      The Glass is a cop-out and probably could have waited another season. Why not another glass opera (on the cheap even). Why not try something declasse like the fiery angel? What ever happened to Lady Macbeth?

      Not sure if Gelb is crafting any sort of programmatic identity for himself.

      on February 21, 2011 at 6:38 PM
  • m. croche says:

    Um, why does JJ twice call Emilia Marty a 400-year-old diva?

    She gives her age quite clearly at least 3 times in the final act. She’s 337.

    on February 21, 2011 at 5:23 PM
    • La Cieca says:

      JJ may be confused by the Met’s production, which updates the action to more or less the present but does not change any of the references to Emperor Rudolf II: thus, if Elina took the potion circa 1600, she would have to be at least 400 years old as of 2000.

      But you are right, the text of the opera does say 337. I don’t recall if the number was changed when the Met did the opera in English for Jessye Norman, but I would have no objections to that detail being altered according to the needs of the production.

      on February 21, 2011 at 6:01 PM
      • Nerva Nelli says:

        “Where IZZ the AHNvelope?”

        on February 21, 2011 at 6:07 PM
      • m. croche says:

        One issue is that 300 (t?i sta) has one fewer syllable than 400 (?ty?i sta). And that number (300) comes up an awful lot in the final act. Some of the text in that final scene goes by lickety-split and it’s not always easy to squeeze in an extra syllable. Even if you could, the results are often not elegant. Also, between (93) and (94) there’s a lyrical phrase with two cretic feet on “aby z?stal t?i sta let, t?i sta let mlád” that would be very badly handled by the addition of extra syllables.

        So I don’t think changing the text is a very nice option – and I’d be surprised if Mattila and Belohlavek signed off on it. Probably would be best to leave the contradiction unresolved.

        on February 21, 2011 at 6:35 PM
        • m. croche says:

          Aaargh. For the diacritically-challenged, the numbers would look like “tri sta” and “ctyri sta” with haceks (er, há?eks).

          on February 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM
  • m. croche says:

    Oh, actually let me try the new toy!

    [img]http://parterre.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/makropulos-trista.jpg[/img]

    on February 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM