Do others find Vinke's Siegfried disappointing? To me he sounds most un-Heldentenorlike, even nasal.
-
-
Yes I agree. We are told about a 'head voice' but his is a 'nose voice'.
-
He just sounds knackered to me. Nothing like that in Act 1.Comment
-
I didn't hear Act 1 unfortunately. But isn't not being knackered by Act3 part of the job?Comment
-
Yes, but what I really, really CANNOT stand is the eternal wobbling and warbling and swooping of Susan Bullock's Brunnhilde which is all over the place. She is awful. Back to Amy Shuard?Comment
-
In the theatre (1st cycle) I found the last act of Siegfried (Bullock and Vinke for a very long stretch) - until the Orchestral temperature rose towards the end - hard work to listen to, or maintain interest. Direct conflation of the 2 problematic voices.
In trying to describe Vinke I felt he was a stable, much larger voiced sort of Peter Pears, without the bright edge to the sound (I admit this equals nasal, and substantial absence of a ringing tone). A shame as he had stamina all the way through, and seemed solidly in command of the role. That said, I find a lot can be forgiven in live performance, on the whole, but less so there.
Overall, having gone to the end, this Ring was a rewarding and memorable - wonderful performances (Terfel, Tomlinson, Westbroek, O'Neill, Halfvarsen, Siegel, Connolly, Koch + the Valkyries - the latter strong and effective, certainly live). All with the Orchestra and Pappano moving/driving the piece magnificently.Comment
-
I missed the 2nd act, but I thought that he sounded rather good in the 1st - & being 'un-Heldentenorlike' isn't neccessarily a bad thing (given that so many heldentenors can be rather shouty), especially in act 1. I thought he sounded a bit tired in act 3, but how many Siegfrieds don't on stage?Originally posted by JimD View PostComment
-
Well, that was an experience and a bit. My seat was in the back row, row C, of the stalls circle and just three places from the box which marks the very end of the horseshoe. Even without six harps sitting in the box, most of the stage left area would have been cut off from my view, and with them there, pretty much all of it was invisible, save the vertically-streaked glimpses I got through the strings.
And - wouldn't you know it - the vast majority of important moments all took place stage left. A chatty neighbour told me that it was much the same in Rheingold and Walküre, "But it seems even worse this time". So the limited view affected my enjoyment rather more than I was expecting it to, and the staging's (few) moments of reportedly visual beauty or excitement passed me by completely. I only have Siegfried's word for it that there even was a dragon, let alone that he killed him.
Perhaps I would have liked the production more if I'd had a better view of it. Or perhaps not: there were a few clever touches such as using the act one prelude to depict Mime raising Siegfried from a baby but even they were often undercut by sheer perverseness: was it really necessary to have the early-teen incarnation of the hero played by a woman? If that was making an insightful point it was too insightful for me, I'm afraid.
There were just so many questions that went unanswered (unless all the clues were stage left): why was act one dominated by a crashed plane? Quite apart from anything else, if this is a world with that level of technology, why is Siegfried so determined to have a sword? Why doesn't he want a machine gun? Or a tank? When Wotan appears for the riddle scene, why does he do so from the plane's cockpit wearing a flying helmet and goggles? Was he actually the pilot and if so has he been hiding there the whole time since the prang? Why does everyone throw stuff around so much? Why is reading books and papers such an important motif? Why does Fafner's head suddenly become detachable after he dies? Where did Wotan get the mattress from, and why does Siegfried go to sleep on it rather than climbing the mountain and penetrating the wall of fire? Is his encounter with Brünnhilde just a dream? And so on, and on, and on...
Sonically, my seat was less unbalanced than I thought it might be, except when the harps struck up or when any character decided to move upstage left, when they disappeared vocally as well as visually. But that wasn't the most unfortunate thing about sitting in C94: that would be a toss up between the incredible hardness of the scarcely-padded bench and the distracting behaviour of the harpists who didn't stay put throughout each act but decided to leave the auditorium when they weren't needed. I was a bit surprised at that.
Oh - and it was pretty good musically. I rather liked Vinke, who kept going a lot better than most, though I was extremely close to the stage which might have made him sound more powerful and even more focused than he appeared from farther back. It would have been good to have a bit more light and shade and he doesn't do pathos too well, but I've seen and heard far, far worse. Terfel was fine and there wasn't really any outstandingly weak link. Bullock doesn't convince me visually as a Brünnhilde (and she certainly wasn't helped by a ridiculous hairdo and some extremely silly staging which gave her way too many embarrassing excited-little-girl movements) but I thought she sounded OK. Overall though, the limited view and the general discomfort prevented any real immersion in the drama and so I wasn't able to lose myself in it musically, either.
A unique experience, though, even if one I shan't be in a hurry to try again. And now I'm all set up to go on Mastermind and answer questions on The Number and Duration of Harp Passages in The Second Day of Wagner's Ring.
BertLast edited by Bert Coules; 22-10-12, 00:04.Comment
-
Poor Bert!
On air the undoubted star of the show for me were Pappano and the orchestra. Bullock deffo not. Terfel OK, Vinke OK-ish, Mime excellent, Erde OK, and in the BBC box, Donald Macleod and John Deathridge were brilliant.Comment
-
Thanks for the sympathy, but all in all it was a fun evening and even with the limited view it was great being so near to the actors. As to the sound, I'm looking forward to sampling the broadcast and seeing how it compares with being there. And I'll definitely listen to the introductory conversation.
It feels like an awfully long time since Donald Macleod and I were fellow sound-effects operators in BBC radio drama, enthusiastically sword-fighting each other while standing perilously close to two extremely eminent Shakespearian thespians gasping and groaning for all they were worth. Ah, happy days.
BertLast edited by Bert Coules; 21-10-12, 23:44.Comment
-
Yes, poor Bert! Sorry for that unhappy experience - but at least you've amused us greatly with your account of it!
(Bit off-topic, but a Brahms 2nd Piano Concerto at the RLPO was all but ruined for me recently by a lady just below who (uniquely in the audience) fanned herself vigorously with a borrowed programme throughout! Rather like having a silent metronome in front of you, running out-of-time. Luckily I found another seat for DSCH 10 after the interval. Nothing like live eh?)Comment
-
On the first point...how often is this the case? Quite often up here at Opera North (not Pappano of course!), though perhaps that's to be expected when money is tight. From the reviews I'm half expecting it on Saturday for The Makropulos Case: but mustn't prejudge.Originally posted by DracoM View Post
On the second point, I agree entirely. And what a contrast with the broadcasts from the Met.Comment
-
Bert, it's not just the intros. DM's interval talks with John Deathridge were fascinating for once, detailed, genuinely researched and fluently conducted. Made the whole package a very different, very refreshing and educative in the best sense experience for me - and I've been listening to the Ring on radio etc for yonks.Originally posted by Bert Coules View PostComment
-
Right, thanks for that: I'll listen to the lot. Siegfried often seems to be the most undervalued of the Ring operas and it will be good to hear it given its due value.
BertComment
-
Comment