A Post of Chatty Self Indulgence
Please excuse me while I prattle about things I adore. . .
I went to Ariadne auf Naxos on Monday and found it pretty charming but with obvious flaws that I think were more due to execution than composition. Most opera goers, myself included, are Italian loving angst whores, so having a opera within an opera that makes fun of the Italian loving angst whores just amused me to no end. The role of the Opera Composer was a trouser role (a character who is a man but is written to be played by a woman) and was played so beautifully with such a sense of sly melodrama and sung in this. . . I don't know, just melted gold sounding mezzo soprano. Kristine Jepson was all things wonderful. She totally stole the show in my mind, and it was unfortunate that the second act doesn't have the Composer sing because I would go a long way to hear that voice again.
The second act was a little more disappointing because I think Ariadne was miscast. Irene Theorin is a solid Wagnerian soprano, I saw her in Siegfried and was impressed, but this really didn't play to her strong suits, and I don't think she played the role with enough humor. Zerbinetta, the other soprano lead, was played by Lyubov Petrova ably if thinly. For this role, ably is a compliment because Zerbinetta may be the most terrifying coloratura soprano role I have ever heard.
(This is Zerbinetta but played by Desiree Till - go to about 5:45 if you want to hear the insanely impressive stuff.)
I don't think Strauss knows what to do with tenors, and this is a very inexpert opinion based upon only two Strauss operas, but both are so female dominated. Which is just as well, because the only strong male performance was the Music Teacher , a baritone by the name of Gidon Saks. To be fair, Bacchus was a very last minute stand in, and I can't imagine it's easy to fly in last minute and just sing Strauss, who is pretty darn demanding. All things considered, I liked it.
I just finished reading Slaughterhouse Five and, as with all of Vonnegut's work I've read thus far, enjoyed it entirely. He's got this ability to combine tragedy with just enough absurdity to take the pressure of tears off the reader. This is a very anti-war book, and a novel within a novel (I'm sensing a theme) and is difficult to explain, other than to say that is moved me and made me laugh and then made me sort of ashamed for laughing.
The protagonist, Billy Pilgrim, has become unstuck in time. He is captured by aliens who live non-linearly, saying that you cannot choose to change anything, but they can choose to concentrate on the parts of their lives that they like best. So Billy just jumps around his life, always knowing what's going to happen( though never knowing where he's jumping to next,). It's a very strange way to view the world, but you find yourself pulled into it nevertheless. You find yourself more forgiving of war crimes and bombings because, if it's already happened, there is nothing to be done about it. In other words, there is no free will.
There's this genius sense of detachment built in the story, for all that you are reading about the fire bombings of Dresden and surviving World War II. You can't seem to get any closer to it then Billy, which is the closest of all having lived through it, but he's always hopping out of the scene to another portion of his life, reminding the reader that there's nothing that can be done anyway. I never knew how effective a rebellion suppressor fatalism is before. I'm stumbling through this, because Vonnegut's the brilliant author, not I, but it's short and interesting and I highly recommend the book.
So I think I've rambled enough for someone who has too much work to do as it is. Hope everyone is having a good day.
I went to Ariadne auf Naxos on Monday and found it pretty charming but with obvious flaws that I think were more due to execution than composition. Most opera goers, myself included, are Italian loving angst whores, so having a opera within an opera that makes fun of the Italian loving angst whores just amused me to no end. The role of the Opera Composer was a trouser role (a character who is a man but is written to be played by a woman) and was played so beautifully with such a sense of sly melodrama and sung in this. . . I don't know, just melted gold sounding mezzo soprano. Kristine Jepson was all things wonderful. She totally stole the show in my mind, and it was unfortunate that the second act doesn't have the Composer sing because I would go a long way to hear that voice again.
The second act was a little more disappointing because I think Ariadne was miscast. Irene Theorin is a solid Wagnerian soprano, I saw her in Siegfried and was impressed, but this really didn't play to her strong suits, and I don't think she played the role with enough humor. Zerbinetta, the other soprano lead, was played by Lyubov Petrova ably if thinly. For this role, ably is a compliment because Zerbinetta may be the most terrifying coloratura soprano role I have ever heard.
(This is Zerbinetta but played by Desiree Till - go to about 5:45 if you want to hear the insanely impressive stuff.)
I don't think Strauss knows what to do with tenors, and this is a very inexpert opinion based upon only two Strauss operas, but both are so female dominated. Which is just as well, because the only strong male performance was the Music Teacher , a baritone by the name of Gidon Saks. To be fair, Bacchus was a very last minute stand in, and I can't imagine it's easy to fly in last minute and just sing Strauss, who is pretty darn demanding. All things considered, I liked it.
I just finished reading Slaughterhouse Five and, as with all of Vonnegut's work I've read thus far, enjoyed it entirely. He's got this ability to combine tragedy with just enough absurdity to take the pressure of tears off the reader. This is a very anti-war book, and a novel within a novel (I'm sensing a theme) and is difficult to explain, other than to say that is moved me and made me laugh and then made me sort of ashamed for laughing.
The protagonist, Billy Pilgrim, has become unstuck in time. He is captured by aliens who live non-linearly, saying that you cannot choose to change anything, but they can choose to concentrate on the parts of their lives that they like best. So Billy just jumps around his life, always knowing what's going to happen( though never knowing where he's jumping to next,). It's a very strange way to view the world, but you find yourself pulled into it nevertheless. You find yourself more forgiving of war crimes and bombings because, if it's already happened, there is nothing to be done about it. In other words, there is no free will.
There's this genius sense of detachment built in the story, for all that you are reading about the fire bombings of Dresden and surviving World War II. You can't seem to get any closer to it then Billy, which is the closest of all having lived through it, but he's always hopping out of the scene to another portion of his life, reminding the reader that there's nothing that can be done anyway. I never knew how effective a rebellion suppressor fatalism is before. I'm stumbling through this, because Vonnegut's the brilliant author, not I, but it's short and interesting and I highly recommend the book.
So I think I've rambled enough for someone who has too much work to do as it is. Hope everyone is having a good day.