I was living in Singapore for a while. While I was there, I felt quite disconnected from western music, they didn't seem to have a very good selection to choose from. Then one day, in the last few weeks I was there, a baritone friend was visiting and I was showing him around. We stumbled upon an evening recital by Angela Gheorgiu at the durians (or formally, the esplanade- Singapore's tribute to the smelliest fruit on earth and their artist answer to the Sydney Opera House).

Durian

Singapore Esplanade

This was my first concert in almost a year, the prior one having been a most excellent production of Bizet's Pearl Fishers at the Sydney Opera House about a year prior. The contrast between the two performance spaces and atmospheres was quite distinct.

The Sydney Opera House is truly an international destination, they could play the most boring opera with the most mediocre stars and still pack the house because of their world famous reputation. The Singapore Durians on the other hand, while they like to believe is world famous, actually hosted one of the few true opera superstars of this age of dying stage opera, and the house was about 1/3 full. For about $20/person (Big high five to state-funded arts) we enjoyed practically a private concert. Angela was fine, the audience was made up almost entirely of white ex-pats, and Angela changed her dress about 6 times, including a specially-tailored Chinese silk. She came out for her 6 planned encores at the end, despite the sadly lackluster audience, and the random Romanian tenor she had with her (as a pet?) was possibly the best tenor I've heard live- certainly leaps and bounds beyond anyone I've ever heard at San Francisco Opera.

The world-class symphony, famous singers, and state-sponsored state of the art performance space filled with about 100 ex-pats was a sad contrast to the more restrictive availability of the arts in the US. If only the state had the money to pay for...education, roads and the deficit, we could maybe start to think about the pleasures of culture available to a wide range of people who would actually take advantage of it in a metropolitan area like San Francisco. Alas, instead, I continue to receive email blasts for SF Opera with details of great "deals" of $200 opera tickets for mediocre performances by formerly great or never-quite-made it singers. Bring in Angela to SF and all the $300 tickets sell out immediately- so how can the finances of the art be doing so poorly in America?

Whatever the reason- poor management, over-payment for mediocre copyrighted material, high rent (those ceilings sure are high with such a great view in the center of the city...would make some great condos...), it is certainly sad that in a city full of people who would wait in line for hours to see Angela Gheorgiu for $20, the arts are so inaccessible, while Singapore sponsors a world-class recital as a gesture to diversity in music.

I just saw Angela Gheorghiu perform La Rondine at San Francisco Opera and came to several conclusions.

1) Puccini was and will ever be the greatest opera composer who ever lived. If you disagree, you either haven't heard Puccini performed well or you have no heart or soul.

2) Just because an opera singer is famous these days, doesn't mean they have to be bad. I was very skeptical of Gheroghiu because of her media hype and the fact that she is married to Alagna (thus got fame through him), but she is the only case in recent years where the hype is really deserved. I was also concerned because everyone always describes her voice as "dark" which usually means ugly. Her voice wasn't dark, it had that same velvety warmth that Anna Moffo's had (although Moffo's still wins the award).

Her sotto voce in her amazingly difficult aria was fantastic, and was the only modern production I've heard that has produced the sounds that Puccini wanted. (Since he was a 20th century composer, we do have the luxury of listening to recordings of the singers he chose, and yet opera casting directors everywhere seem to continue to ignore that fact and cast vibrato-heavy, ugly, old women as mimi, butterfly and doretta).

3) San Francisco Opera choses the WORST singers in the professional world to coddle and develop. Gheorghiu was amazing but her little chirpy maid set a new standard for chirpy annoying soubrettes. If that girl had played Susanna I would have walked out of Figaro. Yet, here she is, playing a compremario to Gheorghiu, but with a long resume of real roles at SF Opera, where the key voice type was not ugly, nasal, and chirpy with mechanical vebrato. I shall never see any performance at SF opera starring their singers as the main leads, it would be a worse investment than eTrade stock.

4) Where have all the tenors gone? There must not be any who can sing the right notes, because the lead tenor playing opposite Ms. Gheorghiu couldn't even sing on key.

5) Standing ovations mean nothing. I've waited through countless ovations for undeserving performances, grimacing as they bow and bow, remembering the wasted last 4 hours of my life. Including the horrible tenor and the chirpy maid, this was by far the best performance I have ever seen at SF opera, and yet, no one stood! I've never seen a more deserving performance in the US, and it was a crime that the audience didn't stand. Where do they think they are, Milan?

Forgive the absence, I have been outside of the space time continuum, ie living in India, where classical music was not on the top of my mind. For harrowing tales from a plane crashing on the runway to 3 foot squirrels to holding up inside during riots after the bombings of the mosque in Hyderabad, visit my other blog at HyderabadAdventures.blogspot.com. But, now that I’m back, and slowly integrating into American life, I am more motivated than ever to share my opinions on the state of the music world today, as well as how you can escape the problems with fantastic recordings and videos from the shining days of opera performance in the 50’s and 60’s.

I went to see Samson and Delilah at San Francisco Opera about a month ago. It was my first real re-introduction to the American classical music scene. I was, as always, overwhelmed by the number of people who were there for one purpose and one purpose alone – see and be seen. I was also overwhelmed by the percent of really old people to everyone else – what is going to happen in 20 years when all those 70 year olds are dead? Will there be a group of opera-loving baby boomers to take their places, or will the opera houses be filled with an entirely new group of younger fans, or will all the live opera houses be closed in favor of watching videos of amateurs singing along with Pavarotti on YouTube.

I don’t know what the future holds, and I’m ambivalent about where I hope it will go. Given the poor caliber of most famous opera singers these days – the Samson was truly horrible, although Delilah was a better mezzo than I expected, since she only slipped into uncontrollable vibrato on the high notes, rather than throughout all of her range – I think that the democratization of information and performance that YouTube provides may actually push the opera industry to find good singers again.

Then again, since they seem completely un-self-aware, they may just tank and continue to publicly lament “popular culture’s influence on the downfall of opera” when the clear cause of its waning popularity to anyone who’s had a chance to hear the great singers of the 50’s and 60’s is the horrible sounding singers who fill the leading roles at today’s most famous opera houses.

Back to Samson and Delilah – I have to give them props for the production value – great costumes, a fantastic middle-eastern inspired ballet in the last act, and an attempt to reach the masses by projecting one evening’s production to the jumbo-tron at AT&T Park. Alas, I was not informed of the free option with hot dogs and spent the $70 to sit on the nose-bleeds of the opera house, contemplating what would happen if the “Big One” began shaking that very moment.

The lush orchestration and Saint-Saens famous aria made it worth the trip, although the performers themselves didn’t do their part. The tenor was quivery and shamefully off- key, Delilah (Olga Borodina) was ok but not inspiring and lost control on the high notes, and neither lived up to their international reputations.

If you want to hear what “Mon Coeur S’Ouvre a Ta Voix” should sound like, dig through the discount bin at Amoeba records to find Rise Stephens, who is not only has rich and beautiful timbre and complete control with passion, but is also beautiful and not 250 pounds. Yes folks, it is possible to be a famous opera singer and not be fat and ugly, but alas, the casting directors at the major houses seem to think that fat and ugly are more classic than hiring a great singer who also happens to look remotely like their character.

The Opera Garnier, Modernization of Opera Houses and the Operatic Phantom of the Opera

Today's article is inspired by last week's opera house quiz.

Answer to Last week's opera house quiz:

Le Palais Garnier in Paris.

L'Opera Garnier is a major tourist attraction in Paris. It has its own metro stop, square, and contains a Marc Chagall masterpiece as its ceiling (not to mention a rather famous chandelier which shall be discussed later).

Yet, with all its fame and the praise for its architect, Charles Garnier, the Garnier Opera House is no longer the main opera house of Paris, although it occassionally has opera productions which almost always sell out. The Opera Bastille is now the main Paris opera house, and the Palais Garnier the home of the Paris Ballet. My question to the people in charge who made that decision is: Why, if you have one of THE most famous, renowned and beautiful opera houses in the world, with an absolutely fabulous ceiling mural painted by Marc Chagall depicting scenes from opera, would you build a new, ugly opera house that no one wants to go to. What would happen if Sydney turned its opera house into a movie theater and performed operas in a new sky-scraper? Opera in Sydney and the world would never be the same. Yet, here is the Opera Bastille.

Opera is an experience. It is not only listening to or viewing a staged musical drama. One of the reasons that cities have invested in beautiful, palatial opera houses over the past centuries, is to create the 'experience' of going to the opera. Yet, in efforts to win the 'modern' contest many cities have forsaken their beautiful, experiential opera houses of old, and replaced them with new, 'modern' concrete jungles. If modern means to replace Marc Chagall (the epitome of 'old'?) with boring, ugly, futuristic architecture to house performances of an old art form, then I'll admit to being an 'oldie.' They can have their modern futuristic opera house, and they can dress Wotan in a space suit for all I care. I'll stay in Prague with their period performances of Don Giovanni in the theatre where Mozart premiered it. Now THAT is an experience.

The Musical Phantom of the Opera

This testament to the guilded 19th century was not only the toast of Paris, but the setting for Gaston Leroux's early 20th c. novel, 'le Fantome de l'opera' which was adapted into multiple big screen extravaganzas as well as Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous musical, 'The Phantom of the Opera.'

For music lovers who are less than inspired by Webber's unoriginal and partly plagerized musical score (listen to Puccini's 'La Fanciulla Del West' for the 'inspiration' of the Phantom's 'Music of the Night') the 1943 movie starring Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster has some good musical scenes to offer. The best part of the 1943 film is the true-to-Leroux scene in which Christine is abducted by the phantom while singing the 'Jewel Song' from Gounod's, 'Faust,' a fitting symbolic moment as the mephistophelic phantom is taking Christine to the 'depths' of the opera house from which she must be rescued by the kind-hearted if dull-witted Raoul.

Another film version, which may be the best film adaptation of the story, certainly with the most character development, is a made for television mini-series from 1990 starring Burt Lancaster, Teri Polo, and Charles Dance, and is based on the play by Arthur Kopit. This rendition features many great musical moments, including several full arias that are clearly dubbed as the singer is quite good but has a much different voice than the young actress who acted the role. The abduction scene is very good, as is a scene where Christine reveals her Bel Canto training to a crowd including the washed-out Carlotta. Unlike the Webber version, a trained opera singer actually sings (if not acts) the role of Christine. This rendition offers a significant amount of the phantom’s history, partly derived from Leroux’s novel, and partly invented by the writers, which give a more complete understanding of his history and motivations.

Now, for those who are curious about the absolute worst rendition of this story, which is so bad that at breaks through the barriers of ‘bad phantom movies’ into the realm of ‘worst movie of all time ever produced in any language anywhere,’ there is the 1970’s ‘modernized’ version called ‘The Phantom of the Paradise.’ The Paradise is the modern disco where the ‘phantom’ wants to have his music heard. He gets his face stuck in a record pressing machine after getting screwed by the owner of the club (inspired by the 1943 movie where the phantom becomes disfigured by the evil impresario who throws acid in his face). The Paradise also happens to have a brothel in the back where the evil club-owner enslaves unsuspecting women, including Christine. Please, do yourself a favor, and never watch this movie. It has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

1990 Made-for-TV version: The Phantom of the Opera [videorecording] / Saban/Scherick Productions and Hexatel

1943 Nelson Eddy & Susanna Foster Version: The Phantom of the Opera [videorecording] / Universal Pictures

Guess the Opera House Part 2

Clue: Although best known for a phantom in the rafters, this opera house has been the stage for some of the most famous and influential opera and ballet premiers in the 19th and 20th centuries. Don't miss Chagall's amazing operatic mural.

Last Opera House Answer:

The National Theatre in Prague, where Janacek's 'Cunning Little Vixen' or 'Bistrouchka' makes frequent appearances.

Historical Inaccuracies in Amadeus and Why we Love it Anyway

Anyone who has taken a music history class on Mozart should cringe at the multitude of unfair inaccuracies in the Oscar-winning film, Amadeus. F. Murray Abraham’s fantastic and convincing performance of the jealousy-deranged maestro, Salieri, must have made the Italian composer turn over in his grave. Yet, even for Mozart-lovers, the movie holds an allure, a somewhat exaggerated glimpse into the common life of a very uncommon man.

Sir Neville Merriner’s excellent conducting, Tom Hulce’s wonderfully immature and playful performance, the beautiful costumes and sets care of the untouched Enlightenment-era streets of Prague (in the native country of director, Milos Forman), and the need to believe that Mozart was a normal person with an unnatural gift, help even the most skeptical music experts find a place in their hearts for this unexpectedly successful blockbuster.

In a time when popular excitement for classical music was waning, Amadeus created the popular mania necessary to bring Mozart and many of his works back to the mainstream, and kept them there for long past the movie’s shining moment. Admittedly, Mozart was never a ‘lost’ composer, his popularity always outshined Bach’s and other composers of his caliber (Beethoven may be able to compete in popular recognition, although mostly due to his temperament, hearing impairment, and the ‘Ode to Joy’ as most people probably can’t recognize any other Beethoven tune). But before Amadeus, how many non-musicians on the street knew who Figaro was, or that he got married?

The world of music owes Milos Forman, Peter Shaffer, and Amadeus a debt of gratitude for bringing the amazing world that was Enlightenment in Vienna to the forefront of the public's imagination. Even Salieri owes gratitude for his emergence from the annals of music history to which he had retreated after his incredibly lucrative and well-admired career. Would his music even be at the bottom of the Discount LP bin, of not for his diabolical role in the popular play and film? Honestly, no.

Yet, just because the priest couldn’t recognize Salieri’s favorite tunes in the opening of the movie, don’t think that his tunes aren’t good. Let us begin with exhibit A – Salieri wasn’t actually a bad composer.

Generally ‘good’ and ‘bad’ composers are a matter of opinion. Take for instance, my assertion that Webern was a worthless ‘composer’ who substituted his lack of creativity with mathematic formulas, like any monkey could do, and should therefore be lost in the depths of music history with the thousands of composers who didn’t have anything original to say, who only mindlessly extrapolated on previously ingenious ideas to make a buck. Modern composition graduate students who beat pianos with sledge hammers and call it ‘music’ would probably disagree with such an assertion. C’est la vie.

Despite the digression, Salieri’s music was tuneful and sometimes interesting, which leads me to believe that it was decent, if not good. And if my opinion isn’t convincing enough, take the opinion of listeners of the time.

Throughout the movie, Forman implies that the charlatan inklings of the general public were responsible for the popular preference for Salieri over Mozart. While the exact knowledge and tastes of the Viennese public and Emperor Joseph II shall never be fully revealed, I like to believe that most people had the educations to inform their opinions, since members of the aristocracy were schooled in music at very young ages, as if it were math or language.

Now - the tidbit of history that Amadeus failed to mention which puts the competition between Mozart and Salieri in a new light.

Mozart lovers may be aware of a peculiar, short, one-act German opera by the composer about the dramas of a contemporary impresario and his mercurial singers, ‘Der Schauspieldirektor.’ What few people know is that the opera was actually written for a contest between Mozart and Salieri to be played out at a court entertainment commissioned by the Emperor. Both composers wrote versions of the one-act opera with different librettos but similar plots (Salieri’s was entitled, ‘Prima la musica e poi la parole,' ‘First the music and then the lyrics’) and premiered them on opposite sides of a room at Schonbrunn Palace. The audience was appointed to judge the contest and was to go to the side of the room featuring the opera and composer whose work they preferred. Salieri won the contest.

If you are not convinced that the audience was correct (As you may well not be…), feel free to check out a double recording of the operas and make the judgement for yourself (If you can find one- It may be easier this day and age to find a live performance of the two pieces as the recording I have is on an very old LP and has not been transferred to CD yet). I admit that Mozart's work is fun and playful, and was probably written in 10 minutes; But, the assertion that Salieri's music had no merit and that he continually and undeservedly snubbed Mozart throughout his career is unfair and innaccurate. If only a double recording was widely available you could judge the contest for yourself...

Just make sure that you don’t let the fact that Salieri murdered Mozart block your judgement.

Which leads to historical inaccuracy #2 - What was that about Salieri killing Mozart?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intrigued?

Tune in tomorrow for installment #2 of historical inaccuracies in Amadeus and why we love it anyway.

NAME THE OPERA HOUSE!

In a tribute to the architectural wonders that represent humans' admiration and respect for opera throughout the past centuries, a weekly trivia contest has commenced.

This week's clue:
A bistrouchka is often spotted on the premises.

Join the fun and post your guesses!