greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (06/11/85)
I wasn't able to attend part 2, "Die Walkuere". I had it on good authority that once past an unusually slow first act with weak singing by Peter Hoffman (Siegmund), good singing by Jeanine Altemeyer (Sieglinde) and superb singing by John Tomlinson (Hunding), things took fire. Gwyneth Jones was apparently much better vocally than her performance in the televised Chereau "Ring" from Bayreuth and compensated with her freshness and involvement for what vocal problems remained, and James Morris sang superbly, as he had in the "Rheingold." "Siegfried" can be the most problematic opera of the Ring, even for those who otherwise appreciate Wagner's music-dramas. Much of the stage action is restricted to narrative, there is relatively little change of scenery, and several hours go by until a single female voice is heard. This leads conductors to make cuts in the score so as to reduce the sheer time factor, and producers to resort to tricks and games so as to relieve the boredom. Conductor Edo de Waart and producer Niklaus Lehnhoff had enough trust in the work itself to avoid these escapes. While there was symbolism and allegory in Lehnoff's concept, the basic stage picture was naturalistic and beautiful and, for the most part, fulfilled what was called for in Wagner's score. De Waart had the score played and sung uncut and, superbly supported by the orchestra, achieved dramatic musical effects by means of textural transparency and unfailing beauty of playing, even in the loudest climactic passages. The first voice one hears is of the dwarf, Mime, usually a burnt-out character tenor who squeals and groans and overplays. In this case there was the remarkably clear, bright tenor of Helmut Pampanuch who avoided charicature and made a believeable and interesting character. This went a long way to precluding the possibility of boredom. Rene Kollo isn't going to set the world on fire vocally - it's not another Melchior or Vickers. What he did manage to do was create a very believeable, youthful Siegfried who moved with athletic ease and sang with a voice that, if sometimes constricted and lacking in ringing power, was always agreeable and musical. Once into the second act and the lyrical "forest murmers" passage, he seemed to relax and his voice took on a beautiful sheen and amplitude, projecting effortlessly in beautifully shaped phrases. I was disappointed in the Alberich of veteran Walter Berry. He tended to push and shout, with the result that, although his voice was loud enough, it was very difficult to understand his words. Another veteran, Thomas Stewart, on the other hand, made every word distinct and clear, sang beautifully in broad phrases, and acted with tremendous authority as Wotan, here in his guise of "The Wanderer". The forest bird was beautifully and clearly sung by Cheryl Parrish (who will be singing Sophie in "Rosenkavalier" in S.F. next fall). Hanna Schwarz as Erda with a voluminous contralto depth that hardly seemed to match her relatively small stature and slender figure. Not that I'm complaining about that - it's wonderful to hear big, opulent Wagnerian voices without having to close your eyes to the visual image accompanying them. This leads directly to the subject of Eva Marton as Brunnhilde. Since I know that she's a fairly large woman, a great deal of the credit for her appearance must go to the costume department. In a flowing white gown, she awoke from her "magic sleep" and for once we had a Brunnhilde who actually looked voluptuously beautiful, feminine and regal. Her voice suffers from a certain tremulousness, particularly before she's fully warmed up, and a few top notes seemed tentative (although the final high C was long, full and splendid sounding). Nonetheless, this was singing and genuine grandeur and Wagnerian scope. To have such singing combined with, and integrated into, a portrayal that was young, vital, vulnerable and, above all, believeable and to have all this with such a beautiful physical appearance was to me something of a psychic shock. I had just gotten used to the fact that, in Wagner at least, you had to choose between the singer who could look and act the part and the one who could sing it. Here we had both. This was the kind of performance that lingers in the subconscious and haunts the memory long after it's over. - Greg Paley
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (06/20/85)
I happened to run across the New York Times criticism/review of this exact same performance, after reading this net article on it. They could have been talking about two entirely different events! The NYT review came across as carping, unpleasant, and hostile. I am certainly glad I had the chance to read this review first, and I thank the poster for his efforts. Will
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (06/24/85)
> I happened to run across the New York Times criticism/review of this > exact same performance, after reading this net article on it. They could > have been talking about two entirely different events! The NYT review > came across as carping, unpleasant, and hostile. I am certainly glad I > had the chance to read this review first, and I thank the poster for his > efforts. > > Will Actually, one of the main reasons I was stimulated to post my reviews of these performances (particularly of such length) was my astonishment at reading some of the hatchet-jobs done by supposedly noteworthy critics, both local and otherwise. The experiences of art and music are often so intensely personal that differences of opinion are bound to crop up. This is to be expected. No two people are likely to agree all of the time on whether a particular voice is "beautiful" or whether or not the emotional impact of a performance is moving and uplifting. Perception of such things depends as much on the openness and state of readiness of the audience member as it does on the performance itself. What is not to be expected, however, is the failure shown by the NYT reviewer (and some others) to give even an accurate, articulate account of the surface aspects of the performance, such as how people moved on stage, whether or not voices projected and words could be distinguished, whether the notes sung or played were on pitch or not, orchestral balances, and whether or not the conductor's choice of tempi effectively followed the directions in the score. I would have presumed that these things were fairly objective, and would be recognized by anyone in the audience with a reasonable ear and musical background. - Greg Paley
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/25/85)
> I happened to run across the New York Times criticism/review of this > exact same performance, after reading this net article on it. They could > have been talking about two entirely different events! The NYT review > came across as carping, unpleasant, and hostile. I am certainly glad I > had the chance to read this review first, and I thank the poster for his > efforts. Well, look at it this way. At least a New Yorker conceded there was such a thing as opera west of Manhattan. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single (mis)step. Jeff Winslow