While I´m thinking of it,

one more note on preparation in the opera business.

I am currently involved in a production for which we had exactly four days of rehearsal (for two casts).

If even one person had shown up unprepared, it would have turned into a huge clusterfuck. Moreover, the person would have been summarily fired.

In fact, REALLY knowing my role is the only thing that got me past the various language barriers, not to mention the experience gap (I´m working with a bunch of singers who have far better resumes than do I).

Make of that what you will. But hey, if you´re a soprano and sing my rep, feel free to show up not knowing your ass from your elbow. I´ll be happy to take your job.

Slow posting for a while longer

As you´ve probably noticed, I´m traveling. Internet access will be spotty for a while, but I´ll post when I can. I´m in an unnamed country in Western Europe till April...

BRAVA DIVA!

This is a really exciting singer to watch. The relevant paragraph:

"Soprano Marie-Adele McArthur possesses a striking voice - unified in its pleasing color, capable of tremendous range, strong enough to easily soar over the combined sonic mass of the orchestra and chorus, and used with acute intelligence. Her blend with the other soloists was admirable, and her sense of the dramatic in her solos was unerring."

YAY!

The Met's Traviata: A hunka hunka burnin' tenor

Oh yeah...and some Verdi, too.

That's not meant to be flip. There was a lot - really a lot - of good music drama-making going on at the Met today. There was also some pretty serious frustration. You all are going to think I'm down on sopranos in general and Violettas in particular, and I promise you it isn't true. When the production was new, I thought Patricia Racette rose above its overdone stupidity to deliver an affecting and effective Violetta. I suspect when I see it again in April, Hei-Kyung Hong (at least, judging from her awesome Mimi) will leave me a puddle on the floor. But I have to get this over with right away so we can move on: Gheorghiu didn't do it for me, and I was expecting her to, based both upon previous experience of her and reviews from people I know & trust.

She is physically very striking, yes, with that pretty/ugly face and rad bod, and her costumes fit her perfectly (although I hate that pink thing in the first act and want to burn it) and she sings every note - Sempre libera, in particular, was taken at a VERY fast clip and was VERY cleanly and impressively done - and she clearly has a dramatic idea and a process. So what's my problem, anyway?

Number one, she was barely audible, and this from row M in the orchestra, where I've never had trouble hearing even Heidi Grant Murphy before (and uh...I had no trouble hearing Swenson as Violetta, I might add. I didn't LIKE a lot of it, but I could hear it perfectly clearly). And Holland complained in the NY Times that FLEMING was vocally undersized for the house? In today's NY Times, I note an article about future seasons under Gelb in which Gheorghiu is mentioned as Carmen, and I'm flabbergasted - her middle and low notes weren't powerful enough for Violetta today. How the fuck is she going to cope with CARMEN? She compounded the problem by singing upstage much of the time (and I mean UPSTAGE, as in facing backward). In addition, I'll bet Marco Armiliato wanted to smack her by the end of the performance - she rushed something fierce. He started "Ah, fors'è lui" at an already-rapid tempo, and when she came in she pushed it ahead even further. Granted, I prefer brisk and efficient to Flemingesque taffy tempi, but this gave the unfortunate effect of her not having enough breath to sustain the lines. Given that she appeared to be singing everything from about the neck up, I'm not surprised. Where's her support??? I remember her as putting out a pretty solid amount of lyric soprano sound before this.

Number two, she wouldn't fucking stand still. As I discussed with E, with whom I attended today, the new style of "opera acting" appears to be a bad case of what I call Tinkerbell the Wonder Fairy on crack - lots of arm waving and swaying (presumably to indicate "this is the part that's hard to sing?"), twitching and skipping around and flitting from place to place and never STOPPING, even when sitting down (or, in this case, lying down FUCKING DYING OF TB). Anna Netrebko's got a bad case of it, too. Note to soprani so afflicted: twitching isn't artistic, it's distracting. If in the second act you're flailing around like a twit and Germont is standing still and really communicating, the audience is going to watch HIM and just get annoyed with YOU, and that's just wrong...after all, the piece isn't called "Alfredo's dad." Oh yeah, and in that video of Gheorghiu as Violetta from - what - Covent Garden or something? She doesn't do this. She stands still and focuses in the important moments, and it gave me chills in the good way when I saw it, which is why I was expecting so much today.

Number three, and this is the hardest to describe, and I WILL move on after this paragraph, she wasn't real. It was all - at least to me - surface, all artifice and calculation, and none of the real warmth underneath that makes Violetta such a popular and sympathetic character. Also, that kind of artifice isn't sexy. I couldn't figure out why ANYONE would want to fuck her, and that's a bad thing when you're talking about a courtesan.

All right. There were other people onstage and in the pit, and it's time to talk about them. There's nothing to say about the production except that it's still overblown and a pain in the ass, except for the country house, which is pretty. One good thing: although they've kept the stupid dancers with the bull heads in Act II Scene 2, they have at least ditched the dancing cows with the padded buns and large, tacky udders. Thank heaven for small favors.

The big discovery of the day was tenor Jonas Kaufmann. Not only is he almost ungodly hot (even with the "Michael Bolton called and wants his hair back" coiffure), he's a passionate and committed actor with an excellent dramatic sense (need I even add that HE knows when to stand still?) and oh yeah, he sings like a fuckin' god (one of those "wow, when I close my eyes, he still sounds that good!" things). It's a big, warm, very baritonal sound that sounds like it won't go all the way up without tightening on him, but it does, oh, it does. He plugs in two high C's (one in his part of Sempre libera - go boy - and one at the end of the cabaletta) that are my favorite kind of high note. They won't please the squillo queens, because they're all depth and warmth, but they match the rest of his voice EXACTLY and they throb thrillingly. His Alfredo is very young indeed, and all of the choices the character makes flow naturally from that premise. He received - and deserved - the bulk of the applause.

It is often very difficult for me to find sympathy for Germont, as he is frequently played as a through-and-through stuffed shirt and something of a shit. Plus, for some reason, half the time whichever baritone it is barks his way through the role. Not so with Anthony Michaels-Moore, who first caught my attention as Enrico in Lucia di Lammermoor a few years back. Big, beautiful, easy, ringy, warm voice that works from bottom to top (top being a big ass B flat or so plugged in gratuitously but fabulously at the end of the second act), and can the man ACT. His Germont isn't stiff because he's a stuffed shirt, he simply doesn't know how to treat Violetta when she turns out to be other than his expectation (although, bad director, never letting Germont embrace her is a very poor choice), and when he comes back in the last act the stiffness is gone and he's all paternal warmth. He got me in Di provenza, I started to cry (that's right. Not during Amami, Alfredo, during Di provenza), and in the gambling scene you could feel him simply quivering with fury at his son's behavior. I find that Michaels-Moore is being taken for granted in the reviews so far and it makes me want to go kick the reviewers, because, uh, a really fantastic Germont is not such a common thing that we can afford to dis one when he shows up, yanno? Bernard Holland in particular can suck it, for that snotty remark about whether Michaels-Moore doubts his ability to project in large spaces. Hey Bernie, the guy sings Jack Rance, ok, and from what I heard today he would have NO problem vocallly accomodating that role He knows the size of his own voice. Perhaps Holland was just bitchy because he couldn't hear the soprano in the big ensemble in the gambling scene, but uh...that was her fault for half-voicing it, not the fault of the tenor and baritone for being audible.

Other performers of note: John Hancock as a sexy, suave, dangerous Baron Douphol with a ringing voice (wow, he's tall. Like really tall. And oh yeah, HOT), Eduardo Valdes as the Marchese, funny and charming and graceful in a galumphing kind of way, and whoever the hell that was as Flora (can't find my program), great dresses, beautiful voice, loads of personality.

Marco Armiliato has got to be the most adorably cheerful guy on the podium today. He comes bouncing out at the beginning of every act looking like he's having a really great time and generally spreading good will all over the place. His conducting, while never achieving brilliance, is smooth and serves the score faithfully and makes the orchestra sound good and he pays attention to the needs of the singers and really, that's all he needs to do.

Eh, well, that's it. Look, Gheorghiu wasn't bad. I've seen bad Violettas, and she wasn't that. She just wasn't...well, she wasn't a Title Character, in caps, and the show had no real center as a result.

Just a random thought on the state of the art

In the last few months, I've heard four or five stories from cast members about colleagues who showed up to rehearsals not knowing their roles.

Yup, you heard me, showing up to paid, professional gigs still having to have notes plunked.

These were people who signed the contracts anywhere from two months (PLENTY of time to learn a role, unless you're lazy as hell or abysmally stupid) to two years before rehearsals started.

There is just no excuse for this and there's almost nothing that makes me angrier about this biz. If you're that busy, start turning things down and do your goddamned homework. Do not waste your colleagues' time by doing a half-assed job and expecting everyone else to make accommodations.

No one is THAT gifted with the voice of the angels, that it makes up for poor preparation.

I am strangely excited

about the influx of young'uns to the Jets' coaching and general managing positions.

After all, it can't possibly get WORSE.

...can it?

er...be mine?

I'm sending these to all my fuckin' sappy friends.

Thanks EVER so to Mimi for the tip - these rock.

and yeah, yeah, yeah, I am the person who talks about how over-commercial it is and then whines when he doesn't get me a card. Get over it.

This is funny.

Yes...yes...I too hate the use of "4" instead of "for," "2" instead of "to" and "u" instead of "you" that is ubiquitous on the interweb.

Ladies and gentlemen, with a hat tip to jesque for cracking my shit up today, may I present THE DEMOTICONS!

You want to know why I'm so angry?

This is why I'm so angry.

Yes, I know, it's hard to click on links and read long and complicated articles that contain words of more than one syllable, especially if you're one of the knuckle-dragging fucknuts who supported this anti-American, hell, INHUMAN shit in the first place.

Lemme spell it out for you in a short sentence, composed of teeny tiny words.

Better, let Stuart Taylor do it, here, in a brief summary of the longer article linked above.

The relevant short sentence:

"Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members."

Got that?

FEWER THAN TWENTY PERCENT have EVER been Qaeda members.

So we are LOCKING THESE PEOPLE UP INDEFINITELY AND TORTURING THEM FOR FUN, apparently. Or, no, excuse me, because Preznit Asshat says he just KNOOOOOWS they're bad people. Did I mention he can suck it?

So don't EVER again ask me why I'm so fucking angry. If you're not angry about this, you're either a sociopath or you're too stupid to leave the house unaccompanied, and in neither case do I have time for you.

Updated to add the following: it was pointed out to me in comments that I sound as though I'm only angry at these people being imprisoned indefinitely and tortured because they're unjustly accused. Good point. I wasn't clear. No, no, no. I don't care if they're Jeffrey Dahmer. Inhumane treatment is inhumane treatment and we have NO business treating fellow human beings in such a fashion. We get all over the tv talking about how much "better" we are than "those" countries...well, we'd better goddamned well start to act like it, hadn't we?

John McCain gets up on the wrong side of bed...again

I can't believe I used to respect this asshole.

First, Obama, whom I DO respect, writes a letter, which reads in part:

"Thank you for inviting me to participate in the meeting yesterday to discuss lobbying and ethics reform proposals currently before the Senate. I appreciate your willingness to reach out to me and several other Senate Democrats to discuss what should be done to restore public confidence in the way that Congress conducts its business. The discussion clearly underscored the difficult challenge facing Congress... I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support. Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter." (click the link for the full letter, it's good).

for some reason, Johnny boy reacts to the above as though someone had pissed in his Wheaties (breakfast of champions!), and responds as follows (in part, click link for full letter - your jaw will drop at the rudeness of this motherfucker):

"I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again."

Understandably confused, Obama, bless his sweet heart...takes the high road (same link as above, which actually contains the entire exchange), in full:

"During my short time in the U.S. Senate, one of the aspects about this institution that I have come to value most is the collegiality and the willingness to put aside partisan differences to work on issues that help the American people. It was in this spirit that I approached you to work on ethics reform, and it was in this spirit that I agreed to attend your bipartisan meeting last week. I appreciated then - and still do appreciate - your willingness to reach out to me and several other Democrats.

For this reason, I am puzzled by your response to my recent letter. Last Wednesday morning, you called to invite me to your meeting that afternoon. I changed my schedule so I could attend the meeting. Afterwards, you thanked me several times for attending the meeting, and we left pledging to work together.

As you will recall, I told everyone present at the meeting that my caucus insisted that the consideration of any ethics reform proposal go through the regular committee process. You didn't indicate any opposition to this position at the time, and I wrote the letter to reiterate this point, as well as the fact that I thought S. 2180 should be the basis for a bipartisan solution.

I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem."

There we go, John. Aren't you proud? You've just publicly proven yourself to be a spoiled baby who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

Bipartisan cooperation, my white ass. What you mean is "everyone does what I tell them to and we call it 'bipartisan.'"

God fucking forbid McCain ever becomes president. The word "jerk" was invented to describe him. I defended his actions for years, but I've just washed my hands of him. Let him drown in his own pomposity.