Ed Waffle

I saw that production in Chicago and it was an amazing night at the theater. It caused quite a stir in the opera world--I was able to hear much of the premiere on an internet link from KING. Tristan und Islolde is a work that is difficult to stage since there is so much standing around and signing--or "park and bark" as it is known in Wagnerian circles. Someone once wrote that he was at a performance of one of the Ring operas. He glanced at his watch, then drifted into a nap. When he awoke, fifteen minutes later, the same singers were in the same places on the stage, singing the same music. And concert performances can be problematic, since the score is written for the orchestra to be in the pit, not on stage behind the singers. Not easty to get the appropriate balance. Whatever--if one enjoys Tristan und Islolde it sublime. If not, it is torture. There was a review of the Vienna premiere in the Sunday Washington Post which gives more details, including the reception given the director, set designer and costume designer. Additional note to Watermill--do you happen to know why the Pacific Northwest has been such a fertile ground for staging Wagner's operas? Seattle Opera is world famous as a Wagner house. People come from (literally) all over the world to hear and see Wagner there.

It would be very difficult for the company, since the question would eventually (or immediately) become a right/wrong dichotomy with Isabelle Folkine telling them that they not only were performing it wrong but had always been doing so. Hard to imagine anyone being very charitable in those circumstances. And there were probably plenty of scenes on film in which the company did not jeer at Ms. Folkine. BW wrote: That could be a significant portion of the audience at performances of many works by many companies.

At the Detroit Opera House (not by any means a world class venue) I like to sit in the front row of what they call the Trustee's circle, which is the first five rows of the mezzanine. This is for a work I don't know well or something we are seeing only once. For repeated viewings, we also like the very first row of the orchestra and the very top row of the balcony. For Gisele, Swan Lake, Samson and Delilah, Eugene Onegin (the opera) we did both--the sound is great at the top of the house--much like the Family Circle at the Met. And the details of the production are nice to see from very close. A zillion years ago we were at a concert staging in Chicago of "Fidelio" at Orchestra Hall, which is an excellent venue. Sat in the gallery, which is as high as you can go there and is very steep. It was like a bombardier seat--as if we were looking straight down at Solti on the podium. Wonderful sound.

Deborah Voigt performed her first staged "Tristan und Isolde" in Vienna over the weekend. She reveived a 23 minute standing ovation. Many people have been looking forward to this since she did Act II of the opera in concert with the New York Philharmonic. Among those waiting backstage to greet her were Sarah Billinghurst of the Metropolitan Opera and Speith Jenkins of the Seattle Opera. While neither would have had contracts actually in hand, each could have produced one for the first U. S. series of performances by Ms. Voigt.

The plate spinner followed by Senor Wences followed by Tebaldi and Tucker in the first act duet from "La Boheme".

While the new burlesque is just a rumor out here in the heartland, one has been aware of it. From the article--one from Dirty Martini: "I liked burlesque because it was this weird, underground thing..." She probably knows a lot more about the history of her art form than do I and sometimes quotes are not contextual, but my understanding is that burlesque was, at least during post World War II period and into the 50s, more a mainstream form of entertainment she would indicate. Earlier than that might have been even more so--Sally Rand and her bubble dance at the Worlds Fair in Chicago in 1933, for example. Also from the article--from Kate Valentine: "I've been the producer of a show for five years; that I can still fill a room and pay people to do it is good. " A wonderful point and one very much worth making. The New Burlesque has enough staying power (or legs, if you will) to allow someone to be creative, true to her muse and also to make enough money doing it to continue.

This movie snuck into Motown for one day, at the Detroit Film Theater, an auditorium that is literally an "art house"--it is in the basement of the Detroit Institue of Arts. Which means it might plays for a week at one of the theaters that show independent movies sometime this year. The local reviewer wrote that the real stars are not the dancers, but the constantly moving cameras.

Why stop with Joan of Arc? Here are a few more that could work: Barbie as Mary Magdelene Barbie as Queen Victoria Barbie as Queen Christiana--in a remake of the Garbo classic Barbie as Amelia Erhart Barbie as Violetta Valery or as Camille--another Garbo role And in the next big tie-in, Mattel and the Beyreuther Festpiele announce: The Barbie Tristan und Isolde Isolde...........Barbie Tristan..........Ken King Marke...Tommy Brangane......Kelly Kurwenal..... Ivan the Porcupine Conducted by Carlita appropriately outfitted in black and red hair to match her black and white-striped outfit and furry tail.

This is a bit off topic, but Alexandra's post above points up a question I have had for years. Does anything get edited by anyone anymore? I realize that formulation of the question is too extreme, but it is the way that it seems when reading almost anything. I am posting this here since many of the contributors to BalletTalk are writers, editors or both and may have an insider's perspective. I may be oversensitive to it for a few reasons--one is that I have read the "New Yorker" for about 35 years so can remember what excellent editing was. And of course, based on the memoirs of writers from earlier periods, by the time I was reading it the editing had collapsed compared to 35 years before that. I assume that part of that must be due to writers getting back at editors. Another reason is that I have worked in a part of the typesetting and printing industry in which every comma had to be in the right place, every column of numbers correctly aligned and every word spelled correctly. Sentences must make sense at least to the expected audience. Some books are published by reputable houses (even if the houses are owned by multi-national media companies) that read as if they were uncorrected galleys. Magazines often read as if the articles were put through some type of auto-edit function, but not even looked at by human editors. Part of it is due to technology--spell checking means you don't need proofreaders, for example. Part to the structure of the publishing business--the need to do everything more cheaply than before. Part is the rise of the internet---to the perceived need to compete on the basis of speed.

To absolutely no one's surprise ChevronTexaco will stop supporting the Metropolitan Opera "Saturday Afternoon at the Opera" radio broadcasts. From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/21/arts/21CHEV.html

The Company was quite good; some members were wonderful. Bernice Coppieters was sublime far beyond my abilties to describe. The ballet ("Cinderella") was trash. And not even good trash.

I didn't mean to imply that it was necessary for an artist to revolutionize the forms in which he works to be great. Mozart wrote music using the form he found-- symphonies, piano concertos, string quartets, operas, etc. etc. In the "Haydn" quartets, for example, there is mucis that is is extremely emotional and expressive but is presented in a detached manner. One in particular (which I happen to be listening to now), the A Major, K. 464 has very little melodic material as such--it is made up of movements between extremely complex fugues made up of themes that are developed and then abandoned. Haydn, to whom it and the other five that make up this set of quartets, said that this piece shows "the most profound knowledge of music". I will agree with old Franz Joseph on this--and it is correct of so much more of Mozart's work. One way to look at the greatness of Mozart is to take one of his works that you love and know best--whether by listening to a favorite performance over and over, studying the score, playing it, whatever. Now take a portion of that work--one page of the score, for example--and try to improve it. Find the flaws in it and fix them. Change one one bar, one cadence, even one note and make it better than it is. Split a quarter note into triplets. Mark a chord to be played arpeggio. Change a short phrase marked glissando to staccato. Since we are trying to improve on perfection, it doesn't work. Which is one of the marks of greatness in Mozart. I realize I have hijacked the original thread, which is how (if at all) one can compare "greatness" in choreographers and decide if one is greater than other. Which is beyond me.

Something like this is popular in opera circle. It is "What if" a character did something else. Boheme What if Rodolfo decided to go along to the Cafe Momus with his friends when they first asked? When Mimi knocked on the door there would be no one home. Salome What if when Salome says "Ich will deinen Mund kussen, Jochanaan" he answers "Pucker up, baby"? At least there wouldn't be any difficulty with the dance of the seven veils, since there wouldn't be one. Turandot What if the Prince of Persia gets the answers to Turandot's riddles right? At least we would be spared Michael Bolton trying to sing "Nessum Dorma".

I think that this sums up the difficulty in comparing choreographers--although we want to do it. Choreographers' work must be performed to be studied--has to be seen on stage. So even though Leigh would like a good argument for an absolute comparison, I think it is an impossible task. The same is not true for composers or dramatists, even though they write works that are performed. One can look at a score of (for example) Beethoven's Op. 127, one of the late string quartets, and see that it is denser, more complex, more filled with musical ideas regarding melody, harmony, rhythm, development and overall structure than anything written by Sibelius. To use the same method with dramatists, one could say that Shakespeare is superior to Richard Brinsley Sheridan. And once again the evidence is there on the page. Sheridan wrote comedies that are witty, wise, have great roles for actors and are still in the repertory. Shakespeare wrote comedies that can change your life. In the cases of both Beethoven and Shakespeare it is somewhere between very difficult and impossible for a performance to rise to the level of the music or the play. Which is fine, since the material is so rich and complex that any one performance could never encompass its entirety. Performance is ephereral. Whatever it was on stage, we can be sure it will be different in our memory. A performance can be moving. It can open up parts of a work that we haven't seen before. It can make us think of the work (or other things) in new ways. But it will never bring out everything that Shakespeare or Beethoven put on the page. Since ballet has to be seen--there is no universally accepted language in which the works of Balanchine or Bournonville have been written down--it isn't possible to compare them in the same way that other works can be. When one gets to comparisons of the truly great, though, it does come down to a matter of taste. Part of the greatness of Beethoven was that he redefined many of the forms in which he worked, large orchestral works especially. While it is simplistic to look at symphonies as "pre" or "post" Beethoven, it is a good starting point. Mozart didn't stretch and change any of the many musical forms in which he worked. Opera, chamber music, symphonies and concertos, sonatas for individual instruments were all the same both before and after Mozart--although he did come toward the end of the period in which opera seria flourished and wrote one the last successful ones. Mozart simply wrote using these forms in unimaginably creative and sublime ways.

"Northern European" does seem like the author is referring to the music of Sibelius, Grieg, Norgard, Haalvorsen, Nystrom, Hamerik and other Nordic composers. He could have simply written "European" and been more correct. Of course he also could have written "Vienna/Berlin/Darmstadt" and been pretty close. While it leaves out most serious composers, it does include many who Americans think of as "Classical" and several who actually are: Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, Brahms, Schumann (Robert and Clara), Mendelsshon, Schoenberg, Berg, Hindemith, Haydn, Webern, several Strausses and a bunch of Bachs.

I disagree, having seen two ballets by Monte Carlo, including "Cinderella" which was a disgusting excrescence on the face of ballet by Malliot and a terrible misuse of his dancers. His "Romeo and Juliet" was not bad.

Two very interesting questions for those from the article for those who don't want to bother following the url: From the article: "Critics of orchestra management are not so sure. They suggest that if a city cannot come up with the money to support a symphony orchestra, perhaps it does not need one." (emphasis added by EW) "Some cultural figures say it is hard to sell classical music in places where much of the population has no direct connection to the northern European cultures that produced most of it." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/arts/mus...sic/14SYMP.html

Carla Fracci was described in a brief article in "Dance" magazine several years ago as "the romantic icon of the 1960s", which is quite a title to bestow on anyone. It was in an account of a movie about Maria Callas, one that was never made, in which Ms. Fracci was instrumental in some way. I was looking through some older issues of "Opera", the British magazine, and found a review of "Aida" at the Arena di Verona in a Franco Zeffirelli production from last summer. "Aida" has been done 423 times at Verona since 1913 and Zefferelli excels in the epic arena style, even when indoors. Looking for something besides monumentality, plenty of supers and lots of animals, Zeffirelli, according to the article, "assigned to the ageless Carla Fracci the invented character of Akmen, a spiritual creatue, medium of heavenly energy, who accomanies the path of the characters' passions." (It probably made more sense in Italian). The term 'ageless' doesn't seem to be used that much on this side of the Atlantic--but it always seems to refer to women, since men don't have to worry about aging. Carla Fracci embodies it as much as anyone, as does Sophia Loren. In France it is often attached to the names of film actresses--Catherine Deneuve, Jean Moreau or Fanny Ardant, for example. In the UK one (at least this one) thinks of Margot Fonteyn--plus Diana Rigg, Helen Mirren and Glenda Jackson. There are a few obvious characteristics to this--each of the women are beautiful--some excrutiatingly so. All are so talented as to be the standard by which others are compared. And all of them may have been the sine qua non of their art form at a time when the critic who bestows the ageless epithet upon them was just falling in love with ballet, movies or the stage. Whatever the reason, and even if it is yet another indication of how the world is defined by males and their views, I am happy there are still some very ageless ladies like Carla Fracci still inspiring people like Zeffirelli.

I think that the title of "producer" in Hollywood has become so broad as to be meaningless. Not long ago titles like "associate producer" (the only person who would associate with the producer) or "assistant producer" (someone's brother-in-law) would be thrown around promisciously, and "executive producer" would be someone who delivered something--often he or she was an agent. The title of Producer, however, was sacrosanct. It meant the person who put the deal together, got everyone hired, pitched the deal to a studio and got the OK and served as buffer between the production and the studio once it started. Now it means Neve Campbell.

"One cannot help feeling that Wagner's ultimate solipistic ideal would be to have no audience--and he may yet achieve that aim." Continuous Renewal in Opera, April 2002

I generally have no problem "shushing" people who talk, etc, although I usually don't have to. My wife, who is the soul of forbearce on most things has no patience with those who transgress in this way. And she is very effective--a glare that lowers the median temperature by about ten degrees, followed by a laser like "sshhh". If that doesn't work, there is the most simple and direct approach: "Will you please keep quiet?!" But neither of us is particularly comfortable with shutting people up when recorded music is being played. When there is an orchestra in the pit playing one should be quiet out of respect for the musicians if not the rest of the audience. Most importantly, of course, is that music being played by these musicians at this time and place will never be heard in the same way again. And who knows, it may well be the most sublime rendition of (for example) the "Fidelio" overture that one has ever heard. This is not the case, obviously, with recorded music. I can listen in greater comfort and with better sound to the same music at home, and pick which recording I would like to hear. Here in the Motor City, by the way, I think that people hear with their eyes as well as thier ears, since dimming the house lights is taken as a signal to speak more loudly to make sure one is heard.

I thought "Gosford Park" fell somewhere between self-parody and ho-hum. "Ready to Wear" was a lot of fun. "Short Cuts" had some brilliant moments and while extremely uneven and wretched in parts, was overall an excellent movie. "The Studio" was decent and trying to find all the cameos was fun. "Dr T and the Women" was unwatchable (I tried). The only works I have seen Neve Campbell in have been "Last Call" in which she played F. Scott Fitzgerald's secretary--Jeremy Irons was the drink ravaged Fitzgerald, the superb Sissy Spacek was Zelda--and "Wild Things", a movie as pornographic as you will see from a major distributor. She seems to be part of the popular culture, though. Is it due to the "Scream" movies? She is one of those instantly almost recognizable young movie actors who I find it difficult to tell from other almost reconizable young actors. From the trailer, Malcolm MacDowell is well cast as the talented/tyranical/insane/committed artistic director, a role he could play in his sleep.

One difficulty with recorded music at ballet performances is that audiences have become used to not shutting up when recordings are played. This will only get worse. While there are plenty of handy dead horses to beat regarding why audiences are rude, boorish or just plain stupid, it would be appropriate for the management of the house to announce something along the lines of "Please allow you neighbors to listen to the overture...." It happens (at least here in Motown) much less often when there is an orchestra in the pit--maybe people think that it is part of what they paid for, so they tend to keep quiet. But the beginning of an overture, with the curtain still closed and nothing else happening just is not enough of an event in today's world to make people realize that it is time to stop talking. Especially since most of the audience don't know what the overture to "Marriage of Figaro", "Swan Lake" or anything sounds like. So perhaps if not an announcement then something to let people know that the show has started.

The Joffrey brought a short, all Diaghilev Ballets Russes program to Detroit: “Les Noces”, “Parade” and “Le Sacre du printempts”. Principal roles on Saturday evening were: Les Noces: Bride..............Trinity Hamilton Bridegroom....Samuel Pergande Parade Chinese Conjurer......Calvin Kitten Little American Girl....Jennifer Goodman Acrobats...................Maia Wilkins and Willy Shives Sacre: The Chosen One..Deanne Brown The Old Woman...Maia Wilkins An Old Sage.........Adam Sklute A few notes: I have never looked forward to “Les Noces” and feel that it is one of the works of that period that hasn’t aged well, despite its Nijinska/Stravinsky genesis. A good way to approach it would be to make it much longer—about two hours per tableau would be fine. It could be presented as a Phillip Glass / Robert Wilson / Einstein on the Beach type extravaganza. “Parade” is such a lighthearted and engaging work that it took me a minute to realize that I had never seen it. The Erik Satie score is very familiar, of course, and the costumes and sets contain some of the basic images of early 20th century art. The cubist constructs for the Manager from New York and the Manager in Evening Dress are less amazing today but still wonderful to look at. If you have spent much time in Chicago, the Manager on Horseback is a welcome shock of recognition. There is a statue in steel by Picasso about five stories high in the Civic Center Plaza in the Windy City. It is simply called “The Picasso” and looks very much like the head of the two-person horse in this ballet. The Joffrey’s wig, makeup and costume department did a masterful job in executing the reconstructed creation, especially for Chinese Conjurer. The score is influenced by jazz and ragtime and is full of extra-musical elements—pistol shots, sirens, typewriters. Since a good part of the audience has probably never seen or heard a typewriter, I wonder what they made of that odd noise. The music itself is almost self-consciously post-Debussy, although it also moves from tender to purposely archaic to splashily colorful. Joffrey Ballet had the U.S. premier of “Parade” and they do a great job with it. “Sacre” is almost an old friend, although calling such a stark work friendly is strange. Satie characterized the score as “vibrating transparency”. No one has described it any better. While the music in has a very spiky angular rhythm and is full of dissonance, it was a perfect modernist setting for an imagined eons old pagan ritual. It is impossible to reconstruct what that riotous 1913 premier audience thought and felt at the choreography--accounts of the first performance say that the music, even with Stravinsky’s augmented percussion, was all but inaudible, either on stage or in the house. However, one’s own response to the turned in feet, the graceless seeming jumps and awkward looking postures can at least give a hint. “Sacre” remains on of the most powerful works of the 20th century. Stravinsky wrote longer, more complex scores. Symphonies, operas and other genres followed, some of them brilliant but nothing had the impact of “Sacre” and nothing he wrote was more important. Deanne Brown as the doomed virgin and the rest of the company were excellent, giving a real sense of the inevitability of the sacrifice and also how it was rooted in time immemorial. The repetition of the patterns by the various classes of people on the steppe seems both natural and frightening. That human sacrifice to an implacable and unknowable was not only part of the past but also the present and (one assumes) the future is one theme that can be taken from this performance. Based on this program the Joffrey is a company to be treasured. A note concerning BalletAlert: When one types “parade massine” into the Yahoo search box, the first page (of 813) that is returned is that of Estelle Souche.

Before the Joffrey Ballet performance at the Detroit Opera House last night (some discussion of that later in another thread) a long trailer for Altman's new movie, due out in the fall, was shown. It features the Joffrey Ballet--there were lots of backstage, onstage and not sure where shots. Ballet seems like a good vehicle for an Altman film. I think he is a genius although he has made some unwatchable stuff also. Not much info yet, but here is one link: http://us.imdb.com/Details?0335013