Birdsall

I forgot to post that I saw Sarasota Ballet's Triple bill on March 1. I had never seen Ashton's Les Rendezvous, and it is a lovely ballet. Very charming. It is about young people meeting in a park and flirting. There is a wonderful pas de trois that required such fleet footwork. I'd love to see this little ballet again. Next was Lilac Garden, and I think the dancers did a great job in such a small space. The Asolo Theatre is a beautiful theatre, but has a small stage. I think that was the reason that the main woman Caroline (after she faints and then her spirit reaches out toward her lover while everyone is frozen) reached out past/beyond her lover. Or maybe that is how it is supposed to be staged. I have seen it where it looks like she is reaching out directly toward him. Walsh's I Napoletani is entertaining but seems to stereotype Italian culture. The first part (very modern balletic dance in feathery tutus) which is very artsy does not fit with the majority of the ballet (comic real-life situations involving Italians). There is one section where all they do is hand signals, and although it did involve very complex timing (choreography) it was just hand gestures. It was entertaining, but I doubt if I would ever care about seeing it again unlike the other two works that evening. For me the dancer that stood out the most was Logan Learned. He was terrific in the little pas de trois in Les Rendezvous and very funny in I Napoletani. Victoria Hulland was great as the main woman Caroline in Lilac Garden. You really felt her sadness. Kate Honea demonstrated elegance and Ricardo Rhodes showed off his athleticism in Les Rendezvous. This is a nice gem of a company that does a lot of Ashton, so I will try to visit again since I am not too far from Sarasota.

I've very fond of the recording she made with Jessye Norman of spirituals, but part of that comes from loving Jessye Norman... Yes, I have seen the concert on video. Battle was probably at her best when she did encores involving simply singing a spiritual acapella which was something she often did at recitals. She showed that she had true talent. Not many dare to sing acapella like that totally exposing the voice to total scrutiny. And like I said, the more jazz-influenced concert I saw showed that she could have made it in that genre. She sang jazz like a jazz musician unlike Fleming (who always claims to have started in jazz yet still sounds totally wrong in jazz). In fact, I am surprised she did not pursue that more after her Met firing. Her few and far between performances in concert made me think she was sort of deflated and "over" the opera scene. I think it would have been easy for her to go into a jazz career. She seemed to know a lot of musicians in that genre, and they seemed to respect her.

I liked the emphasis on the environment in the SF Ring. And that is a theme already in the Ring, so it wasn't twisted to emphasize that, so I liked it. Some things were good about the SF Ring, some things less good. But most of all Nina Stemme made it for me!!!! In the end, a singer in one of the major roles blowing you away is what does it. And the opera can be set in any wild time or place and I am fine. I think I went to the final cycle, and the weeks before the trip I was thinking, "If Stemme cancels this could be a real waste!" but it wasn't, and she sang and she blew me away. So it was worth it. I think I have seen the best Brünnhilde I will ever see in my lifetime. Maybe people would be mad to catch Amina cheating on her tenor love like in the Met's new Sonnambula. I don't really know, but it did not work at all for me. I think the worst was when they started tearing up the scores in anger. And then they ran around trashing the place. I might be able to buy that they are mad at her, but then to trash a rehearsal room. That just seemed like slapstick, and even though Sonnambula is light, I don't think it is a slapstick comedy. Whether it was the director's intent or not, I felt like they were laughing at Bellini's opera and making a complete joke out of it. And Natalie Dessay went on record even saying it was a silly opera. That shocked me. Why choose to sing an opera you have no respect for? Of course, there is always the matter of a paycheck, but still......I think La Sonnambula is the operatic equivalent of Giselle.....a very gentle and soft story (with some dark undertones of course) that is from another time but has a charm all its own. To me La Sonnambula is no joke of an opera. It is not in the same league as Parsifal or even La Traviata, but if done with love and intelligence I think it can still speak to us. "Ah, non credea....." has to be one of the most gorgeous arias ever written and the cabaletta is the most joyous thing I can think of....but even up until that it has some beautiful duets.....it is definitely a period piece that is maybe a little harder for us to relate to, but it is no joke, in my opinion, and that's how I felt the new Met production treated it......like one big joke. I am shocked after two years of turning my back on opera I actually went and saw the Parsifal HD and am going on and on about opera! LOL Obviously, I still have some love left for it!

Yes, it is funny how we can accept one production that is updated and we are not happy with another that is. Same with wacky productions. Some I can accept and even love. Others I hate. I loved the Copenhagen Ring. If you have not seen that version, I think it is a must see. It is available on video. The gold is a golden youth stark naked (well, he is a young man....I'm sure legal age) and painted gold and swimming in a tank. Alberich rips the heart out of this gold swimmer and that represents the gold he has stolen from the Rhine. Later in Walküre the valkyries are drinking wine or champagne and getting drunk as they sing Hojotoho......the dragon that Siegfried fights.....well, I won't give that away....it may surprise you.....it is a really wild ride and sounds ridiculous, but it actually worked for me. There ended up being so many touching scenes and thought provoking scenes throughout. I also think the fact that the Ring is such a fantasy work it survives any craziness. I also loved the L.A. Ring which a lot of people hated. That was considered a crazy production as well. But I also love the gorgeous traditional Günther Schneider-Siemssen Ring the Met had before the current LePage "Machine" Ring. And I really dislike the new Machine Ring despite it being fairly traditional (although the Machine makes it all look modern but the story, costumes, etc. are pretty traditional). So sometimes I love a very traditional opera. Sometimes I love craziness. By the way, Günther Schneider-Siemssen did the Rusalka production at the Met as well, and it is a gorgeous production. Next season it will be one of the HD transmissions. I am glad this production is being preserved on video. On paper the cast looks terrific: Fleming, Magee, Beczala, and Zajick. I like everyone of those singers, although Fleming can be mannered at times. She was on her best behavior back in 1997 when I saw her sing Rusalka. Anyway, if you want to see a drop dead gorgeous production of a very wonderful opera and a very good cast make sure not to miss that!!! When I attended the San Francisco Ring the museum near the opera house actually had a small exhibit of Ring productions through the ages, and it was astonishing to see that there was an evolution. You see each production being influenced by the previous.....so the crazy Rings did not just suddenly POOF appear. There was a gradual change in productions and through time it became more and more modern. So the new, crazy productions are not the break with tradition that we might initially think. I feel the Joseph Volpe era at the Met was a swing toward conservative/traditional productions. And many were GORGEOUS. They were what people expect and sometimes even want in Grand Opera. Huge, three dimensional sets that make you feel like you are seeing some of the most expensive productions in the world. The Peter Gelb era seems to be trying to teeter totter on both sides. Bringing in sort of modern-ish productions but sticking basically to the libretto so as not to offend anyone too much (the new Ring, the new Parsifal, etc). The Met is now trying to appease both sides, and I sort of think you end up not satisfying anyone when you do that! LOL But I don't know the solution. I'm sure it is hard to decide how far in which direction to go. One updated modern production that I absolutely detested was the Met's recent La Sonnambula. I went with an open-mind and tried hard to like it, but at the end of Act. 1 when they discover Amina in the stranger's bed (it is supposed to be Rodolfo, but the Met's version does not really explain who he is and why he is sleeping in the rehearsal room), they go in a rage and trash the rehearsal room. That made absolutely no sense to me. In today's time nobody would fly into a rage at discovering Amina in someone's bed. They might gossip amongst themselves, but no one would care and they certainly wouldn't trash a rehearsal room and tear up Bellini's score (which is what the chorus did in this version). It was totally absurd. I guess the argument can be made that La Sonnambula is pretty absurd as it is, but I thought this staging was the dumbest thing I ever saw in my life.

Ditto about Voigt. She is a great interviewer. Fleming was good too. Voigt has a great sense of humor and can use it if something goes wrong to turn lemons into lemonade, and that is great. But it is tragic that a once INCREDIBLE voice is a shell of its former glory. I saw her when she was huge as a bus as Ariadne, Lady Macbeth, Tosca, and concerts, and it was powerhouse voice that had EVERYTHING you wanted in a voice. Beauty of sound, strength, high notes, low notes, huge voice, etc. Then, after her gastric bypass I heard her in Chicago as Salome and was shocked to hear a smallish voice that was no longer superhuman. It was fragile sounding to me. I thought, "Okay, she's getting used to her new body and having to use her muscles differently to produce sound, so give her time...." and she seemed to get better for a while but she never recovered her superhuman, amazing voice, in my opinion. In her defense, she is a better actress. I think she feels better in her body and is more willing to act and I like her stage acting much better. Before she had a glorious voice but mainly stood and sang, but it was such a voice that you were willing to give up the acting. But now the announcement of her singing Marie in Wozzeck next season really upsets me. That is usually a role sopranos take on late in their career when they realize they can no longer sing the diva roles. Or a young soprano might take the role and stop singing it the minute she gets known. But maybe she took it on b/c Levine is going to conduct. Maybe if I had never heard her before the surgery I would not be so sad. I mean, this was a GLORIOUS voice which might have gone down as one of the greatest voices of our time. But now it is simply a mediocre soprano voice that is trying to sing the toughest roles in the repetoire. It really saddens me.

http://www.time.com/...1940221,00.html It's hard to imagine that she would participate in behind-the-scenes interviews that the MET gives today, given her extraordinarily erratic behavior. I also think the pressure of a live performance in HD would crush her psychological health. Interestingly, Peter Gelb is quoted - he was president of Sony Classical Film & Video at the time. A couple of my favorite stories from the article: In Boston she telephoned the management of the Boston Symphony Orchestra to complain that the Ritz-Carlton's room service had put peas in her pasta. while riding in a limo in Southern California, she used the limo cell phone to call her management in NYC to complain about the temperature of the limo. Her management called the limo managers, who then called the limo driver to tell him to turn down the air conditioning. After her appearances at the San Francisco Opera, the backstage crew sported T shirts that read: I SURVIVED THE BATTLE Opera is a small professional world, and Joseph Volpe had a lot of respect for making this decision. I think the other impressarios decided "If she can't make work at the MET with Joe Volpe, then why the hell would we be able to work with her?" Anyway, she seems to have made a nice career for herself in concert performances. She didn't starve, and Harolyn Blackwell got a nice boost. I was lucky enough to see her not too long afterwards as Gilda in Rigoletta, which is a fun role. Sorry if this is straying off topic. Yes, I doubt Battle would agree to any backstage interviews, although maybe she would if she got a list of the questions that would be asked and prepared her answers ahead of time. I have witnessed a phony side to her up close in person that she quickly puts on like a mask. It is like a super sweet persona that she puts on if she meets an aspiring singer backstage. Anyone else is treated with a very suspicious look. She suddenly goes from ultra defensive to super sweet and hugging the young singer. It is so obviously phony, because she changes in less than 2 seconds from very defensive to super sweet, and I suspect she would put that mask on when interviewed (if she were still singing at the Met and doing backstage intermission interviews). There is probably a clip still on YouTube where an interviewer talks to her about her concert and she is bubbly and happy but the minute the interviewer asks about her rumored backstage behavior she literally goes silent and angry and gets up and takes off the microphone and walks out. Joseph Volpe devotes an entire chapter about her in his memoirs. But to tell you the truth I think he and other companies let things slide too long and let her get away with so much for so long that she got used to it and so when he finally slammed down on her it was totally unexpected for her (not anyone else). I am not condoning bad behavior. But a better management technique is to give warnings and consequences before you fire someone. She was a big star and big money maker. It is rare for a soubrette of her type to actually become so famous and command such attention or power. Soubrettes that sing mainly Adina and Despina rarely make it big. James Levine, who was supposedly her mentor and friend, is notorious for avoiding conflict or confrontation, and he really should have pulled her aside and told her to stop it or else get help. The whole story is actually rather sad. Someone who trashed an incredible (actually unbelievable) career. Yes, she sang concerts here and there but her career never really recovered, although it may have been her own choice. I actually saw her one time in a concert with jazz musicians in which she sang in a jazz voice and less of an operatic voice. She released a cd of some of the songs. The cd does not convey her full ability at singing this repetoire. I really think she was a better jazz singer from hearing the concert than she was an opera singer. She could have had a career in that also, if she had wanted one.

The news is having a field day showing Dmitrichenko in his villain roles as they report this. One clip showed him with a knife chasing another dancer (it was too short and so I wasn't sure of the ballet).

" " is a stagehand's view of San Francisco Opera's production of the Ring cycle. The sequence at the top where they are trying to explain the plot over a poker game is fabulous -- the Rhinemaidens "are pissed" when they lose the gold. "Doesn't one of the giants end up getting a chick out of the deal? Oh yeah, Fafner!"Big, big fun! Yes, I've seen that! Loved watching it! It was interesting to see the world of the Ring behind the scenes (how the stage hands relate to it).

Just some thoughts b/c I am amazed at the variety of opinions. I am not being argumentative here below. Just how I relate to the world and intrigued how others do it differently: I guess I tend to be able to block out the world easily, and each person is different. I can contemplate what I just watched while people are talking loudly on the screen. In fact, sometimes I am thinking about what I just watched and am mad that I just missed what the singer said that sounded interesting at the tail end. I think the only distractions that bother me are when people talk during a performance or jangling bracelets during a performance (any noise DURING that disrupts what we are seeing). I need quiet during the performance, but the minute the curtain goes down for intermission it can be as noisy as a train station and it would not bother me. I have a hard time believing that the singers aren't asked if they are willing to be interviewed first. I hope they are. I hope it is not a surprise. To me it looks like they know they are going to be interviewed. There have been some intermissions where a singer who was pivotal was not interviewed from what I noticed. I am sure they are given an option. I have had friends in the performing arts and the ones I've known are hyped up when they come off stage. They have an adrenalin rush and are more than happy to talk your ear off. But different singers probably feel different ways too. It probably depends on the role. A very moving scene that wears them out might cause them to want to be alone. Who knows? kfw, I think seeing a Parsifal is always worthwhile. It is rarely played anyway except major stages.....I can't picture it played in most regional companies. So I encourage you to see the encore and tell us what you think. It is the only HD I saw this season. Wagner and Bellini's Norma are about the only things that get me to see any kind of opera. But I love Kaufmann so much that I might go to his Werther HD next season.

I sometimes find the intermission features interesting, but I actually love seeing the backstage crew changing sets. For some people it destroys the illusion, I guess, but for me it is very fascinating to see how it is all done. On opera sites many people complain about the intermissions and say it ruins the mood, but in a regular opera house, you usually get up, go pee, fight the crowds for a drink and hear all the people in the lobby talking and if you go outside, people are smoking, etc. How does that not ruin the mood???? LOL I don't see how a regular opera house intermission and then a movie version with intermission features makes any difference. If I were bothered I would go sit in the lobby or even outside (with the movie ticket stub you can re-enter). But I am not bothered at all by them, but sometimes I don't find them that enlightening and like a break to stand for a while. I think it is a nice thing they do providing intermission features for those who don't want to sit twiddling their thumbs. You can leave and avoid them or stay and enjoy them. Either way you have an option.

I think the Met's previous Parsifal probably came as close as you can to setting it in the same time as the original story Parzival. The costumes and sets were absolutely gorgeous. Some people, however, found it boring. I loved that production. It might still be available on dvd. Not sure. It might be out of print. But the actual von Eschenbach poem/story is very different than Wagner's. It has a lot more tests he has to go through and the story even branches off and follows stories of others as well. It is very, very different, but I suppose a general outline is similar. In fact, to explain some differences, there is one part where he has to get on top of a rolling bed that rolls around and bangs into walls while arrows and other things rain down on him, I believe. He is supposed to stay on the bed and not fall off. I forget the exact details. It has been so long. Basically, it is almost like a Science Fiction/Fantasy story. Kundry is nothing like in the opera. I think the opera sort of combines characters into her. My memory of Kundry in the story is that there is no way he would kiss Kundry! LOL I would have to reread. Parzival is definitely worth reading, if you are looking for something to read. Wagner kept the general concept and added a whole lot more spirituality (or our idea of spirituality opposed to the Middle Ages), in my opinion (he even added Buddhism). So I actually think there is an argument for placing it in the middle ages but also a good argument for giving it an "anytime" setting as well. Believe it or not, La Boheme can actually work when updated. I think the Australian Opera did a decent updating of it that was charming years ago. It was played on PBS. The thing about La Boheme is that in that particular case the traditional dress does make them look more like our grandparents and we forget these people are artists and bohemian artists who are barely surviving. They are similar to beatniks in the 1960s. They are having sex outside of marriage which was probably not the norm back in the day of the setting. We forget to look at these characters as total artist types who are really living an avant garde (non-mainstream) lifestyle. These same characters today would have tattoos all over their bodies and huge ear piercings. Remember also that Rodolfo and Mimi decide to stay together until spring (keep warm in the winter), so there is a certain amount of practicality in these people's concept of love. I think over time audiences have over-romanticized La Boheme and forgotten that these people are sort of edgy people. They are not upstanding middle class people. They are more fringe types. It is still very beautiful (especially Puccini's music). But this is actually an opera that I think makes more sense to people today if done in an updated thing. I hate the updated operas where they are talking about their sword and pull out a gun instead. LOL I hate when it makes no sense. But if an updating makes sense and gives me something to really think about, then I accept it.

But that's exactly the problem. Why make things more confusing for the "newbies"...? On top of tyring to explain to a less than experienced companion the original context or historical setting one has to guess-(and explain...or rather, try to explain, as we might not be completely sure of the sense of the twisting)-the why of the final result, then... And then there could be the question of "Why did they change the libretto...?", for which I usually have the most cruel and sarcastic answers. I pretty much agree with what you say, but to play Devil's Advocate the libretto is almost always printed in the program and nowadays the newbie can read the story online before they go to the opera, if they are interested in knowing what they are going to see. I do think opera is best when you've done some homework. Knowing the music somewhat only helps you enjoy it. Knowing the story ahead of time helps you not get confused. I have never understood just showing up to something like Parsifal without knowing anything about it. But each person approaches entertainment and art differently. A lot of people like to show up to an opera house before the show and listen to some guy tell the story right before the show starts. I usually find those things boring and do not attend, unless it is a special lecture about a rarely performed work and they are giving musical examples that you should listen for. Basically, my point is that a newbie has access to the original story online or in his/her program that they can read before the curtain rises. And often there is a little historical info page too (not always). So I think a newbie can get by just reading the libretto quickly before the lights go down. And believe it or not, I think newbies are more likely to enjoy a modern dress production. They are not upset. But those same people, once they become seasoned opera goers, start to want to finally see a production that has some resemblance to the actual story!!!! LOL There is a website that often posts pictures from opera productions and everyone is supposed to guess which opera, and there is usually NO WAY to tell which opera it is. It could be anything so if you guess you have to make a totally wild stab in the dark at which opera is depicted in the photographs. That's how bad things have gotten!!!! LOL Part of me finds it humorous. Part of me finds it sad. By the way, I saw photographs from one Parsifal in Europe where Kundry was wearing an alligator's head!!!! I think I would have burst out laughing when she came on stage. However, I read the original story of Parsifal and Kundry is depicted as almost a creature that is ugly and not human, or only half human, so there is some reason to do this, but I guess since I live in Gainesville where University of Florida's mascot is the Gators an alligator head is a bit much for me on Kundry!

OMG!!! Parsifal is the last opera a newbie should attend!!!! LOL That poor woman!!!! This makes me laugh!!!

And I suppose all this back and forth discussion is why directors want to re-interpret, because there is so much and I have to admit that SOMETIMES it works for me when they highlight certain things that I have not thought of.....and obviously, this is provoking a lot of thought and discussion, so maybe it is a positive thing when directors fiddle around. So I am not black and white about directors and their productions. I have seen some wild productions that I actually enjoyed and I have seen some traditional productions that bored me to tears. So there is no absolute. Sometimes a traditional production is wonderful. Sometimes a re-interpretation is wonderful. My main comment was how this director made a specific comment that he put characters in modern dress to make the opera relevant. I guess I should have explained that I am not always against that BUT I disagree that putting characters in modern dress makes the story more relevant. As I said, the other choices (how the characters interact with each other which is usually the director's choice too) are what makes an opera relevant, in my opinion. I can watch Norma singing to the Moon in quasi-Druid (although usually it looks more Roman) garb and still relate to how she feels about her situation. As for interviews that someone asked about above I don't know. I think I caught a tail end interview with Rene Pape, but I really didn't see much of the intermission features, b/c I ran out to pee each time an act ended and then I stayed in the lobby to read emails and texts on my phone. Sometimes I enjoy the intermission features, but usually it is just a lot of blah, blah, blah......I did catch a portion of them showing the backstage crew cleaning up the water from the second act. I found that sort of interesting. A lot of work (it looked like). I wondered how they would get rid of the water in that act. I didn't hate this production at all. But I think I wanted a little more poetry. My favorite moment was when Parsifal reaches into the abyss (I guess it was supposed to be where he was going in the next act). I thought that was a very beautiful image and made you think about what it might mean. I would have liked more images like that (since they had the video projections.

The spear going into the grail at the end while Kundry held the grail was "hit you over the head" sexual.....so I agree....lots of sexual imagery, but I think that is already there without clobbering us over the head. That's the problem I have with these directors. They think none of us have read Freud or noticed certain things in works of art, etc. So they lead us by the nose to discover these things, when we will discover them as we get to know the works more and more (by seeing them over and over). I think many directors do not have faith in the work itself. All great works are multi-layered and can be read in many different ways even if done exactly as the libretto states. Of course, I don't believe in following the libretto to the extreme and I am not against different stagings and even sometimes a crazy production. But I think we have to have faith in these works and faith in the audience to see things without hammering us.

Jonas Kaufmann astonished me every single time he opened his mouth. Such a beautiful and strong sound comes out. If anyone else had sung Parsifal I would have skipped this. But he was outstanding. I was a bit disappointed in Rene Pape who is usually excellent. I felt some of the comprimario basses had a darker sound in comparison. He simply sounded lightweight in the role and the fact he did not have a forceful personality in the role didn't help. Very very surprised b/c I liked him in previous things even Boris Godunov. Kundry is such a difficult role especially that "Ich lachte!" high jump into the depths (high and then low), an almost impossible moment to get right. So we can't expect any Kundry to be great. We can only hope for decent. Dalayman was "okay." Not great, not terrible. I didn't hate the production, but I thought it was overall boring. I wished for more moments (images) like when the earth opened up and Kaufmann reached into the bloody abyss. That was a poetic image and I thought the production would have more moments like that. I thought the flower maidens looked too much like characters in Japanese horror films. I don't really think we need to have people dressed in modern clothes to make things relevant as the director implied in one of the intermissions. I don't know why directors keep saying and thinking that. You could stage anything in period and if well done, people will relate and cry or be touched. Humans are humans. This idea of modern dress in an attempt to make things relevant is hogwash. Occasionally I like a modern or crazy production (like the Copenhagen Ring), but overall I think there is no reason to attempt to make it relevant by using modern dress. It will be relevant to us if acted and sung well b/c it will move us. Sometimes I think it is an excuse to cut costs on costumes. Parsifal is a long opera. Even for someone who loves the music it goes on a bit too long, in my opinion. I am sure some disagree with it being too long, but I think Wagner was a lunatic. Most artists suffer for their art. Wagner wanted us to suffer for his art! LOL The first act of Parsifal (2 hours), the first act of Götterdämmerung (2 hours), final act of Meistersinger (2 hours) and all of Rheingold (2 1/2 hours or more with no intermission) requires that I do not drink hardly anything all morning and day before a performance, so I am not dying and crying to pee. I suck on mints all day instead of drinking. Wagner doesn't seem like a human being most of us would have wanted to spend much time around, but his music is glorious. However, there is an obsessive quality. I warn friends who want to see Tristan und Isolde or Parsifal for the first time (and don't get me wrong I LOVE both operas) that nothing happens for hours!!!!!!! LOL Characters in Wagner tend to tell the story and repeat and repeat and repeat.....I really do think Wagner was a lunatic!!!! But love his works anyway.

It's slightly earlier than last year. They tie rapid renewal (by April 5) in with an invitation to a company class, probably presented from the stage of each of MCB's theater venues.Birdsall, did you also get the automated call (taped message) from Lourdes Lopez, alerting us that the subscription material was in the mail? I liked the idea. She sounds young, smart, cheerful, and welcoming. A good way to introduce her to those who haven't met or heard her. She's a really good communicator with audiences. No, I didn't get a call. Maybe because I have a Tampa number (out of town)? I have no idea. Or maybe I missed the call. I ignore calls if I don't recognize the number (my friends come up with their names showing). But I would think an automated call would leave a voicemail.

In Jupiter, FL where my parents live you are more likely to see menorahs in shop windows, and I like that. It is nice to see all kinds of things! There are whole plaza with nothing but Hannakuh decorations. And as others said it can be downright hot at Christmas in Florida. What's funny is that all the tourists are swimming, but native Floridians find the water too cold in winter!

As it should be. Well, the reality is that in the U.S. the Nutcracker is a Christmas tradition. Whether this should or should not be the case can be debated, but it is irrelevant. No...it is very relevant, for which one of the P/T triunvirate is being mislabeled and relegated here. Fee Dragee PDD goes right hand on hand in beauty and level of technique with Aurora's Wedding PDD and Black Swan PDD. I wasn't saying because most Americans view Nutcracker as a Christmas ballet that it is a lesser work. The fact that it is played every single year by most ballet companies (while Bayadere is played less often) means it is considered important because people obviously want to see it. Before I was into ballet I went many times and even took my grandparents to it. It is the same as Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol. Most people think it is a great work but probably wouldn't reread it except at Christmas time. My comment about relevance was to the question of whether Nutcracker should or should not be played other times of the year. I actually think it is fine to play it whenever, although I doubt I would go in summer, but what I meant was this question of should or should it not play other times is irrelevant. Here in the U.S. it is viewed as a tradition to see it at Christmas. Others have posted that it has played other times, but I suspect that is not the norm. So the fact is that most Americans view it as a Christmas ballet. You have every right to think that is wrong, but it is what it is. So I was saying the question about whether it should or should not be tied to Christmas here in the U.S. is irrelevant because it already is very much tied to Christmas, and I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. You can't fight City Hall!

As it should be. Well, the reality is that in the U.S. the Nutcracker is a Christmas tradition. Whether this should or should not be the case can be debated, but it is irrelevant. It is the case. Every ballet company in the U.S. does Nutcracker at Christmas time and that is not going to change anytime soon. So here in the U.S. it is a Christmas ballet. I doubt if any ballet company here ever does it any other time, but maybe a few do. It would surprise me. It would also surprise me if there is any ballet company that does not do a Nutcracker during Christmas time. Even before I ever saw a ballet as a child you would hear Nutcracker musical excerpts played in malls and the Nutcracker ballet advertised and on PBS, etc. Maybe this is the only country that treats it as a Christmas tradition, but it is how it is treated here, and, like I said, not about to change ever. So after Christmas I can not watch it because I usually watch various versions to get into the Christmas mood, and it is like eating too much cotton candy. You simply get so sick of it and can't watch it again for an entire year.

By the way, I got my subscription renewal in the mail today. That is something new to get it this early. I think the last couple of years I had to call them and ask when I can renew and that was in summer and one time I was put off. With hindsight it makes no sense for subscribers to call them and ask, "When can I renew?" They should be beating down the doors to make sure we do! So this is a change, and it is a positive change.

I guess this is good news. I have to say that I like to watch Nutcracker leading up to Christmas and once Christmas is over I shelve my Nutcracker videos and can't stand to look at them until the following Christmas. LOL I know that Nutcracker is presented in Russia anytime of the year and is considered just like any ballet, but I associate it with Christmas, and once the 25th is over, I am ready to move on from Christmas! LOL If I weren't so lazy all my Christmas decorations would be put in the attic on the morning of the 26th. I suppose the West Palm dates are much preferable to Broward! There is no way I would go to a Nutcracker after the New Year has started! LOL

I will try to post while there but who knows if I will have the patience to type posts on my phone. I am an actual typist knowing home row keys, etc. so resorting to one finger punching on the iphone is sometimes annoying! LOL

I am glad to see that they will finally offer Rusalka as an HD performance (and hopefully a dvd release eventually). That is one of the nicest productions at the Met. I saw Fleming in the role there back in 1997. I believe Emily Magee is making her debut at the Met as the Foreign Princess this time around, if I am not mistaken, despite singing leading roles for years in Europe. Anyway, on paper Fleming, Magee, Zajick, and Beczala sound like a TERRIFIC cast for Rusalka and this will make a great dvd, b/c the production is by Otto Schenk and Günther Schneider-Siemssen (the team who did the previous glorious Ring Cycle...the one before the current machine production). This Rusalka deserves to be preserved on video before the Met shelves it for some crazy production of Rusalka as a P.E. coach or some other nonsense that is supposed to make it relevant to today. With that said (by the way, I love the crazy Copenhagen Ring, but I think Wagner lends itself to crazy productions much more than other operas), I am interested in Nico Muhly's Two Boys, and I normally do not get interested in "new" operas. I have read good things about it. Norma with Radvanovsky......a new Norma usually gets me in a plane to NY pronto, but if I do go I will buy a ticket to the second cast with Angela Meade as Norma. I suspect that will be the better Norma. Meade is able to pay attention to detail and I think bel canto requires attention to detail. I've heard her in the Verdi Requiem, in a recital, and a concert. Her "Casta Diva" is beautiful. She's young and I am still doubtful she is the Norma of our times (I've listened to her Caramoor debut as Norma), but at least she will please in most of the role. I can't imagine Radvanovsky singing this role personally. Last time around the Met cast Guleghina as Norma, so I went to the second cast with Hasmik Papian. I heard Guleghina blast her way through Norma in a concert reading in Miami years ago. One of her ornaments in the cabaletta actually made me burst out laughing. It was a total "bull in a china shop" approach to the role. For some reason, they keep hiring blasters for the first cast and the actual talent for the second cast. Kaufmann's Werther might be great to see. He's one of the few singers I get excited about. His new Wagner iTunes disc (not sure what we now call an iTunes recording) is fabulous!!! His Siegmund in the new Mariinsky Walküre recording is nice too even if Gergiev and Anja Kampe ruin the recording for me. Voigt singing Marie in Wozzeck? That saddens me. This was one of the biggest and most beautiful voices around at one time. She should be singing so many big roles, but Marie????? I heard her as Ariadne, Lady Macbeth, Tosca, Salome, in concerts, etc. This was a large voice with everything. But then she had the gastric bypass surgery and when I saw her Salome in Chicago after the surgery the voice was a shadow of what it once was. To me that was a superhuman voice before the surgery. After the surgery it has simply sounded very, very human and frail. And now the idea of her taking on Marie. That is a bad sign. That is often taken by singers who know their days are numbered! I hope I am wrong!!!

Thanks, Jsmu! I am just now catching up on my reading. I somehow missed your comment. I am looking forward to seeing everything.