The MET's new season: off to a terrible start

[operalover21]

Prices are outrageous... and especially considering the fact that there are different prices for different operas... and added to this is the fact that they have increased the number of seating price categories within each seating section... The difference of one row can often mean a significant dollar difference in price.

 

My budget this season was three operas... Elisir, Ory, and Stuarda...

 

Bottom line: even considering the basic needs of everyday life the MET's new pricing has caused one to indeed "spend money wisely"... and especially when one must figure travel and hotel accommodations into the equation... plus "other" activities while in town...

 

I don't disagree but as someone on the "inside" I can tell you that if the MET -- or any other opera house -- were being run as a business (meaning no donors) that tickets would be 1 1/2 times the current cost and, even then, we'd only break even. This is just a every expensive art form to put on.

[whipped guy]

...if the MET -- or any other opera house -- were being run as a business (meaning no donors) that tickets would be 1 1/2 times the current cost and, even then, we'd only break even.

Which explains why I am being called at least one a month to get me to become a patron... or at the very least contribute at a higher level... While corporate and mega-donor support is where the real action is, I am not sure if a certain amount of mediocrity deserves the increased support of the average operalover... but than again the MET is probably doing as good a job as is humanly possible compared to other institutions given the current state of the operatic firmament.

[+ Charlie]

Now that I live on the west coast, I find that trips to NYC for opera are no longer in my budget at all, but tickets here are not exactly cheap, either. I don't expect things to be like they were 40 years ago in London, when I paid 50p for a seat in the top of the house at Covent Garden several nights per week. but triple digit dollars for a good seat at a second tier regional house seems ridiculous. I remember gulping as I paid the equivalent of $60 once to see Nilsson as Brunnhilde in Munich, thinking I would never be so extravagant again; now that won't buy me a back row mezzanine seat in LA for a questionable performance. I was planning to fly to SF to see two performances at the SF Opera, but when I added up the tickets, airfare, hotels, etc,, I realized it would cost me about $1K for a three day excursion, so I bailed.

 

I, too, get regular calls from the Met--and the SF, LA, Phila. and SD opera companies--asking for substantial donations, even if I haven't attended a performance for a couple of years. The last time the Met called, I asked the caller, "Did you notice my area code? That's why I have no interest in contributing to the cost of your productions."

[+ WilliamM]

Until just buying a ticket to the Met's upcoming Parsifal, the most I had ever paid was for the Washington Lucrezia Borgia in 2008. The production had many good moments, but it was above all the comical elements, whether on purpose or not, that made it stick in my memory---especially Grigolo (w/ blond hair) as Fleming's son. Grigolo did bring out the best in Fleming, at least on her willingness to go with the strong camp elements of the production. I had never seen Borgia in person. Little did I know what was in store...but it was thrilling to hear the music in person.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/02/AR2008110202347.html

[operalover21]

Which explains why I am being called at least one a month to get me to become a patron... or at the very least contribute at a higher level... While corporate and mega-donor support is where the real action is, I am not sure if a certain amount of mediocrity deserves the increased support of the average operalover... but than again the MET is probably doing as good a job as is humanly possible compared to other institutions given the current state of the operatic firmament.

 

Great opera or mediocre opera ... it doesn't matter. It's expensive to put on. If donors don't step up, the ticket prices will go up. Or it will just disappear altogether.

[whipped guy]

Great opera or mediocre opera ... it doesn't matter. It's expensive to put on. If donors don't step up, the ticket prices will go up. Or it will just disappear altogether.

With opera as in "other" aspects of life one wants to get a certain amount of "bang for their buck". Not many of us here enjoy paying for mediocrity... Perhaps mediocrity is better than nothing at all... However, ideally sights should be set a bit higher..

[bostonman]

I heard the premiere broadcast (on Sirius) of Ades' The Tempest on Tuesday night - I hadn't heard the opera before and am not really familiar with Ades' work. I was intrigued and delighted by both the score and the performances. From what I can tell of the physical production, Lepage is up to his old tricks - deliberately avoiding a literal setting (for some reason the desert island is neither deserted nor island, but rather the stage of La Scala), but I have seen footage of the opening storm sequence and it's very striking (and paired with Ades' brilliant virtuoso depiction of a storm, IMO, it's even moreso). And the ridiculously impossible, relentless high range given to Ariel's music needs to be heard to be believed!

 

It's not a score for the non-adventurous for sure, but if you're not scared of so-called "modern music" and can really embrace the beauty and the agony in Ades' dramatic setting, it's certainly something to hear. I would recommend it.

[operalover21]

With opera as in "other" aspects of life one wants to get a certain amount of "bang for their buck". Not many of us here enjoy paying for mediocrity... Perhaps mediocrity is better than nothing at all... However, ideally sights should be set a bit higher..

 

Absolutely, I agree. I'm just making the point that the cost is the same. No one really aims for mediocrity but it, sadly, often occurs.

[operalover21]

I heard the premiere broadcast (on Sirius) of Ades' The Tempest on Tuesday night - I hadn't heard the opera before and am not really familiar with Ades' work. I was intrigued and delighted by both the score and the performances. From what I can tell of the physical production, Lepage is up to his old tricks - deliberately avoiding a literal setting (for some reason the desert island is neither deserted nor island, but rather the stage of La Scala), but I have seen footage of the opening storm sequence and it's very striking (and paired with Ades' brilliant virtuoso depiction of a storm, IMO, it's even moreso). And the ridiculously impossible, relentless high range given to Ariel's music needs to be heard to be believed!

 

It's not a score for the non-adventurous for sure, but if you're not scared of so-called "modern music" and can really embrace the beauty and the agony in Ades' dramatic setting, it's certainly something to hear. I would recommend it.

 

I'm very adventurous and I love exploring contemporary music but The Tempest is a turd. A big, fat ugly turd that no great cast (like the one the MET has assembled) can truly help. I saw it in London and the saw the opening at the MET. It hasn't aged well either. Unlike fine, it's more like cheese left out on the counter ... for 8 years.

[whipped guy]

Absolutely, I agree. I'm just making the point that the cost is the same. No one really aims for mediocrity but it, sadly, often occurs.

I think that we are on the same page here ol21!!! I know that nothing is easy and compromises have to be made. It is just that I have been forced to lower my standards in so much in this world that I refuse to do in with my work... and also with what is probably my favorite pass-time... and even with my second favorite pass-time now that I think of it!!!

[operalover21]

I think that we are on the same page here ol21!!! I know that nothing is easy and compromises have to be made. It is just that I have been forced to lower my standards in so much in this world that I refuse to do in with my work... and also with what is probably my favorite pass-time... and even with my second favorite pass-time now that I think of it!!!

 

I know. I think that everytime I see a movie these days (at least the vast majority of them) and then I see a Mann/Stewart western from the 1950s or a Billy Wilder or Hitchcock film and think "damn, I really have to lower my standards to watch a movie these days."

 

Btw, I saw the prima of Le Nozze di Figaro at the MET the other night ... by far, the worst night of the MET season so far. It was appalling. I'll try to post more thoughts tomorrow. I'm really sad for the MET so far. I, too, want SO much more!

[+ Italiano]

I saw TROVATORE last Thursday. Guanqun Yu was pretty good, especially considering the fact that she is very young and with little experience on stage, especially BIG stages! Beautiful "italianate" round sound (and very good diction), nice phrasing, I wish she would have used some more dynamics in her voice, she was quite good at the end, but she definitely wasn't "memorable". The Welsh tenor (name?..Jones?..) was more of a belcanto light voiced Manrico who sang with good taste and technique especially the most lyric parts, but "Di quella pira" totally missed all the needed squillo!

Dolora Zajick has still amazing low notes and impressive high notes (even if she doesn't sing anymore the alternative high C during the duet with Manrico that she used to) but her middle tones and manipulation of Italian vowels which bothered me 20 years ago now are unbearable to my years. Franco Vassallo (with whom I shared the stage in the past) has a very nice voice and definitely the most idiomatic of all, but I think that he had to inflate his sound artificially too much to sound as a real Conte di Luna.

I rarely heard an uglier voice and worst Italian at the Met as from the African American big booming bass singing Ferrando.

 

 

Trovatore - I've heard 2 different casts, this week and last. This week's soprano (Guanqun Yu) sounded better than last week's (Carmen Giannattasio). I preferred last week's baritone (Franco Vassallo) just a bit compared to this week's - but Vassallo is back in after this for a few more performances. The tenor had his moments, but generally seemed wimpy to me. Dolora Zajick is still my favorite mezzo of our era.

[whipped guy]

Dolora Zajick usually steals the show in Trovatore. Makes one think that the opera should be called "Azucena". At least that has been my experience.

[operalover21]

Dolora Zajick usually steals the show in Trovatore. Makes one think that the opera should be called "Azucena". At least that has been my experience.

 

Especially when she is invariably surrounded by the kind of mediocrity that the MET currently serves up in this opera!

[whipped guy]

Especially when she is invariably surrounded by the kind of mediocrity that the MET currently serves up in this opera!

Ditto. There are no really exceptionally great Verdi voices these days. Fortunately we are going through a nice Bel Canto period... and those operas are my "specialty"...

[+ Charlie]

Dolora Zajick usually steals the show in Trovatore. Makes one think that the opera should be called "Azucena". At least that has been my experience.

 

I believe that Verdi originally wanted to call the opera "The Gypsy."

[whipped guy]

Charlie... You are right and that is exactly what I was referencing. Incidentally, he also toyed with the idea of Otello being named after Iago.

[+ Italiano]

Especially when she is invariably surrounded by the kind of mediocrity that the MET currently serves up in this opera!

 

TOTALLY agree!

[operalover21]

And of course, Rossini should have gone ahead and called Barber of Seville "Almaviva" as he intended. He really is the main character and has all the best music!

[+ Lucky]

And of course, Rossini should have gone ahead and called Barber of Seville "Almaviva" as he intended. He really is the main character and has all the best music!

 

Oh, be sure to let him know that. How has history survived without you?

[whipped guy]

Il Barbiere di Siviglia, ossia Almaviva, ossia L'Inutile Precauzione!!!!

 

Actually Rossini's Il Barbiere di Siviglia was premiered under the title Almaviva, ossia L'Inutile Precauzione (Almaviva, or the Useless pecaution). This makes sense because the first Almaviva was Manuel Garcia and he was the star of the original production... and was actually paid a higher fee than that of the composer if I recall correctly. So even though the opera was based on the Beaumarchais play Le Barbier de Seville the alternate title was originally used. The second reason for the title change concerned the fact that an opera by Giovanni Paisiello was also based on the same play. Even though it was quite common to have operas with the same title in those days, out of so-called respect for Paisiello the title of Rossini's piece was altered. However, I really think that the main reason was to make Garcia the new title character... after all he has both the opening and closing arias and also the last stanza in the opera's short "Finaletto" ("short finale").

 

Shortly after the opera's premiere, the original Rosina (mezzo-soprano Geltrude Giorgi-Righetti) decided to rob the tenor Almaviva of his final aria and thus requisition the piece for herself. Eventually Rossini used the theme from that aria for the great "Rondo Finale" for his opera La Cenerentola a year later when Giorgi-Righetti created the title role in that piece. Shortly after that the final tenor aria was dropped from Almaviva, meanwhile Paisiello conveniently dropped dead, and the opera was usually produced and referred to as Il Barbiere di Siviglia since it was indeed based on the Beaumarchais play of the same name... Eventually other cuts were made to the score so as to make Figaro the main focal point as well... and example being the the already short "short finale" was further shortened so as to give Figaro the final word.

 

Today, with the opera being performed mostly uncut and as originally intended the focus is indeed on the tenor role of Almaviva... and especially when performed by an artist such as Juan Diego Florez. Fortunately we can nowadays experience the composer's and librettist's original intentions... and it makes quite a bit of sense!

[bostonman]

Actually Rossini's Il Barbiere di Siviglia was premiered under the title Almaviva, ossia L'Inutile Precauzione (Almaviva, or the Useless pecaution). This makes sense because the first Almaviva was Manuel Garcia and he was the star of the original production... and was actually paid a higher fee than that of the composer if I recall correctly. So even though the opera was based on the Beaumarchais play Le Barbier de Seville the alternate title was originally used. The second reason for the title change concerned the fact that an opera by Giovanni Paisiello was also based on the same play. Even though it was quite common to have operas with the same title in those days, out of so-called respect for Paisiello the title of Rossini's piece was altered. However, I really think that the main reason was to make Garcia the new title character... after all he has both the opening and closing arias and also the last stanza in the opera's short "Finaletto" ("short finale").

 

Shortly after the opera's premiere, the original Rosina (mezzo-soprano Geltrude Giorgi-Righetti) decided to rob the tenor Almaviva of his final aria and thus requisition the piece for herself. Eventually Rossini used the theme from that aria for the great "Rondo Finale" for his opera La Cenerentola a year later when Giorgi-Righetti created the title role in that piece. Shortly after that the final tenor aria was dropped from Almaviva, meanwhile Paisiello conveniently dropped dead, and the opera was usually produced and referred to as Il Barbiere di Siviglia since it was indeed based on the Beaumarchais play of the same name... Eventually other cuts were made to the score so as to make Figaro the main focal point as well... and example being the the already short "short finale" was further shortened so as to give Figaro the final word.

 

Today, with the opera being performed mostly uncut and as originally intended the focus is indeed on the tenor role of Almaviva... and especially when performed by an artist such as Juan Diego Florez. Fortunately we can nowadays experience the composer's and librettist's original intentions... and it makes quite a bit of sense!

 

But even so, I really think that Figaro drives the action of the piece. Almaviva enlists HIM to help him win Rosina. HE comes up with the plot machinations to get Almaviva into Bartolo's house. HE suggests to Rosina that she write a letter to "Lindoro" (and is foiled when Rosina reveals she has already done so). HE steals the balcony key, and HE arranges the meeting that finally brings the lovers together (and wryly complains as they coo their way through their love music, lol).

 

Of course, Beaumarchais' reasons for making Figaro central were a little different - none of the operatic versions of the Beaumarchais trilogy really dwell too much on the political end of the story - though Mozart and Da Ponte touch on it in Le Nozze Di Figaro. So the idea of Figaro as a servant beginning to take his stand against the aristocracy is really nowhere to be found in the Rossini (neither is is, as I recall, in the Paisiello version), so the title loses its original significance.

 

I will say that I'm always glad nowadays when the tenor takes on "Cessa di piu resistere" - in many ways, I think the opera really builds to that aria, and it certainly belongs there. It's also quite a monster to sing, so it's always a thrill to hear it done well. ;-)

[+ Italiano]

 

I will say that I'm always glad nowadays when the tenor takes on "Cessa di piu resistere" - in many ways, I think the opera really builds to that aria, and it certainly belongs there. It's also quite a monster to sing, so it's always a thrill to hear it done well. ;-)

 

 

Definitely so, even if that aria is a show-stopper in ANY way! I just experienced another young singer of the current generation of Rossini tenors of Juan Diego Florez league, Mexican Javier Camarena. Actually I am on that stage too, quite close to him

In this particular (last) performance (taped by someone in the audience at Bellas Artes Theatre in Mexico City) at the end of the aria the audience was SO wildly responding that he had to repeat the fast section (I doubt it happens many times!) to another thunderous applause!

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJwdp_rYybA

[operalover21]

Oh, be sure to let him know that. How has history survived without you?

 

Lucky, go back to your superficial theater reviews, and leave this place for the adults.

[operalover21]

Actually Rossini's Il Barbiere di Siviglia was premiered under the title Almaviva, ossia L'Inutile Precauzione (Almaviva, or the Useless pecaution). This makes sense because the first Almaviva was Manuel Garcia and he was the star of the original production... and was actually paid a higher fee than that of the composer if I recall correctly. So even though the opera was based on the Beaumarchais play Le Barbier de Seville the alternate title was originally used. The second reason for the title change concerned the fact that an opera by Giovanni Paisiello was also based on the same play. Even though it was quite common to have operas with the same title in those days, out of so-called respect for Paisiello the title of Rossini's piece was altered. However, I really think that the main reason was to make Garcia the new title character... after all he has both the opening and closing arias and also the last stanza in the opera's short "Finaletto" ("short finale").

 

Shortly after the opera's premiere, the original Rosina (mezzo-soprano Geltrude Giorgi-Righetti) decided to rob the tenor Almaviva of his final aria and thus requisition the piece for herself. Eventually Rossini used the theme from that aria for the great "Rondo Finale" for his opera La Cenerentola a year later when Giorgi-Righetti created the title role in that piece. Shortly after that the final tenor aria was dropped from Almaviva, meanwhile Paisiello conveniently dropped dead, and the opera was usually produced and referred to as Il Barbiere di Siviglia since it was indeed based on the Beaumarchais play of the same name... Eventually other cuts were made to the score so as to make Figaro the main focal point as well... and example being the the already short "short finale" was further shortened so as to give Figaro the final word.

 

Today, with the opera being performed mostly uncut and as originally intended the focus is indeed on the tenor role of Almaviva... and especially when performed by an artist such as Juan Diego Florez. Fortunately we can nowadays experience the composer's and librettist's original intentions... and it makes quite a bit of sense!

 

As much as I love Cenerentola, the finale there always works better for me when Almaviva sings it in Barbiere. Next season we get JDF doing Cenerentola at the MET for the the first time in more than half a decade. Yippee!