Opera Shots - ROH2

This is fastly becoming a new opera blog, that is not my intention and will try and get out more to new music concerts...

However I saw the opening night of the Opera Shots on 8 April, produced by ROH2 in the Linbury Studio Theater at the Royal Opera House.  It was a program of two one act operas, an adaptation of The Tell-Tale Heart and The Doctor's Tale.  I left feeling uplifted and quite joyous, but I think it has more to do with the more successful second piece, The Doctor's Tale, rather than the evening as a whole.  The performances and direction, the production value, as seems consistent with all the new operas I have reviewed recently, were fantastic.  Producers understand the need to make good theater with opera, very excited and creative things happening in London! There was also a wonderful use of video to compliment both productions.

Musically, as is more the subject of the blog, it was a more accessible evening than I have recently seen as well.  That is not always a good thing... but I digress.

Stuart Copeland's The Tell-Tale Heart was the more disappointing work, I think its failure is more along the lines of its subject.  To adapt a story by Edgar Allen Poe and not give it more depth than it has was a mistake.  Poe tells a story incredibly well, but, even though they are engrossing, have no greater depth.  (i.e. more manner than substance) I am afraid this rather spunky and energetic adaptation adds nothing of great significance besides a yet further obsessive quality of the music on top of the obsessive quality of the story.  The libretto is quite fun and when it could be heard over the pounding of the orchestra was quite good.  The piece just does not contain any substance, therefore no power to stay with us as we leave.  No impact upon our lives as an audience, and if we take the time to make an opera, why not try to make that impression? Otherwise it is a diversion in the same vein as musical theater.  The music pounded its point home, the actor/singer/narrator (Poe) was a wonderful invention and convincingly done by Richard Suart, but there was no depth, or back-story that came from the music, or the libretto to make us care or enrich the story.  Funny that in the director's note he mentions Freud and Jung and how Poe lived prior to their research... but what stops us from including that now?  Making it deeper than the source material actually is? Because ultimately all the elements for success were there for the piece, fun music, a good libretto, fine performers, but it just lacked depth.



The Doctor's Tale was a delight, and although perhaps a more frivolous subject had more substance than any of the new operas in London this season.  The music by Ann Dudley, while following mostly conventional forms and uses memorable tunes, is beautiful, inventive and fun.  It tells the story in a wonderful whimsical way that adds depth to the characters and really pulls us into a rather incredulous story about a dog who is a very good doctor and all the trouble that comes his way for practicing medicine.  The libretto by Terry Jones, who also directed, was extremely fun and witty,  He understood the form well and was very musical adding to its form and gaiety.  The words were understandable (congrats singers!) and the jokes well set by Ms Dudley and not over done so they landed upon the audience with enough time for them to understand and laugh.  Including the wonderfully fun lament "Put Down" and of course the gag with the telephone call, hilarious!  Even though the piece was not about anything important it has such joy, that its subject, although nonsensical, suffuses us with it and satisfies us and gives us something to take home.  It has more substance than that of A Dogs Heart and Anna Nicole combined. It was told in a skillful way by librettist and composer to increase that joy and communicate it in a way that was also pleasing.  Leaving the theater I felt lighter and smiled easily and when I think about the performance, I feel that way again.


http://www.roh.org.uk/whatson/production.aspx?pid=15108

Anna Nichole - ROH

I have deep mixed feelings about this opera.  Audiences and critics have been loving it, I am so happy, except to say, I wish they wouldn't settle.  It is an attempt to bring opera to an audience, but still is full of austerity in its score (Mark-Anthony Turnage) and shock tactics in its libretto (Richard Thomas) and subject.  The music does not actually reach the public, or enhance the story or characters, it is just there.  It pretends to communicate.  The libretto is quite clever, but takes delight in shocking its audience, offending and alienating, leaving nothing to the imagination... so much for class at the opera. 

Turnage's score actually has tunes, which most audience members may even be able to hum when leaving the theater "you can dream..." But it tries its best to still prove it is "serious music" as it disables its ability and clarity by its orchestration through a thick veil of modernity, instead of choosing honesty and directness.  I believe an audience will gleam a little bit of communication from the score and become satisfied saying: "finally a bit of modern music I can understand", but for me it is not enough.  There is too much obfuscation going on, hiding of the substance behind a veil of manner, (as defined in an earlier post in November 2010). One striking example of this is the opening of Act 2, the main tune is played, but with an E-flat clarinet, very high, verging always sharp, scored so high it is not possible to play beautifully - it is a brutal sound and very "modern." The actual theme is very beautiful and simple however the material is twisted to make sure we know it is modern.  This is also the case with all the loud sharp brass punctuations throughout the piece, making a sound that proves it is "modern music" covering the directness that the score sometimes contains.

It is wonderful when a new piece is able to strike a chord with an audience, but this piece just leaves one feeling absolutely disgusted.  I am not sure that makes a great work of art.  That has already been tried and done,  but the real problem is the lack of empathy for the characters.  In a two hours show one might be able to feel empathy for at least one character, alas, like so much of what is in fad in popular entertainment, every character is despicable and a-moral.  The rich Marshall, sung exquisitely by Alan Oke, comes the closest (he actually gets to sing).  Gerald Finley's finely sung, slimy Howard Stern is not meant to be endearing (shining teethe and all). Sidebar: the sweet voice of Chinese baritone Zheng Zhong Zhou as the Runner was heard for a few impressive seconds, I look forward to hearing more of him at ROH. A title character deserves a shot at empathy, and the libretto gives it to her towards the end, but the music falls short.  We never get to hear Eva-Maria Westbroek really open her mouth and sing with her sizable Wagnerian chops. She is too busy barking like a dog (well, howling) and singing coloratura (which she can do but its not what is special about her voice). If that could have happened, the opera would have had a redeeming quality, but she has no aria, there is no explanation of Anna's motivations or insight into her thoughts.  All we get for compensation is monotonous a-tonal music of the second act, brightly orchestrated in a sure fire way to remove all beauty - as a kiss "blown" to us all.

The first act is quite well structured, with several tunes and pastiche numbers, but it is basically exposition, the actual story does not come into its own until the second act. Act 1 is full of Shock and Awe, no heart strings found here, no greater truths. Richard Jones' inspired Walmart drones were a fantastic touch!  The sleek dancers as cameras were also wonderfully creepy and told a story unto themselves.  The production quality is high and carries much of the entertainment value of the work.

The audience seems to enjoy the piece, and the show with all its elements is probably a decent night out. However, great art, it is not.  It is wrapped up in its mannerism, like a filthy libretto and the assertion in the score that this really is modern music.   


Please go and see it and make up your mind for yourself, no doubt it will return to the ROH stage, who should be commended for taking a risk like this, but unfortunately with a shallow pay-off, instead of a great work of art, great jokes about farts...

**********

If you like or are intrigued by what the review says, please check out some of my first posts on the blog and join in the search for modern music that communicates to audiences without dumbing down.

-BW

A Dog's Heart - ENO

I have not posted for quite some time, here is a much belated review of A Dog's Heart at ENO from November:

I just came back from A Dog's Heart at the English National Opera and was woefully disappointed by an endeavour of great skill and effort.  I found the production quite amusing with lots of winning moments, choreography and dramaturgy - all of which seemed to come from the director, Simon McBurney, and not that of the Rastakov polyglot score or the almost poignant libretto, either suffering from mistreatment by the composer or the English translation.

The story is this: a doctor in the advancement of medicine (and his personal reputation) implants the pituitary and testes of a man who plays the balalaika into a dog.  This dog/man grows (evolves) into what looks like a man and demands his rights as a Russian citizen much to the chagrin of the doctor.  The Doctor then faces persecution that threatens his privileged position in the bourgeois, so the doctor removes the testes and pituitary and the balalaika playing man/dog reverts into his half dog/man self, thus ending...

Andrew Watts made the music sound singable as the "pleasant voice" of the dog with his winning and reverberant tone, as did Steven Page in the role of the Professor. His diction was outstanding and not an easy feat in a score filled with music which does its best to stop communication of the text. The other members of the cast I just felt sorry for, to have to sing this music which controlled their expression and their ability to sing it quite brutally.  They shrieked and moaned through all octaves and falsetto techniques and tried to communicate cohesive sentences that were in most cases broken apart by the composer trying to create a style unto himself, except we've heard that all before in Ligeti and other such mid century composers.  Peter Hoare created almost a mockery of the impossibility of the the score in his interpretation of the dog/man character and created in one phrase of extreme interval juxtaposition a different color for each note.  He was never consumed with beauty of tone or even production and flipped up into falsetto quite regularly just because it was necessary and not because it was written in the score (of that I am almost certain). The orchestra played well and seemed to be in good stead with the singers.


The music was at times quite expressive of the theatrical events taking place on the stage, but never did it emerge as something more, never did it transcend its own manner to communicate a deeper substance, which I think the work lacked overall.  The composer was too involved in creating a disjointed vocal line pock marked by impossible rhythmic unisons with the orchestra, which always sounded like missed opportunities rather than communicative tools.  I do not blame orchestra, conductor or singer for this, composer's should know better, but computers make them believe its possible - because Sibelius can do it, so can an orchestra...

I am angry because I was hoping to find that frustration and longing of Bulgakov and pre-war Russia in this show but it was almost never palpable.  I am disappointed that the staging made this music better than it deserved.  The director layered dramaturgy and choreographed movement to the score which carried the evening, had I seen another production attempting more of a realistic approach or perhaps just a different approach, I would have been quite upset. But I was entertained as an audience member, but as a critic woefully disappointed by another failed exploration into the art of modern opera.

In conclusion and in the context of the argument being laid out in this blog, I felt the piece too consumed in its manner, novelty (use of megaphones) and disjointed vocal writing.  It was not enough involved in the substance of the subject.  The moment you felt an almost certain a truth was coming baffled me even further by saying the man/dog did not have a dog's heart but a human heart... meaning we are all animals?  The music here was quite close to moving, and this attempt to explain the deeper metaphor behind the piece pulled me out of the story into an intellectual conundrum in my own mind instead of advancing the plot or the character's motivations.  It was a mildly entertaining 2 hours and 25 minutes, but I found it a complete waste of time for those looking for music that speaks to us in our time. That tells our souls we are not alone and that we do and can find meaning in this life.  I am not sorry to put it so bluntly; that is what we seek, is it not?  All that time effort and money for a good night out... that is had in any number of theaters just around the corner from the Coliseum.   The conversations that were taking place when we left the theater were not about the show or performers, the audience was not touched and it did not start any conversations of depth or meaning, but continued what they were discussing before they came into the theater.