Cher Public

From Hell

“About the only good thing that can be said for New York City Opera’s Orpheus, which opened Saturday night, is that it made the rest of the company’s feeble season seem scintillating by comparison.” [New York Post]

  • Camille

    La Cieca Alert !!!!

    Make sure to tell James IMMEDIATELY upon next seeing him that the NY Post has gone and misspelled his last name!!!

  • Quanto Painy Fakor

    I read TT’s rave review in the NYT before JJ’s review was posted. Very interesting to compare the two critic’s views on the relatively unknown opera.

  • m. croche

    “The Georg Philipp Telemann score was lost for more than 250 years, and, judging by this performance, should have stayed this way.”

    This is the kind of glib dismissal that makes me hate short-format newspaper criticism.

    1) There are two complete recordings of Telemann’s Orpheus out there -- I would have thought a critic might listen to one of them before going to see a live performance. Or afterwards, if there was some doubt in his mind whether he disliked the piece or simply disliked the performance.

    2) I can understand a given audience member wishing to hear another opera besides Telemann’s Orpheus. Chacun a son gout and all that. I can understand someone thinking that any given score is over-performed. I cannot understand anybody wishing a score, particularly one by a major composer (yes -- Telemann is one of those), off the face of the earth. That sort of nonsense has nothing to do with art criticism as I understand it.

    It’s very, very seldom that I find TT more congenial than JJ, but in this one instance, I think TT produced a better evaluation of the score. Over the course of the 17th century and into the 18th, the Orpheus legend had been turned topsy-turvy in all sorts of ways (see Sartorio’s irreverent Orfeo of 1673). That the riotous, anarchic spirit of the mid-17th-century lived on into 1720s Hamburg should be cause for celebration.

    • Cocky Kurwenal

      We all seem to have a slightly different understanding of what a critic’s job entails, but personally I don’t think there should be any expectation or obligation to go and listen to recordings of obscure works in preparation for a review of a live performance if the critic is in general terms clued up and well versed in a broad spectrum of the repertoire, which we can safely say that JJ is.

      • Perles75

        He should at least not write incorrect things…

      • m. croche

        Why wouldn’t a critic prepare himself in advance of the performance of an unknown work. My impression was that Andrew Porter even studied the score in advance of a new work’s premiere. Sure, it takes a couple hours out of a busy day, but the critic will be better educated as a result, and wiser in a way that will make his judgements more useful for his reader. I don’t understand the mindset that says a critic shouldn’t study up on something unknown or poorly known.

        • Quanto Painy Fakor

          Of course Andrew Porter studied many scores he did not know before he wrote about the music. The mansucripts of his handwritten reviews are filled with tortured revisions. He really agonized over most of the things he wrote. It used to be common practice for opera companies and music publishers to offer copies of scores of unusual or contemporary operas that critics would be reviewing for the first time. When I listened to two live recordings of the Telemann Orpheus I was bored by both of them.

        • Mairsydoats

          Chaque un…not chacun. A little prep next time, please.

          • manou

            …er…Chacun is perfectly correct.


          • Quanto Painy Fakor

            Speaking of good chaqu’uns… Arturo Chacon-Cruz will be singing Idomeneo soon in America and Hoffmann in Vienna in July

        • Cocky Kurwenal

          There is no reason why they shouldn’t, and I’m not saying that. Equally though, I don’t see any reason why they actually should, with the caveat I gave in my post above.

          • m. croche

            Huh. I would take it as a given that they had. Assuming we’re not talking about a premiere, reviewing a performance of a major work you’ve never heard before seems a bit cavalier to me.

    • ianw2

      I think a critic can absolutely question whether a score is worth the significant amount of resources required to perform, particularly when the institution in question is so strife-ridden, and that if the question even comes up it tends to indicate a certain failure to make the case by the presenter. Just because someone is a major composer (and I admit I haven’t given Telemann much thought since my piano student days) doesn’t mean that everything they wrote is an undiscovered gem. If the critic thinks the score is a dog, they should absolutely say as much.

      I don’t think a critic has any obligation to celebrate the mere existence of a score, or the chutzpah of someone to dig up an and stage an obscurity, if the overall performance is a drag. I’m also not sure what obligation a critic in 2012 has to the Hamburgian audiences of 1720 and whatever anarchic interpretations of Orpheus they may have been enjoying.

      Finally, JJ even begins the phrase that irritated you with “judging by this performance”, which is kinda the raison d’etre of a critic, no?

      • m. croche

        The critic in question argues that the score in question is such a dog that it should have stayed lost. That’s a pretty extreme denunciation of the score in my book -- one that kind of shocks me, since that’s not a fate I would wish even on scores I really dislike (Michael Daugherty, I’m looking at you).

        But then we find out, via a hedging clause, that the critic isn’t really sure whether the work is actually as bad as all that, that perhaps the performance which is to blame. This is trying to have it both ways -- being able to make the sweeping condemnation of a work while providing oneself an escape route. It takes only a couple hours to listen to a CD before or after a performance -- surely very little effort if a critic is going to tell us that no one else should ever listen to the opera again.

        I think you’re battling at straw men in the second paragraph, ianw. My historical remarks reflected my suspicions that the critic approached the piece with an inappropriate set of expectations. By the same measure, I wouldn’t expect a critic to judge a Donizetti score by strictly Wagnerian standards.

    • grimoaldo

      Telemann is a major composer, I agree, and a delightful one. I have long enjoyed the comic opera “Pimpione” or to give it its full title “Die Ungleiche Heirat zwischen Vespetta und Pimpinone oder Das herrsch-süchtige Camer Mägden.”
      Sort of similar to the story of Don Pasquale, only it’s not a joke, a chambermaid inveigles her way into the affections of an older wealthy man, marries him, and then completely dominates him.
      Excerpt from the finale, with those sprightly rhythms and bouncy oboes I love in Baroque music:

      Operas for Hamburg at this time often had the recits in German and the words of the arias in Italian and mixed in comic elements in a way that Italian opera seria does not. So they are very interesting and it is good that NYCO put this on but not if it is a performance with an inadequate singer in the title role in a bad production as JJ finds this to be. JJ says the score is a “hodgepodge” which is a more negative way of saying “ecletic” as the NY Times does, but does not say that no one should have put on this opera but that “judging from THIS production” the work would better have stayed lost.
      What I find rather interesting is that certain cliches of “regie” productions (invented characters played by mimes or dancers wiggling around, “business” such as eating oysters during a showpiece aria) seem to have annoyed JJ more than they did Tommasini.

      • What a charming number, Grimoaldo! Thanks!

  • The Vicar of John Wakefield

    Why expand energy and resources on this Teutonic twaddle while Birtwhistle’s “The Mask of Orpheus” has yet to see performance in New York?

    • Mairsydoats

      Or Glass’ “Orfee.”

      • Feral Colin


    • Henry Holland

      I know you’re being sarcastic, but thank you for saving me the time of typing out what you did.

      • Henry Holland

        However, at least do the man the favour of spelling his name correctly: Birtwistle, no h.

  • Perles75

    I believe that reviews of opera productions should just focus on commenting the staging and the work of the orchestra and the singers.
    For example, I absolutely loathe Bohème but I would never write a review from that prism.

    In the specific case, I enjoyed quite much Jacobs’ recording of Orpheus and I find the opera very interesting, with its mix of German, Italian and French style and languages.
    Besides there are funny remarks in the review that make me think that he didn’t really understand much of the opera itself, like considering Orasia a secondary character.

    • grimoaldo

      I think it means a “secondary character” in terms of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice.

      • m. croche

        But that’s not very enlightening. An opera is entitled to play with established conventions of Orpheus, not merely replicate them. Yes, this sort of thing drew the ire of sober-minded academicians from the 1690s through Gluck, but I’ve got a lot of sympathy for the free spirits who were the target of their high-minded scorn. Their work is frequently more fun.

      • Perles75

        I don’t even know whether Orasia was in the original myth or not, but that’s not the point… in Telemann’s libretto, Orasia is a (if not THE) lead character, so I find his remark a bit strange to say the least (did he never see operas that change the original story?? they do it all the time!).

  • Krunoslav

    “For example, I absolutely loathe Bohème but I would never write a review from that prism.”

    Kind of irrelevant here: BOHEME is not an opera that exactly needs specially to be “revived”, and surely even its detractors among critics would agree.

  • manou

    It would seem that Thanatos brought Hypnos along too.

  • Will

    I had hoped that dumping on NYCO would have ended with the recent announcement of its coming season in two appropriate venues (including its original home) with a four opera stagione which, it was commented on here, are very much the kind of thing NYCO should be doing. The “transition,” if that’s the term term for the three or so bad years the company has just barely survived, was holy hell. NYCO seems to be finding its way financially and artistically onto firm ground and I for one, feel that should be welcomed.

    As to the Telemann being “eclectic,” it’s 2012! Many of our new operas, and productions of many if not most operas today, are eclectic to say the least. I should think we’d be able to survive a little eclecticism from the past.

    • m. croche

      You’d think we hadn’t just had the Met’s pasticcio The Island of Dr. Rameau earlier this season. Eclecticism never seemed to bother those who love The Magic Flute.

  • La marquise de Merteuil

    Can’t speak for this production or its cast but Jacobs’s recording -- Roeschmann canes Orasia’s outrageous music -- is superb!

    Anyone who thinks this opera is crap will think every baroque opera is crap. So maybe decaffarelli or someone more baroque friendly should have written teh review…

    • manou
      • La marquise de Merteuil

        indeed ….

    • derschatzgabber

      I haven’t seen the NYCO production, but I second the enthusiasm for the Jacobs recording. And I think Teleman’s eclectic score is a delight.

      I think I’ve read that extra characters were often added to operas based on the Orpheus myth during the baroque period (m. croche, do you know more about this?), since the basic story is a bit simple for a standard, full length opera seria. In some operas, both Orpheus and Eurydice have unwanted suitors. I believe that the Aristee/Aristeus character in Offenbach’s operetta is derived from one of these additional characters in baroque versions of the story.

      • m. croche

        Let me answer your question with a selection of quotations -- it’s a lot of ground to cover and I don’t feel up to trying to synthesize all the material on the fly:

        “As it stands, however, [the story of Orpheus] could not satisfy either [sic] the logic, the taste, or the imaginative fantasy of the a Baroque mind, and Buti introduces [into Luigi Rossi’s Orfeo], besides the gods, who have their traditional place, a whole group of other characters. He shows us Eurydice’s old nurse serving as an intermediary between her ward and Aristeo, Venus and Love arguing about the fidelity of the two heroes, the Satyr inciting Aristeo to violent action, Momus making fun of all the values represented by the heres, etc. As a finishing touch, he even makes Proserpina jealous of Eurydice so that she will intervene with Pluto, her husband, to release Eurydice. All of these characters are treated in a manner that is often comical, with the aim of according the audience some comic relief. It might be surprising to our modern and rational minds, but it seemed quite normal at the period to see Juno and Venus having a set-to!” Jean Lionnet, in the liner notes to William Christie’s CD of Rossi’s Orfeo

        Sartorio and Aureli created their “Orfeo” not as a Florentine re-discovery of classical Greek tragedy, nor with reforming zeal to restore such a lofty goal, but rather to satisfy a paying audience who expected brilliant singing and stock character types with a generous comic element, and who -- even more -- insisted on being titillated by novelty. The operatic conventions of the late 17th-century, with their intrigues and jealousies, predominate over the mythic dimension; Orfeo, who in the earliest operas had personified the power of music, is here less a Thracian hero than a jealous husbnd. The central elements of any story about Orfeo are his love for Euridice and her tragic death. These elements are retained here but are greatly complicated by the addition of Aristeo’s neglected lover, Autonoe. Aureli has created a quartet of mismatched lovers who play out all the variations on love and jealousy which are essential to the aria-rich Venetian operatic style. Orfeo’s unjustified jealousy of Euridice, in fact, drives him to plot her murder -- an astounding inversion of his traditional devotion to her even after death. Many further characters, unknown from earlier versions, prliferate here. Esculapio, the severe philosopher and critic of love, stands in the tradition of Monterverdi’s Seneca in Poppea; the same opera had popularized the comic nurse sung by a tenor as a stock character, here represented by Erinda; when the shephered boy Orillo (in a long line of pages and man-servants) is sent by Orfeo as the unwilling assassin of Euridice, he becaomes the even more unwilling recipient of Erinda’s advances. The wse centaur Chirone, as the teacher and mentor of Achille and Ercole, stands at the centre of a most unlikely comic trio with his two pupils -- characters who don’t even belong to the same time, let alone the same myth. Plutone appears in every story of Orpheus but here undergoes a novel inversion: instead of being moved by the elaborate prayers of Orfeo, Plutone himself is given the florid and expressive music. Perhaps the most grotesque twist to the original tale is given when Orillo returns to report on the death of Euridice. Orfeo, eager to hear tht Orillo has obeyed his order to kill her, learns instead that she has been bitten by a snake and died….” Katarina Vazanova, liner notes to Stephen Stubbs’ CD of Sartorio’s Orfeo. Ellen Rosand has much more in her book on opera in 17th century Venice.

        “The plot of [Louis Lully’s] “Orphee” is even more pointedly subversive than that of “Zephire et Flore”. Pluto is cast as a militaristic, cruel tyrant opposing the musician-hero Orpheus. Frequent allusions to music and freedom support the underlying theme of the tyrant defied by the artist. Pluto’s dwelling is a rolyal palace surrounded by exquisite gardens (perhaps the Trianon, in whose gardens the prologue of “Zephire et FLore” is set, with the flames of Hades flickering in the distance…. Given the nature of the imagery in these two operas, Louis Lully’s “Orphee” may be seen as a subversive portrait of his father, destroyed by the ruthless absolutism of Louis XIV.” Georgia J. Cowart, “The Triumph of Pleasure: Louis XIV & the Politics of Spectacle” 146-149.

        This is not an exhaustive list, but is intended to show that Orpheus was constantly recontextualized, reconfigured and even subverted during the 17th century. To complain about “secondary characters” having the upper hand is an anachronism which does little to expand our understanding of the work in question.

      • grimoaldo

        Many Baroque operas based on Greek myth add extra characters, partly for the reason that it was a convention of most forms of Baroque opera that there should be a subplot, unlike the classical ideals of unity of time, place and action.
        Rameau’s Castor et Pollux for instance adds sweethearts for each of the heroes. There are many more instances.
        In Orphée aux Enfers, Pluto is in disguise as the farmer / shepherd Aristaeus. Aristaeus was a god of Greek mythology prominent in Boeotia,setting of Act One of Orphée,where he was “the pastoral Apollo”, god of flocks and credited with the invention of bee-keeping, cheese-making and other useful arts. There are many variants of Greek myths in classical literature, not one “right” version and the others wrong. In the Georgics of Virgil, Eurydice is being chased by the lustful Aristaeus when she is bitten by the serpent and dies. Ovid however has her celebrating her wedding day by dancing with the Naiads when the fatal accident occurs.

        • derschatzgabber

          Thank you m. croche and grimoaldo. You contribute so much to the wealth of knowledge on this website.

  • manou
  • Clarendon

    New York City has never been a particularly apt place to put on baroque opera: relatively few appropriate spaces exist for it and, more importantly, critical mass has not yet been reached in the early music culture here. As a consequence, local productions that embrace the idiom with flair are few and far between, notwithstanding the superb productions that visit BAM from Europe. What mostly passes for good performance of baroque opera here is setting singers with very little experience in the period in front of a “baroque orchestra,” which almost always consists of a tiny string band augmented by a few period instrument players in the specialty divisions. It’s almost always an ungodly mess, as it was in this production.
    I will just cite a few examples here, although there are many more to offer.

    1) This production suffered the usual fate regarding ornamentation and cadenzas: meaningless twiddles that added nothing were pasted onto the original line, cadenzas were attempted that exceeded the limits of the singers’ real flexibility (resulting in muffed fioraturas, shrill high notes, and generally-out-of-tune singing), and the usual problem of singers flying up to their “money notes” at every opportunity (resulting in tedium and often making nonsense of the emotional content of the texts at hand in any particular aria). Conductor Wedow apparently did nothing to put any of this in order, and his coaching staff seems not to have helped singers who were going outside their actual capacities.

    2) As mentioned, the cast often wobbled off pitch when singing coloratura, and there were major problems of diction and vocal registration. It was often difficult to tell which of the three languages was being sung until five or six bars into the vocal lines of each aria. There seems to have been a real crisis of leadership in the coaching staff to blame here. In a city with any number of brilliant coaches, I had to wonder at the absence any of the city’s best coaches when I looked up names in the program. Why?

    3) The staging provided a kind of Regietheater Verfremdungseffekt that may be trendy, but is hardly effective. I’ve had occasional trouble with such “updatings” (which, ironically, have become such a genre unto themselves that they now seem rather careworn and out-of-fashion at times), but sense something of importance to the story stirring in my subconscious when I view them. There is nothing like that in this production. In its place, all is superficial distraction and playing to the cheap seats. Just one example: Orpheus sings an Act I aria about insincerity and posturing in life at court. Throughout, he has one tiresome gesture, in which he flaps his wrists in some kind of mad impersonation of Quentin Crisp. I’m not highly offended at the joke, but I find it to be tiresome, old, threadbare, rubber-chicken humor. Why not just go the whole nine yards and replace his cadenza with an extended Paul Lynde snarling giggle? I could go on, but what’s the point when the Borscht Belt is informing opera stagings? Unmoving from beginning to end.

    • Thank you so much for this review of the work. Why bother with an a rare and undiscovered work when only minimal effort is available to do it justice? It sounds like even a concert rendering would have been tacky.

      • Recently discovered work, rather.

        • m. croche

          Louann, Telemann’s Orpheus wasn’t all that recently discovered. There have been productions periodically since 1990 (including two in Berlin under Jacobs and one at Wolf Trap in 2006). There are two different recordings of the work currently available (including Jacobs outstanding one). It appears that some critics weren’t very aware of the work or its history until now, but that’s a different matter.

          Students of classical music have had it drummed into them for a century that Telemann is a second-rate composer (Adorno memorably described followers of the Early Music Movement: “They say Bach, but they mean Telemann.”) I’d like to think we have a more sophisticated appreciation of music from the early 18th century nowadays, and that we can find Telemann’s music more rewarding. I can remember a time when the idea of staging Vivaldi operas was met with derision -- nowadays performances of them are becoming commonplace.

          By most accounts, everything the City Opera is putting on these days is performed badly. I’m not sure people would have been any happier to see a familiar work performed under such circumstances.

  • Aida Lottapasta

    I would agree that the NYCO production did nothing to make a case for this opera, but the piece itself has considerably greater merits than were shown on stage. I would urge anyone interested in baroque opera, or operas inspired by the Orpheus myth to give this piece another chance. The Jacob’s recording shows a piece that is incredibly inventive and has great theatrical potential. It is well worth looking into if one is interested.

    Personally, I had no problem with the idea of the dancer as the snake, but beyond that, she was overused and distracting. The production itself was not my cup of tea, but perhaps my biggest issue was the elimination of the chorus. I’m sure this was a cost saving measure on NYCO’s part, but I think it’s kind of insulting to to present the New York premiere of an opera, but to reduce the chorus (which actually has an important role in the piece -- and could have significantly added some life to the proceedings) to a quartet of principals. This not only reduced the musical scale tremendously, but ignored the entire idea of what the chorus’s function is dramatically.

    Finally, I think it’s helpful to consider that this opera, despite it’s title, is not really the story of Orpheus. It is the story of Orasia. Her story is told around the well known myth. Orasia would make or break any production of this piece. Listen to Roschmann on the Jacob’s recording. That is a performance, with a good director, that I’d love to see! Rowley has quite an impressive instrument, but the barking she conjured up was unacceptable and did nothing to honor this wonderful music, let alone the one-dimensional portrait of a character who is actually very complex.

  • JJ

    JJ here.

    A problem with having a fairly small word count to work in (especially when addressing an unfamiliar work) is that there isn’t much room for nuance. The “judging by this performance, should have stayed this way” is hyperbolic but I think fairly economically sums up how I felt. I don’t think this score is a magnificent lost gem; rather, it has some nice things in it. Given a really clever production and superb musical preparation — say, something aspiring to the level at which Les Arts Florissants performed Atys here recently, this Orpheus could be a delightful festival experience.

    But that is not what “this performance” afforded the piece. It’s cheaply and tritely staged, with all the bad Opera Workshop cliches such as “let’s show how louche we all are by swilling booze out of the bottle and then reeling about as drunken people are supposed to do” and “let’s demonstrate that the murderous queen is in fact just a silly woman because she pauses in mid-aria to touch up her face with a compact of pressed powder, sort of like the way bad actresses in 1940s movies indicated ‘vanity’,” not to mention that rip-roaring classic “let’s set the audience roaring at our conscious anachronism of having the damned spirits in the classical underworld feverishly clattering away on laptops, because working in a office is HELL amirite?” And then there is that damned snake-woman playing contortionist all the time.

    The musical preparation is flimsy. The orchestra barely stays together, and most of the singers (with the exception of Rowley and Pallesen) sound bland. Nobody in the show has any particular skill at putting across the text in recitative. Rowley has either been encouraged or allowed to attempt high roulades that surpass her range. If it was some kind of directive that Orasia had to sing Konstanze-style variations on Telemann’s vocal lines, then the company should have hired someone with a Konstanze voice.

    The Orpheus either is by nature or else has been directed to act the part of a narcissistic sissy, and, worse, he has no voice. If I didn’t know George Steel was straight, I would immediately assume that this guy must be his boyfriend.

    If I heard and saw this performance at some little no-name troupe in a middle school auditorium somewhere in downtown Manhattan, I would probably use words like “promising” and “intriguing.” But from the celebrated New York City Opera, a company that this season spent over $15 million to present four productions? With that kind of reputation and that kind of money, they should have been able to make a strong case for this piece. Instead, they barely played all the notes, and therefore “judging by this performance” the work came off like a piece of junk. That’s not my fault; all I can do is report the disaster as it happens.

    • m. croche

      It’s quite admirable of La Cieca to tolerate even sharp criticism of her good friend’s work, and equally admirable for JJ to respond graciously.

      My objections to the paragraph as it was written still stand, but JJ’s elaborations were interesting and informative.

    • Henry Holland

      If I didn’t know George Steel was straight, I would immediately assume that this guy must be his boyfriend


    • Clarendon

      As unfortunate as it is, JJ is absolutely right, most especially regarding the flimsy musical preparation, poor orchestra ensemble, the bad recitative delivery, and the tasteless, meaningless ornaments, many of which are transpositions all’ottava. If the singers are so regrettably miscast that they have to sing substantial parts of their arias up the octave whenever they can sneak it in, with the flimsy justification that they are “ornamenting” (they are not), then isn’t there a huge crisis of musical direction at work here?

      Of all of these, I think the thing that made the evening drag on interminably was the misguided approach to recitative. Italian Baroque recits contain hundreds of utterly meaningless rests, their only purpose being to ensure that strong syllables wind up on strong beats in the bar. That requires the insertion of rests that were never meant to be “performed,” but which only have a function with respect to accentuation. Apparently, Wedow finds deep meaning in these meaningless rests, since he has directed his singers to observe, and even extend (!) every one. Perhaps he finds similar meaning in the amount of space between the staff lines, or the positioning of the clef signs relative to the key signature, and would like to “perform” these, as well. The result would, no doubt, be just as stultifying and deadening as his slow-paced, dull, pedantic approach to the recits in this opera. We could have shaved a good 20 minutes off the evening just by having a more intelligent recit delivery.

      • derschatzgabber

        Clarendon, Aida, and JJ. Thanks so much for the detailed reviews above. I had toyed with a trip to NY for the end of the MET season and this Orpheus (ended up choosing Don Carlos in Houston). Sounds like missing this particular performance was a blessing. Out in the SF Bay Area, we get spoiled by the number of local, historically informed baroque performers. What you described sounds like the musical equivalent of fingernails on blackboards.

  • operaassport

    Telemann is to opera what Wendell Corey is to film. A few
    trumpet pieces, not much more.

    • papopera

      what a waste of time and talent to exhume these silly old works.

      • grimoaldo

        (counts slowly to ten, breathes deeply)…We’ll, umm, agree to disagree.

    • grimoaldo

      I am as ignorant as to who Wendell Corey may be as your statement reveals you to be about Baroque opera and Baroque music in general.

      • Camille

        grimmey, dearest,

        After THIS you’ll never, ever, ever forget Wendell Corey!

        Isn’t that right, ClitadelT?

        • grimoaldo

          That is funny, cher Camille, thank you. I never heard of that film or any of those people before except of course for La Crawford. Under all the melodramatic music and shrieking overblown superimposed titles it looks like it might actually be quite an interesting movie ( Crawford as monstrous scheming egomaniac -- whoever thought of casting her in that role?)

          • Clita del Toro

            Grim: Joan is even better in *Queen Bee*. If that’s possible? lol
            But, don’t get me started.

          • operaassport

            Ignorance must be bliss. Wendell Corey was a dull actor with a monotone voice who mostly served as a whipping boy for tough, strong Hollywood grande dames. A perfect metaphor for most baroque opera.

        • Clita del Toro

          LOL Cammie, dear, we missed you on the chat!

          I don’t know about Harriet, but I bet Joan “specialized in approaches.”

          Wendell Corey was also in *Rear Window.*

          • Clita del Toro

          • Camille

            Clita! How could you leave out the greatest BITCH SLAP of all times???


          • papopera

            Excellent comparison Mr Opera, touché ! Corey was a 3d rate actor who was the star of such unforgettable film as The Astro-Zombies, etc.

        • derschatzgabber

          Wow! I had forgotten about Harriet Craig. I discovered her watching late night TV in a dorm room (which means, a LONG time ago for me). The movie is so wildly over the top that my friends and I were yelling at the TV in respone to Joan’s many devious stratagems.

          • Clita del Toro

            Cammie, I just posted the movie trailer. I had totally forgotten about the slap. FAB! Xoxoxox

        • bluecabochon

          I love Joan, but ugh, did she ever have the worst hair & makeup here. She was 45 and 50 in these films, and to my eyes looked much older with the harsh makeup and ludicrous hairdressing.

          The films look interesting and fun -- I haven’t been on a Joan binge in years so I’ll have to look these up. Thanks for the diversion!

          Wendell Cory IS dead-eyed and dull, and here’s the proof.

      • operaassport

        I’m happy to remain outside the realm of those superior people who think opera ended with Gluck. Those creatures who think that early and baroque opera is the bees knees. Oh, I know plenty about baroque opera. I just find most of it overly repetitive, dull, clinical, some sort of academic exercise. It’s not about lack of knowledge but disdain.

        • Clita del Toro

          Operaassport, get over yourself. You are always so negative. No one ever said that Wenrell Corey was another Laurence Olivier. It does take all kinds.

          • Clita del Toro

            And I f you don’t like Baroque opera, so shat?

        • grimoaldo

          Nobody has to like anything of course but I do not get why you feel the need to insult not only Baroque works themselves but the “superior creatures” who enjoy them.

          • derschatzgabber

            Believe it or not, there are opera fans out there who like Wagner, Berg, AND baroque opera. I don’t consider myself superior because I enjoy the Jacobs recording of Orpheus. Just happy to have found another piece of vocal music that I enjoy.

            Despite my appreciation for baroque music, I did giggle at a New Yorker cartoon that featured a marquee in front of a concert hall, announcing “Tonight, All the Teleman You Can Stand”.

          • marshiemarkII

            This Wagnerian Queen here is another who loves Wagner and Strauss, and ALSO worships Handel (and Vivaldi operas long before the sublime Enchanted Island experience)

          • mirywi

            I know a fellow who likes John Cage’s Concerto for Prepared Piano. This forces me to believe that anything is possible.

          • mirywi

            I heard the Cage Concerto live accompanying the Cunningham Co at the Kennedy Center last winter. I did so want to enjoy it and maybe could have half-convinced myself when I was younger but now I find I need a tiny hint of a tune or at least some rhythm in order to be happy. Agon
            any day, please.

        • m. croche

          I’m happy to remain outside the realm of those superior people who think opera ended with Gluck.

          Tosh -- It’s well known that there hasn’t been any decent opera since the last Ming emperor Chongzhen hanged himself from the Guilty Chinese Scholartree.

          • manou

            mirywi -- and some people are devoted to John Cage’s 4?33?.

          • manou

            …or rather Four minutes, thirty-three seconds.

          • lorenzo.venezia

            Mirywi, Cage’s music for prepared piano, sonatas and interludes, are quite beautiful, and if you haven’t given them a listen (and they aren’t whatever you think if you haven’t), you are missing something wonderful.

          • brooklynpunk

            After the Juilliard’s tribute to John Cage, earlier this year-- I have to admit to being GUILTY of loving this piece!


  • casualoperafan

    Talking about Baroque opera in NY beings to mind a presentation a few years back by an Italian group performed at the Temple of Dendur.

    It was so bad it scared my companion off Baroque opera for several years.

    Does anyone else remember it?

  • eric

    So Cieca, tell us about this Teadt guy.

    It’s clear from your review that the voice is subpar. But your comment “grieving” in pouty poses suitable for a Calvin Klein ad is intriguing. Should we put him in the barihunk category, or not? He looks pleasant in his pictures, but you’re the one who has seen him in person.

    • whatever

      he is briefly shirtless near the end of the performance. he has real potential, but is about six weeks @ dave barton short of true barihunk status.

      • ianw2

        Please feel free to post a photo of your own abs as an example.

        Not all of us consider the Barton look to be ‘hunk status’. In fact, to quote Clive James, Barton brings nothing more to mind than a ‘condom stuffed with walnuts’.