Birdsall

I started this topic so people can post what they see. I will be at the May 24 and 25 performances. As we discussed before, hopefully I can meet some of you. Helene suggested meeting at the costumes as soon as you get up the main staircase. If I meet some of you, great!!! Always fun to put a face to the name (or pseudonym)! LOL I have salt and pepper buzzed hair (half Asian) and will be with my partner who is taller and older than I am. Trying to post a pic, but it leaves a big question mark.

I found a bootleg of his Spartacus and found it jaw dropping. I think it was the DC one.

I love Lise's variation in this version of La Fille!

I love the dancing in Alonso's staging (based on Gorsky based on Petipa). It makes La Fille Mal Gardee seem like a grand ballet spectacle and is glorious. I watched the Annette Delgado performance on YouTube and it surprised me that it is in one act. Overall, I like the choreography in this version more than the Ashton version. But I think as a dramatic story and a production the Ashton is very charming and paces the actual story better (I like the way the rain storm is staged in Ashton's and also the constant metaphor of the ribbons). Ashton's ballet is a 20th century ballet and a great 20th century ballet. This 19th century version of La Fille does deserve to be seen. It is lovely. I hope both stay alive for a long time to come! I will always be happy to see either one or both!

I would agree with you that, ultimately, the ups-and-downs of an artist's life fade away, and all we're left with to evaluate is their work. Evaluating an artist's body of work should be just that -- an evaluation of the work. That being said, I do think that it's appropriate for a news story about an artist's death to discuss all aspects of their life. In Donna Summer's case, I don't believe reporters and reviewers of the time misquoted her regarding gays and AIDS. Due to great stress in her life at that time, she turned in a big way to a particular strain of religion and she said some unfortunate things. She certainly changed her tune later on and, in my opinion, that was the end of it. But I do think she said those things and it was right for the Times to mention that. Oh, I agree. I don't think anyone's bio should be washed clean of anything negative. For the most part the article is positive about her but didn't want to ignore the controversy either.

Miliosr, I think she realized how many of her fans were gay when her career stalled. But I did read an article where she claimed that all her comments were taken out of context and misinterpreted as the article you link us to says.I think gays who worshipped her felt betrayed, and she became persona non grata, and they were the ones who bought her albums. Who knows what the truth is. I think we can still enjoy someone's art despite her politics, as you seem to say also. I love Wagner's music, and some people refuse to listen to him, b/c the Nazis used his music, and there were anti-Semitic things he said in his writings. I think we can love the artist and disagree with the person's actual politics and even consider him a crappy person (he wasn't nice to his first wife from what I have read).

I don't really know if I could boo a performer while he/she is giving his/her all. Vasiliev gives it his all, although I can see how someone might consider it a bit much or hammy. I personally love it. To me he seems like he's taking chances and thrilling us. I think he's trying to show us a good time. Some may not like the results, but I don't think it deserves boos. Even being totally jaded about the opera world I have never booed a singer (and a couple sounded horrible). I just left during intermission and went home. To me the crime doesn't fit the punishment. Someone trying to entertain me (even if failing) does not deserve booing, but that is just my opinion. I can't get up there and do what they are doing, so I am not going to boo. If I am not having a good time, I leave. There is no need to denigrate a person. Of course, people have free choice and freedom to express themselves. I just hope these same people who boo stand up for important issues in the world when push comes to shove. I suspect they don't. They don't speak up when it is necessary to speak up about injustice in the world, but they feel free to tear down an artist who is giving his all. I find that frankly cowardly. I bet if the theater shined a light and the conductor and dancer motioned for the booer to come on stage and do the dance better he would curl up in a ball and cry.

So weird to be at the age where so many famous people we knew as kids are dying! I was a kid when Donna Summer was big, and it feels like yesterday!

Awwwww......so sweet about the liner notes......it makes you fall in love with love.....I also love when she is locked inside her house, and Colas opens the top of the door and lifts her up, and her body sways like a pendulum to the music. It is somehow so touching even if it isn't exactly a dance move. I guess it is a lift of sorts. I liked Roberta Marquez being a little naughty, b/c I saw the picture or painting that the ballet is based on, and I believe Lise is not supposed to be innocent! LOL I think Marquez was naughty enough but sweet at the same time. She made Lise a very touching character. Once again Ballet in Cinema enables us to see ballet across the Atlantic at the same time! I find it so amazing that I can watch the same ballet performance that you were at, Annamk as it is happening!!!! That is such a great development in technology!

Did anyone see the Royal Ballet's La Fille Mal Gardee at the movies (or in person if you live in London) today? I went to it today. The live transmission was at 2:30pm in Florida. I have only seen Ashton's La Fille once on video (Carlos Acosta video), and I enjoyed it the one time I saw it. I enjoyed it today too, especially the various dances involving so many ribbons. Colas and Lise do a lovely duet with ribbons and it ends with them creating a Cat's Cradle or whatever it is called (it might not have been a Cat's Cradle). Later Lise becomes a sort of May Pole as her friends dance around her. Then, there is an actual May Pole with ribbons. I read that all these ribbons represent attachment and ties that keep people together. It is a touching symbol. Steven McRae and Roberta Marquez were lovely together. They really did seem like two young people in love with each other to me. Both had moments to shine. I think Marquez looks like the sweetest person you would ever meet. She exudes such a warm and sweet personality. Since i do not know this ballet well at all I can't comment too much on the actual steps, but what I saw I really enjoyed. There were enough virtuoso moments and tender, sweet moments. It looks firmly based in the style of Petipa, but it has some 20th century moves inserted in that actually flow into the more classical. The dancer playing Alain (Ludovic Ondiviela) has to use his classical technique to actually dance sloppy. The backstage footage showed how his coach was telling him to stop using the beautiful classical line and make it more vaudeville for this goofy and nerdy character. In fact, I find the Alain character downright strange and very weird. Philip Mosley played the Widow Simone, and it was interesting to see him in a short interview before the show as himself. He is a good-looking man, but he makes the ugliest woman I have ever seen! LOL He was great in the clog dance and very funny. The interviews before the show had dancers showing their clogs (several corps members back up the Widow Simone in the clog dance) and how previous dancers signed the clogs underneath. These are interesting little details that we audience members would never know. I usually like tragedy where everyone is dying for love, but I have to say that La Fille Mal Gardee brings a smile to my face. It is charming without making my eyes roll. Even the chickens dancing at the beginning are okay! The "documentary" before and during intermission was called "A Very English Ballet," and this does seem to be true of Ashton's ballet. It has a very English feel to it. I can't wait to explore the other Gorsky/Petipa version that Cristian has told me about, but for now this was a charming ballet. I plan to see it live at Sarasota Ballet next season.

I thought the Valkyries bobbing up and down on the planks was one of the weakest moments of the entire Ring. That is just my personal opinion. LePage had some literal things (like a dragon head in Rheingold or the projected forest in Siegfried or the horse Grane for Brünnhilde), but then we are supposed to buy the planks going up and down as horses? To me it looked like a moment where he thought, "I better use the planks a little more....." I think that is part of the problem with this production. It doesn't quite know what it wants to do.....at times the machine is used to convey images that simply represent something it is obviously not...like in a metaphorical way. Planks as winged horses. Then, later in Götterdämmerung Brünnhilde has a horse that looks like a horse. So no continuity. Other times it is used (for example during the projected forest and forest bird) to show very concrete images. It comes across as a hodge podge of things to me. The 3D projections in Siegfried were actually very nice and I wish that would have been used more throughout the entire production. I will say that I did like that Grane had a role in this production even if it was a fake horse. I hate how most other productions Grane is nowhere to ever be seen despite Brünnhilde mentioning him several times. The Met brings all kinds of animals on stage and even horses in other operas, but for some reason it doesn't seem to want a live horse for Grane. In fact, most productions don't want to put a live horse on stage. The recent Boris Godunov had two live horses, so why not the Ring???? But I will take a fake horse like in LePage's Ring. That is an okay compromise. So, yes, there are some good things in this Ring, but overall, I am disappointed. I am glad to hear the singers look more comfortable in the production though. Bart

One of the Rhine maidens in Lepage's staging seemed absolutely terrified in a short clip they showed before the Das Rheingold HD. I think she had every right to be. Singers do not train as gymnasts or bungee jumpers. I think Lepage thought singers would be more game to do these sorts of things and probably thought he could convince star singers to do more things on top of the planks, but he quickly discovered that wasn't going to work. The singers have enough to worry about (lines, high notes, staying on pitch, seeing conductor, hearing prompter, acting, etc). Adding jumping all over a "machine" that MIGHT malfunction (so creating a certain level of fear) and I can imagine the resistance he came up against (plus his own fears that he could potentially endanger a singer). So he had to probably drop many of his hopes and ideas. But that made this "machine" dead in the water. He should have used more of his athletic crew that he used in the Damnation of Faust. In LA Achim Freyer used a team of people that was his "troupe" and Lepage had a troupe for previous things. He should have used them to double more (like when they walk up the Rainbow Bridge). I wonder why he didn't use them more to help alleviate fears for the singers and create more of a spectacle around the machine. I still am not sure how he would be able to do it but at times he could have them doing crazy stuff on top of the machine while the singer is in the pit singing the lines. I wouldn't want that to happen throughout the opera, but in some moments it might have worked and made the machine concept more viable.

It is funny that Gelb thinks the new Ring is revolutionary. I don't think so at all. I guess some of the technology on paper is revolutionary, and if the "machine" had actually made the impossible possible on stage (morphed into a dragon, for example) I might be more apt to agree. But to me the machine seemed to simply act as either an old fashioned set (what I mean is it just sat there at times even though it looked quite modern) or as a film screen. There were a few interesting things when the machine would move into the next scene, but for the most part it did not add anything to the story. To me it seemed to limit the drama in many instances (singers were sometimes stuck in certain areas of the stage and there wasn't much acting space). But I will say that the original video that they had on the Met's site before it was ever built made it look impressive. There was one moment where it looked like the "machine" was going to create the effect of one huge flying bird or horse (maybe for the Walkyries), but that never actually happened but the computer animated previews when still in the planning stages showed that. It is why I was so excited initially. I do think Lepage overestimated what he thought the singers would be willing to do. One of the biggest things is that too much movement can upset a singer's vocal line (breathing), so this is why opera has the stereotype of being a "stand and sing" genre. For good reason. When you have amazingly, glorious voices those singers put every ounce of energy into producing a column of sound that blows you away. Joan Sutherland, Montserrate Caballe, etc. could probably just stand and sing and your jaw dropped to the floor. You don't have that many singers like that but occasionally you do. The rest do have to act (and ideally you would have some good acting along with good singing). Just as Lepage put the Rhine maidens up in the air (to simulate them swimming in water) I think he was probably hoping and planning to put the "stars" into situations like that and if he could have had athletic singers who were fearless, he might have been able to create a much more exciting and vivid Ring, but because opera is a genre that voice reigns supreme over any drama and the singers' comfort (in order to support their voices) is of the utmost importance, he was not able to implement the things he had in his mind (that is my take on all this). So I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Basically, I think he thought he could create something amazing but he probably hit road block after road block due to safety concerns for the star singers, and rightly so..... But now the Met is stuck with this mediocre staging for the next 15-20 years probably. In all honesty I guess I would say it isn't a terrible, horrific production, but it simply doesn't live up to all the hype, and the old Met Ring excited more people than this one has.

I think Washington is planning to do Zambello's Ring after all. I think I read that. They had to put it on hold, but they are planning to finally finish (or redo) it. I will have to search where I read that info. When it started to be rolled out in DC, it was being billed as "The American Ring" but then they had to sort of shelve the project before it was finished. When SF did it, I think they downplayed the "American" aspect and focused much more on the environment, and I think that worked better. I did like the overall concept, although I thought there were mis-steps. Personally, I felt the little girl coming out with a small tree at the end was a cheap "pull at your heart strings" trick which made me and several other people I spoke with want to gag. But overall, the filmed portions which emphasized the environmental destruction worked well for me. But the absolute best part was Nina Stemme. I actually went to see her and feared she would cancel, but luckily she didn't and I left glad I attended. Without her participation I still would have enjoyed myself but I don't think it would be the memory that it is now, if she had cancelled.

Bart, you are correct about the sound in the live HD transmissions eliminating noise (or most of it) and evening out singers. There is no way to know how large or small a singer's voice is by audio or video recordings. You only hear the size of a singer's voice in the opera house and hearing her/him over the years while seated in various places in the house (different areas can make the singer seem louder than other areas). So it is best to see this live to judge, but I watched all the HD transmissions and did not feel the "machine" did anything for the story whatsoever that plain old-fashioned sets couldn't have done better. I had every intention of attending this Ring live. I attended LA's Ring, SF's Ring, and had every intention of attending this one after seeing each opera rolled out on the movie screens. The initial video that the Met's website used to have on it showed computerized images of the "machine" and some ideas what it might do. It looked so exciting and wonderful, before they ever built it. I was actually very excited. I thought this machine was going to make the impossible possible (turn into a dragon, etc), but I was very wrong about that. It ended up just being a clunky thing that acted as the main stage set and did not add anything to the story. In fact, at times it worked against the drama b/c it was just sitting there in a weird configuration sort of trying to be a area for the Gods to hand out on. Its best use, in my opinion, was in Siegfried as a 3 dimensional video screen. Anyway, the "machine" has been a huge disappointment for me, and I had an open mind but each installment at the movies made my heart sink. I loved the previous Met Ring that was ultra traditional, but I also love the Copenhagen Ring which is pretty crazy (like a wild ride). In Copenhagen's Ring a naked guy swimming in water is the Rhine's gold and his heart is torn out. One wild moment after the next in that Ring. I loved it! I loved the LA Ring too which was considered a wacky Ring. So I am not against new things. But I just find this "machine" so blah. For me it adds nothing. I also mourn Deborah Voigt's voice before the gastric bypass. I saw her as Lady Macbeth, Tosca, and Ariadne as well as concerts/recitals before the surgery. It was a GLORIOUS instrument. Maybe not very dramatic, but a beautiful Stimm-diva voice. Then, I saw her in Salome in Chicago and that was after the surgery. The voice was still nice but no longer great but with a noticeable lack of power. Of course, at the time her surgery was so well known that I gave her some slack, but she really has never recovered that glorious instrument. Not a bad voice, but the voice she has now would have never gotten her to the Met, in my opinion. She became famous from that glorious instrument before the surgery. Now she is okay and does an admirable job, and she has also become a more interesting singer in that her acting is a lot better. So that does make up for a lot. But my choice for Brünnhilde is Nina Stemme whom I saw in San Francisco last summer. I honestly felt like I saw a Brünnhilde of a lifetime, and I actually think that has been my final opera performance (attending live). It was a good curtain down for my opera viewing. Maybe one day I will return to opera. I am just so jaded. Bryn Terfel is good as Wotan, but I personally like a darker sound (more bass than baritone) in Wotan. That is a personal preference and many will disagree with me on that. Blythe alone was not enough to get me on a plane to the Met's Ring! LOL She is glorious. I might go to Seattle's Ring next summer. I am trying to decide. The cast doesn't make me salivate in the slightest. So I am leaning toward not going, but it is one of the most beautiful Rings ever created, and this is the last time they are doing it before creating a new Ring for Seattle. So that might get me motivated.

I have mixed feelings about Heuer. I think someone else would have made Florida Grand Opera into something much bigger and better. In all fairness FGO was doing extremely well in the 1990s. It imported a fair amount of well known singers at that time and really good unknown singers. He was heading things back then, so maybe I should give him more credit. Even the total unknowns had good voices. It seemed like singers were excellent even when they were total unknowns. I guess the economic downturn caused money to dry up, b/c just as FGO was becoming a very good opera company, someone let the air out of the balloon. Suddenly, I felt like I was listening to students sing their first major roles and failing miserably. I was so disappointed with the singing in the two seasons before this one, that this season was the very first season I didn't even bother to go to anything at FGO. For the last 20 years I have been timing my visits to my parents' or to a friend on Marco Island (and we would drive over to Miami) so that I could also catch FGO performances, but I don't bother anymore. It is a lot of driving for not much enjoyment at this point. Again, in all fairness, I did not see this, and maybe it was wonderful. I hope so. I have to say that I think FGO needs new blood to reinvigorate the company though. Miami City Ballet is one of the U.S.'s top ballet companies from what I can gather. But FGO is not one of the U.S.'s top opera companies. Even Dallas and Houston have better reputations. Seattle does too. FGO could and should be a better quality company.

If you want your name on an opera house what is now the incentive to give a large donation to get your name on there if you will be wiped off and the hall will be renamed the first chance someone else with more money comes along? Originally, the Arsht Center was the Carnival Center, but they gave Carnival Cruises its money back b/c Adrienne Arsht gave a much bigger donation. However, the Arsht Center looks like a huge cruise ship to me, so when Carnival was the big donor and the place looked like a ship, it all made sense. I think Carnival was the big donor from the beginning to completion, but then a year or so later or maybe less, it was renamed and money was given back (I believe) to Carnival. Oh, well..... I think both Sanford and his new wife need to learn some manners. You don't do that to a deceased spouse. Why can't he donate to something else in Miami and put his new wife's name on it?

Those are the Italian fouettees If you search "Italian fouettes" on YouTube, several examples come up. But here's another puzzle: "regular" fouettes were first done by an Italian dancer, Pierina Legnani, although she apparently first performed them in St. Petersburg. So where did the name "Italian fouettes" come from? I am assuming the Italian school (Cecchetti school) started using Italian fouettes as regular fouettes, so then the other countries started labeling them Italian fouettes. Or does someone have another theory or know the answer to California's question?

Sounds really cool. I have seen photos of the New World Symphony's new home, and it looks quite state of the art and fabulous!

Cristian, I wanted to see that. Good cast, an opera that is not done that often, etc., but I start my extended hours tonight and didn't think I could handle a trip and then working nights for the rest of the week. Bluebeard's Castle is a fascinating work and the more you listen to it the more you hear the details in the orchestra and how Bartok characterized each room. It is often done in concert form by orchestras, but not as often with any sets/costumes, so it is nice that New World Symphony did a "production" of it instead of just a concert reading! You are lucky to have seen it! It isn't everyday that you get to see it performed.

Yes, I find the piano appearance jarring and distracting. What is worse is that there are two split seconds when the screen goes black. I think it is when the editor removes the piano (split screen) but when it is put back on the side there is no blacking out. So why did they need to black out the picture to make the piano disappear? It happens twice, and it is just a split second both times, but SO annoying! This is a pivotal variation, and it is just too much distraction. That is my only complaint too. I actually can live with the piano, but the two split second black outs are horrible!!! But the entire rest of the video is wonderful. I was glad to be able to see the picture more clearly than the YouTube version and to be able to make it a large screen. I'm glad there is finally a commercial version available that is not from the 1980s!!! Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the other versions I have, but the video quality is not the same. This new version (which is more historically accurate apparently than the other versions available) is a gem, although the corps seems to have moments when they are not all placed properly. Overall, it isn't bad and the pluses far outweigh the minuses. I do like how the Bolshoi makes Jean de Brienne's and Abderahman's roles a bit larger and gives them more exciting choreography (Grigorovitch's choreography) on the one hand, but I love being able to see how the "original" ballet looked as well. Basically, I like both approaches.

I tend to have melodies haunt me when I am in the middle of listening to a ballet in preparation for a live performance. For example, I am re-watching various Bayadere videos I own in preparation for my trip to NY. So when I am walking my dog sometimes I can't get a piece out of my head. Same when I prepared for the live Coppelias in Miami. I found myself humming sections from the third act a lot!!!

I don't really care if they do 28 or 32 or whatever number. I am still impressed with 15! LOL But I was just wondering, b/c especially on videos that I watch I count out of curiosity and I was always confused whether to count the pirouettes or not. If someone just does 10-15 do you just say, for example, "I like her fouettes," or do you still call it 32 fouettes? Is 32 fouettes just a term to describe doing "a lot"? I should have been more clear! I didn't mean you were being. I mean to me, if they do 32 rotations, it counts as 32 fouettes. technically probably it isn't but I am not the kind of person who cares much As for Nina, the way I worded it, it sounded like I was being dismissive of her, "if you CARE about that, watch her." In fact I think her FAST clean singles are one of the most impressive fouette displays I've ever seen. I always found them a bit more impressive IRL then on video, especially a few years ago when she was really in her prime, but she shows you can do great singles at great velocity and make them a massive feat (you dont NEED to throw in bells and whistles to make it a knockout) i think she's fab! Okay, thanks! I didn't take any offense to anything you said. I just wanted to explain why I was counting. In a recent Miami City Ballet performance I went up to a friend and said something about the 32 fouettes, and the dancer had only done 15 or something like that (and no extras), and he said they weren't 32, and I agreed, but I told him I was using the term loosely, since I don't know what to call that "thing" if it is just 15 fouettes. I personally use the term "32 fouettes" to describe twirling like that a bunch of times regardless of the number, but I guess I am just supposed to say "fouettes" and only say "32 fouettes" if it is more close or over 32. LOL

I'm not so fastidious on this. If you want to see someone do 32, watch nina ananiashvilli. I don't really care if they do 28 or 32 or whatever number. I am still impressed with 15! LOL But I was just wondering, b/c especially on videos that I watch I count out of curiosity and I was always confused whether to count the pirouettes or not. If someone just does 10-15 do you just say, for example, "I like her fouettes," or do you still call it 32 fouettes? Is 32 fouettes just a term to describe doing "a lot"?

Thanks! It seems that very few actually do 32 then. Without counting the extra pirouettes I rarely count 32.