papeetepatrick

I'll be up in the area Saturday afternoon, so I thought I'd try to get something for one of the Rubies performances. Does anyone have any idea if this sort of thing sells out so fast I shoudn't even wait that long? I could do it by phone or online tomorrow, but I like going to the box office when I can. Please advise.

I know what you mean, but I also think it may not be a matter of 'letting go properly' so much as 'whether she is letting go as she says she is, by looking at other things that don't have to do with her husband and daughter.' Of course, even 'not letting go' is legitimate--and many I've known have never recovered from a spouse's death, and followed soon with their own death, much less a child in the same period. I follow her pretty closely, and I think if her own health holds up despite being the frailest person I've nearly ever seen (and much more so at a reading in 2005 than one I heard in 2001) she will be able to do some other kinds of work again, and even during the period of 'Magical Thinking's gestation, she did write a major article for NYReview on Cheney. I do recall in her immediately previous work 'Where I Was From', which I'd think Californians would all be interested in (and the Lakewood section is fiercely brilliant), she was reflecting on the pioneers, among whom were her ancestors, and mentioned that grief was not something anyone making their way through the dangers of the Old West could afford to do. So that a play like this could easily appear to be a luxurious kind of grieving process, and of course it is that, but that's not inappropriate for a talent such as hers--and, in any case, the idea for the play was not hers; it took her awhile to come around to it. All great artists have some personal trait that is perhaps not quite as admirable as some of the others, and people unrealistically expect them to be perfect. With Didion, the accusation of snobbism has always been there, and it's easy enough to see it--it's then according to whether you think it's minor in comparison to what else she offers (I obviously do, even though I just don't happen to be interested in this play, other than knowing about it.)

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/thea...th_theatre_lahr This is the most interesting review I've read, and its conclusion is undoubtedly viable, if not totally so. It reminded me of the old Arlene Croce/Bill T. Jones controversy that we've discussed, to some degree. But I can see why Lahr might say that the play extends the magical thinking, because it is hard to think after too much exposure that this is still also (at least) about everyone's grief, about the very nature of all grief, and not, perhaps a bit morbidly, about continuing to talk about this particular grief--of course, this kind of pitfall was bound to happen, which is in itself sad, but still I think his final point convinces me of this: Even though there is a tastefully modest tone to the proceedings, there are too many proceedings for it to not seem 'too much'.

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/the...ews/10gabl.html A fairly decently-written review, but a little more lame than I think the show deserved. Remark at end is not really appropriate here, and comes across as a bit silly.

I bought a ticket for this with this flyer I first started getting with 'Apple Tree', and it was only $22.75. If anyone wants it, I'll mail it to you, but do it ASAP: 40% off on perfs. thru May 13, but you must order by April 20, so that gives just enough time even for that one. 30% off on perfs. from May 15-July 15, but you also must use this by April 20. You can also use the code over the phone, which I can give to anybody and you don't need the mailer. There was no fee at box office, and I had ordered by phone last time, which was slightly smaller fee than online. I think $22.75 is amazing for a show of this caliber--have no idea how I got on their mailing list, but I would have never started if they hadn't sent it. So, I wrote down code, and will only send mailer to person who knows they'll go to actual box office.

This points to something interesting, because all of these composers are 20th century composers, and only Boulez and Carter, both seniors, but neither a part (in the strictest sense) of the newest developments. But I think for many people, and most likely for the purpose of this post, all these composers, who used to be 'contemporary' and some of whom are exponents of what is now called 'modernism' and 'high modernism' but are not 'post-modern', to be sure, are still the ones that many people have trouble with and will never accept in the same way they still cling to 19th century music and older. Much newer music which is being taken seriously has an 'easier' quality to it, which is often, as you say, 'tripe'. But music that is too inaccessible for all but a few may sometimes remain so, even if that wasn't the pattern in the past (this is probably good, at least it's not a matter of yet another form of endless repetition). There was always 'easy music' side by side with all that that you've named, but the two are less separated now, and that's borne out by some of the New Yorker piece posted above. Of the ones you named, Bartok, Stravinsky and Prokofiev are far more embraced than Webern and Boulez. This could go on endlessly, but the fact that Webern, who goes way back, is still mostly loved by a relatively small, knowledgeable group says something. There are many works of Stravinsky and Bartok and Prokofiev that are as popular as Brahms and Schubert, by contrast. Serial music is wonderful if you can take the time for it, but it has something a little too cold to it that does not endear it to people--this is partially because most of the elements of Romanticism (I realize that covers a huge territory) have been cancelled out. You can find a volcanic romanticism in Boulez, for example, and great sensuality of sound-world, as in 'repons', but it is not like Prokofiev's Russian sounds in 'Romeo and Juliet' and Bartok's flesh-and-blood music. Music and art that is mostly cerebral does not sound quite human in the same sense, so it is not going to be as popular until the human becomes equally cerebral on a large scale (not necessarily a wonderful prospect.)

'Fountain of Bachshisaray' is incredibly boring even though short. I was only watching it for Sizova, and could only think of her in the film of 'Sleeping Beauty'. Still beautiful, but there was a lot of pallor-look in her face in this video. As Mel had said, it 'doesn't travel well', which is perhaps the most polite thing I've ever heard, even if he likes it somewhat more than I do. I don't even remember any sense of 'fountain' in it, even Respighi manages to pull that off. I can't stand 'Mayerling', and never want to see it again, no matter who is in it. I actually would have liked to 'imagine' it, though, if I hadn't seen it, which even took that little pleasure away (I'm still getting over what was done to the 'Mephisto Waltz') but I definitely like to imagine all the wonderful performances people have talked about to Philip Glass scores, because 'it only takes a moment' and then it's all over with. Unfortunately, I did see Robbins's 'Glass Pieces' with all those 'wage slaves' trudging across the stage, dehumanized and deeply, if temporarily empathized with and pitied by the parterre box holders... I don't care much for 'Raymonda', although I'd go see a great production if anyone thinks to warn me. Glazunov can be lovely, but a little bit goes a long way. I wonder if there are small works with just a few Glazunov waltzes, 5-9, which would be very nice, I think. There's one, I think in D Major, which is just ravishing when you hear its opening notes. Several have explained that the truncated version of 'Apollo' is inferior, but I'm not experienced enough to dislike this version, which I have seen several times with Nikolaj Hubbe in the last few years, and never gotten tired of it. I also feel this way, and that is wonderfully said.

Yes, that's it. And I remember it from when Paul first talked about this video about a year ago, and then I looked it up and watched it. I had forgotten that Nureyev was even in it, although I wrote about it also right after I saw it. I never saw him do it in person, but other films of his 'Corsaire' were a lot more exciting and fierce than that one. But Sizova was just a natural wonder in that one. Thanks for adding this, because I was too lazy to go searching last night, and can't believe the one image I have after a year is only of Sizova's animal vitality--I was actually confusing the piece in memory with the Jakobsen Waltz on there, not because it was similar as dance, but just that I remembered something about the whole video. The Nureyev 'Corsaire' I love the most is with Fonteyn, and I think Fonteyn is so wonderfully slightly naughty in it, to that rather campy music.

FURTHER EDITED TO ADD: (April 8) We got this all cleared up, so there is no problem any more, but I think I will just put a little additional material up here instead of re-writing the whole thing. I put the part about the importance of FIRE in a dancer to me in italics since I'm going to leave the rest for now. The post had had to be deleted because the policy is not to link to other discussion boards and glitches occurred, including that nothing but the link material was visible in my original post and also that the moderator had pm'ed me, but I never received the explanation. So I was just guessing. But since the link had been to some really good remarks by our own Alexandra, I wanted to mention them briefly but without linking to them. Some people on a ballet board had been asking about the use of 'ballerino' and artist here had written 'ballerina/o', but I think I was the first to pick up on the 'o'. Googling I found the text in which Alexandra explains that 'ballerino' is indeed correct, and is technically and balletically more so than 'premier danseur'. This interested me a great deal, because I never hear the term and haven't read it here, but had always somehow thought that was the correct term anyway. Therefore, I thought maybe a number of people here had encountered this as well and wondered about it. So, we may now say 'ballerino' when we feel it is right to do so! which may or may not be always, I am not the one to know for sure about that. [The following is all earlier, before we'd gotten the problems fixed. I've had to leave it for now, but the above has explained that well.] My post on FIRE was deleted, without any message of explanation sent so I will repost part of it until the deleter wants to tell me why, because it was inoffensive unless my link commending a member's clarification of 'ballerino' as opposed to the 'premier danseur' was interdit. Edited to add (April 7 or April 8 a.m.): 'Posts from other discussion boards and Everyman blogs are not official sources.' Okay, I guess that was the rule I broke. Sorry, I hadn't known that would matter, but I think maybe I was supposed to be notified. Maybe that's not the rule I broke though, because it could be that any discussion board, whether or not in the realm of the 'official' or not, is defendu. So please explain. In any case, I had said that, since the 'o' was included in the title of the original post, that that meant 'ballerino', therefore, as well as 'ballerina', and nobody had mentioned any men--and I said that Nureyev when young had a lot of fire, especially in things like 'Le Corsaire' where he was as if possessed of its pagan essence, and that Nijinsky surely would have had it too. I'll add that Alla Sizova among ballerinas seemed to have a lot of it when young, as one sees in that old film from the Kirov when she does some superhuman sorts of jumps that are like some especially strong and graceful animal (I forget the choreographer's name of the piece, I think this was on 'Glory of the Kirov'. ) FIRE is to me the one of the most important things in a great dancer as well as a singer or pianist, etc., sometimes the most important, but not always.

I am finally catching up on some shows I missed by at least listening to the scores. Right now I'm listening to 'The Life' and I can't even believe how good this score is, better than 'City of Angels' as music, I think definitely. One of the blurbs has said it's his (Cy Coleman's) best score since 'Sweet Charity'. I'd agree, I simply had no idea how beautiful it is, even though there have been complaints about the book from some reviews I've looked up--bound to be full of cliches, but I think even trying to do this sort of show is frought with every peril. Still, a score with real songs that don't all sound the same is something distinguished, and I really am sorry not to have seen it. I imagine it didn't have even more praise due to the subject matter--has to be, because this score is one of the best of the last 40 years. Ben Brantley said it had echoes of 'Threepenny Opera' , 'West Side Story', and 'Rent', but that says something to me about his ear: I think it's a lot more like Gershwin, Arlen and also some elements from LA noir movies like the 1975 'Farewell My Lovely' theme and some of Jerry Goldsmith's things, like 'Chinatown.' Light-years beyond the score for 'Rent', I'm afraid, and the resemblance to 'West Side Story' is pretty much a surface matter, I don't even hear much 'Threepenny Opera', if at all. Did you see it? If so, do tell about it.

That's probably part of it, but the place is so full of energy right now, that they are finding all ways to do everything. I've corresponded on a blog with a frightful British neocon who lives in Shanghai for about a year (or rather I did as long as I could stand it--type that swears the New York Times is 100% hard-leftist), and you pick up the incredible rapidity with which things are moving. Shanghai is probably the most extreme example even for China--future-future-future at all costs, but they are just becoming very successful in all markets. By comparison, we go back and forth and have some energy again from time to time, but it seems torpid compared to what they're doing in leaps and bounds. We're actually possibly at a stage ahead of them, in which so much in education has gotten such a more practical focus than it did in the past--but this can include decadent as well as practical elements and much of the popular culture proves that day in day out, with no Chinese equivalent to Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell absurdities on the horizon yet, it just doesn't play. There may be simply enough markets due to that many people plus booming markets that all the pop, all the classical, and even the traditional Shanghai and Peking Opera are still there, too, I'm sure. I can't say I know quite what to make of it or that I can imagine outcomes. Another thing I noticed was this: “Much of what people talk about as being identifiable as the Chinese accent in music is really just not measuring up to the international standard,” he [Zhenyang] said. “It’s subtle, but you can hear the same flaws in the performances of people trained in China. That’s what I want to overcome.” I'd agree that that is much of it, but not all of it. You can even hear a different approach to the Romantic traditions, say, in Rachmaninoff, in Lang Lang's playing: It's gorgeous, but there's still a slightly different relationship to what the music is doing, where it came from. That's normal, and is always the case. We've been into related areas with race in ballet, origins and authenticity of ballet, etc., i. e., there still has been no surpassing of Russians in any ultimate sense yet.

dirac, I'm so glad you read that so I could be prodded to finally get to it. I was a little bit dreading it, and I can see why, given my curmudgeonly personality, even though it's obviously supposed to be this very positive thing. I'm probably just scared of China in general, there's no limit to what they can do. Of course, this is undeniably admirable, but I can't say I love it when they are so obviously getting ahead of us. For example, I hated hearing this: 'The Chinese enthusiasm suggests the potential for a growing market for recorded music and live performances just as an aging fan base and declining record sales worry many professionals in Europe and the United States. Sales for a top-selling classical recording in the West number merely in the thousands instead of the tens of thousands 25 years ago. ' Well, I didn't really want to know that, even though I knew that. 'More profoundly, classical music executives say that the art form is being increasingly marginalized in a sea of popular culture and new media.' Oh, I really didn't want to know that, and I also knew that, but since I think about that all the time, I was most unhappy to read that I was right. 'Fewer young American listeners find their way to classical music, largely because of the lack of the music education that was widespread in public schools two generations ago. As a result many orchestras and opera houses struggle to fill halls.' And, of course, how is this not going to apply to ballet down the line? No matter what kind of excellent developments are happening with regional companies, there's no way that ballet can be anything but subject to exactly the same statistics (probably already, they may just not have gotten round to telling us in this piece.) “There’s no question the talent is there,” said Joseph W. Polisi, president of the Juilliard School. “The commitment to Western art music is definitely there. But is that talent prepared to absorb what we have here?” Is he kidding? He's suffering from the same kind of wishful thinking and denial I'm striving for (and failing at). Of course, 'that talent is prepared to absorb...'--because they can afford an endless number of casualties who would be subject to our 'Is Ballet a Sport or an Art' thread or Music and Opera ones that are related, given all those numbers that are moving in that direction, and still come out ahead in terms of enough who are really sensitive and musical (if that continues to be possible in a meaningful sense elsewhere, that is. Attitudes about art are changing pretty fast). There are going to still be, within less than a decade, I imagine, a glittering array of Chinese musical stars who match Lang Lang. This doesn't mean we've gotten, then, Chinese replacements for Franz Liszt, because the day of pianists being treated as rock stars is lost in the 19th century, but it does mean they'll turn out the majority of virtuosos who are also musical within a few years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/arts/mus...&hp&oref=slogin This is bound to be interesting. I'll get around to it later tonight.

I thought it was a well done, thoughtful review too. I've read some others and actually like it that the reviews are mixed, it seems appropriate. The collaboration is as perfect as possible, but surely imperfect too. I'm a fan of Didion and Redgrave, but I'm no longer interested to see this. Here are some other links: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q...tnG=Search+News You can look at the photos of the pre-opening party, the celebs at the theater coming in, and at this one at Broadway World, the second one of Didion is disturbing, as she smiles--possibly tells you more about the reality of what it all means than even Ms. Redgrave could have done. Didion went to the party, but Redgrave wanted to stay focussed before performing. Quite an event and probably one-of-a-kind. By the way, someone could combine Ray's thread with my original one about the show when it was first announced. No matter how understated Redgrave in particular has tried to keep this, I'm not convinced this doesn't have something I don't quite like about it (at least the opening, which comes across as too garish and fashionable, perhaps), but then I thought the book, Didion's most popular to date, was actually her weakest work (most think it's her most powerful): She could no longer be cold as ice even if she was a 'cool customer', and she's best when she's been glacial or even superciliously unfair, I've often thought.

dirac--I'd be interested to hear how you thought they managed the story too. I know it's hard if you don't care much for the score, but did it seem an anachronism? That's why I never gave it much thought till now.

It is funny. But you and 4mrdncr made me remember trudging all the way through 'Hawaii', although I had to check it out of the library umpteen times. I also got hold of Harold Robbins in junior high school and just felt sooooooo cool reading 'The Carpetbaggers' and 'Where Love Has Gone'--and I still love the trash movie version of both of them for certain scenes--like Baker/Peppard in the former and the hilarious one with Davis/Hayward toward the end of the latter.

This was quite well-said by artist about Handel, though, and actually makes me appreciate it more than I did before. I'm slightly startled, but artist's use of words is eloquent: 'an enlightening superior quality that reacts as brilliancy' is most inspiring. Handel is very extroverted, and even though the 'heart-breaking' things can be found in Handel, too, as pointed out by Mashinka and Zerbinetta, these triumphal things are worth giving a thought to--although I don't dislike Handel, he's a composer I realize I never give a single thought to. After this, I still don't really want to listen to all that much, but I think I understand him better.

Sidwich--I do agree Kelli O'Hara sounds wonderful on the record. I wish I had seen the show, I had other things that made me not notice it all during that year. Except, this story does not interest me, now I do remember that I specifically decided it seemed irrelevant. I have gotten rather severe in some of my tastes, as in film, I rarely think a love story with the old sorts of narratives is anything but boring, so that I'll think one has succeeded to some degree if it explores a more difficult kind of love story because socially impossible in the past, as 'Monster's Ball' and 'Brokeback Mountain'; and then I'll think that yes, there is still a such thing as the love story. However, the phrase 'Love If You Can' in 'Piazza' was pretty well-tailored for our unromantic times. Would be interested to know what you thought of the show itself, please don't bother staying 'on-topic' here. Did you think it worked as a love story still? I also listened to 'Marie Christine' after you mentioned it, also has some things of interest in it, but frankly, I preferred the tuneful bright charm of the Ford/Cryer show to either of these scores--it was just as professional, but I'm tired of Broadway 'brooding-sound', among other characterstics of recent scores I liked less. I liked the 'City of Angels' score fairly well, but it was mainly because of that old show-bizzy song 'I'm Nothing Without You'. I'd like to hear the Canadian version of 'Anne of Green Gables' as well, I'm sure it's very different, and it sure is old.

I just saw a preview of this and it is perfectly delightful, just the most perfect surprise. Just the right length, but not too short, to have no intermission, so it breezes by in the most delicious way--echoes of the old shows, of 'Oklahoma', a touch of 'The Music Man', all the most 'wholesome' all-American shows in the very best sense. Piper Goodeve is charming and sings well as Anne, although this is another piece that would have been perfect for Kristen Chenoweth--she's not always going to be brassy and could do this still (and by the way, sidwich, I listened to 'Light in the Piazza', and definitely think Chenoweth could do that show, she's also capable of toning down and darkening a bit, but the album sounds good as it is, though I can't say I thought it exciting in the way some critics have--same complaint, songs sounding too much alike, although I admit they were smooth), but has other irons in the fire. Heather MacRae is hilarious as the gossippy Rachel Lynde, and Erick Devine and Bethe B. Austin are very touching as the sister and brother who take Anne in. Gilbert Blythe nicely done by Andrew Gehling. Exuberant and charming music by Nancy Ford and lyrics and books by Gretchen Cryer. These are Musical Comedy legends ('I'm Getting My Act Together...') and this is just an adorable evening. I do urge people to see it who can--previews through March 29 and running through May 5. Charming sets, and though sentimental, it never irritates or gets too cloying. There are other versions of this I noticed from googling, but I find it hard to imagine that they get it guite as right as Ms. Cryer and Ms. Ford do.

I see them as at their handsomest in particular roles. Some I've seen offstage and I don't count that, because they aren't always as handsome there. Peter Martins in 'Davidsbundlertanze' Nikolaj Hubbe in 'Apollo' Peter Schaufuss in 'Coppellia' Rudolph Nureyev in 'Sleeping Beauty' (1973) Marcelo Gomez as Von Rothbart, ABT/PBS production of 'Swan Lake' Also remember thinking Patrick Dupond in Ballet at the Beacon, 1980; and Michal Denard in video of 'La Sylphide'' looked pretty fantastic.

Yes, that's exactly it, and why I just wish it would be the Costume Designers, not so much the countertenors, who would address this better than I've seen them do. They don't even use men's haircuts a lot of the time. I thought of some of the possibilities in other realms and this made me a bit giddy, given the modern day, as it were. I imagined a gay male romantic opera or play in which one of the men was played by a woman, and it just somehow didn't seem like it was going to do. Apologies for dragging this thread so far off topic! Well, I'm so glad you did, and I appreciated this tremendously, especially since I don't know well enough several of the operas you mentioned and one of them not at all (the Bellini). I'd still like to know if Farrell's role in 'Vienna Waltzes' has since been subjected to any Casting from Hell, and also if they've managed to get 'Mozartiana' to work sometimes.

So it's certainly appropriate to worry about whether the Marschallin is matched by a man that looks too old to 'leave her without unbelievable cruelty', but definitely not appropriate to expect her male lover to look like a male. Yes. It is much more 'sensitive' to let the boy have a voluptuous female figure, perhaps even in Spandex. I wonder how resistible the teen-aged Sophies would find this as well--most likely they'd opt out and think it fine to leave him with the Marschallin. I see what Richard is talking about with the voice, of course, although I wouldn't think it would be entirely impossible. In a piece in which we're supposed to accept biological sports anyway, there's also the possibility that in the big world there will be just such a countertenor voice that might hit the spot. This sort of rare thing is possible, but I realize not something that would happen regularly. Very like the miraculous casting of D'Amboise that dirac and I were discussing yesterday: It would work that way only with him; after that, the steps would be sharper and clearer, because they wouldn't have been made to look exactly the way they appear with d'Amboise, and a younger dancer still in his prime could not imitate d'Amboise without looking absurd.

But didn't he write the part for a soprano for primarily musical reasons? yes, the '17-year old lad who hasn't "grown up" yet.', but this in itself by no means required a soprano. I think it's the soprano sound that is wanted, not the sense that the not-grown-up lad (yes, that, again, of course) looks like a woman onstage. It could also be that it is indeed a kind of intended artificiality, but one that I simply can't accept personally. I do not believe, however, that Oktavian is meant to seem like a woman, and he does, especially if hips are dressed to be pronounced. And in so doing, the Marschallin does not seem feminine, but rather masculine, despite being a woman--handsome like Susan Sontag when young, not beautifully womanly like Catherine Deneuve when young. If it is likened to Matthew Bourne's Swan Lake, it points to the enjoyment of knowing Octavian is a woman singer and a woman character as well--and gets into more gender-bending subtleties than I'm going to do, because the parallel makes sense to me only in that I am not interested in the Bourne stuff either, but that's men fully in women's roles (which means it does not make sense to me, the Bourne things are all right, but once was enough). Strauss chose this trouser role, and then there are new productions in which the masculinity could be more pronounced in one way or another. I'd still like to see it done with a countertenor, even if it took a while to get used to it. In serious work if there's a heterosexual liaison, I don't want to see men in women's roles either, except as camp. Your point of view on this is certainly legitimate and obviously shared by most, as this is a very popular opera. I know that I will probably never really care for this opera. If I am going to hear it live, I like the part of 'Vienna Waltzes' where you saw Farrell being Viennese to some of it, and there have probably been many mis-castings by comparison since in this role, about which I'd like to hear. After all, Farrell's final curtain was a la viennoise.

Well, Mashinka, tell us what your reactions were to the 2 different sexes in the same role. Canbelto, I tend to be on the side of tradition, but if the sound can be the same, or very similar, I don't think it's important to always have women in the trouser roles--but mainly, if they do, I do reiterate that it's not a matter of being 'realistic' or not if by some chance there could be a little more bow to their at least looking like the male character they're meant to be portraying. Otherwise, the idea of a 'handsome, dashing kavalier' is way beyond 'unrealistic', it gets all sorts of very specific and surely unintended undertones. I also disagree that a countertenor would not be able to do more than 'just the notes'. Why would he? If a woman can be convincing to many audiences (if not to me) as a man, why couldn't a man be convincing as a 'man who usually is sung by a woman' (I'm beginning to remind myself of 'victor, victoria'). It's one tradition I find hard to see important to preserve at all costs, if the result sounds right. If it doesn't, then there definitely does need to be some balancing out in the other areas, and I have heard some more intrepid operagoers than myself say that it does vary. If the 2 characters are involved in heterosexual lovemaking, it ought to be able to at least suggest that possibility in the appearance. In any case, no one is upset about the WTC of Bach not being played (for the most part, although we do, of course, have Ms. Landowska's great artistry) on the harpsichord. There weren't any Steinway concert grands in those days, and that's mostly where you hear the stuff these days. Tureck was mainly the piano, and Glenn Gould too.

I, for one, would like to see that very much. When it's the trouser part understood within the plot and action, and by the characters, as in 'Arabella', I never think about it, but when you are really supposed to suspend the need to see anything at all boyish-youthful there as in 'Rosenkavalier', the only solution for me is to just listen to it, so I do prefer just a recording of Rosenkavalier. I hadn't known about the countertenor in Handel, but that's very interesting.