BaL 30.11.19 - Purcell: Dido & Aeneas

[underthecountertenor]

I agree all of that. This one made me more than ever wish that the reviewer could just be left alone.

I am a Sarah Connolly fan but note that Tim Ashley in the Guardian was not convinced: "Her Dido sounds neither "prest with torment" in the opening scenes nor anguished at the close." I'm curious to see if I agree when I get to listen.

What an extraordinarily unpleasant review. He’s entitled to his subjective opinion of the performance of course (though I don’t recognise any of the criticisms in Connolly’s interpretation). But the reference to a ‘posh vanity project’ is gratuitously offensive towards an artist of her calibre.

Jonathan Freeman-Attwood’s Gramophone review is more trustworthy, I’d say.

[Master Jacques]

Surely a "bad example"?

But Dr Gibson does have "broadcasting experience", though - she has appeared on RR twice before, reviewing Dowland (18th March 2017) and on 30th March this year, discussing how recordings have illustrated changing performing styles over the years.

Having made a few radio appearances does not, in my book, amount to "broadcasting experience".

Dr Gibson's inability to get her thoughts across articulately, her failure (despite half-attempts) to sketch the historical overview, or place recordings in a useful context (e.g. Flagstaad's performance and recording as a tribute to England during the Festival of Britain, as something very special in our musical history and as an internationally noticed rehabilitation of Purcell; or Britten's signal edition as a "completion" of a work which may or may not have been passed down to us in its finished form) were marks of a pleasant academic who was completely out of her depth - or comfort zone - in this broadcasting context.

Add to that a lack of dramatic / theatrical perspicuity (which had my wife and I screaming at the radio in the same way as Mr and Mrs Ardcarp!) and we have an unacceptably sub-standard - indeed amateurish, jejune edition.

I accept your "bad" example in preference to my "good"!

[underthecountertenor]

Having made a few radio appearances does not, in my book, amount to "broadcasting experience".

Dr Gibson's inability to get her thoughts across articulately, her failure (despite half-attempts) to sketch the historical overview, or place recordings in a useful context (e.g. Flagstaad's performance and recording as a tribute to England during the Festival of Britain, as something very special in our musical history and as an internationally noticed rehabilitation of Purcell; or Britten's signal edition as a "completion" of a work which may or may not have been passed down to us in its finished form) were marks of a pleasant academic who was completely out of her depth - or comfort zone - in this broadcasting context.

Add to that a lack of dramatic / theatrical perspicuity (which had my wife and I screaming at the radio in the same way as Mr and Mrs Ardcarp!) and we have an unacceptably sub-standard - indeed amateurish, jejeune edition.

I accept your "bad" example in preference to my "good"!

‘Jejeune’ is a new one on me. What do you think it means, Maître? ‘Y-young,’ perhaps?

[doversoul1]

What an extraordinarily unpleasant review. He’s entitled to his subjective opinion of the performance of course (though I don’t recognise any of the criticisms in Connolly’s interpretation). But the reference to a ‘posh vanity project’ is gratuitously offensive towards an artist of her calibre.

I must say I can’t possibly agree with this view in the review.
…. sincere, subtly anguished Aeneas.

I find today’s reviewer’s view that the Witch rather than Aeneas is the Other character in the work (or to that effect as far as I can remember) very interesting.

[underthecountertenor]

I must say I can’t possibly agree with this view in the review.
…. sincere, subtly anguished Aeneas.

I find today’s reviewer’s view that the Witch rather than Aeneas is the Other character in the work (or to that effect as far as I can remember) very interesting.

Yes. I hadn’t thought of that before, and it makes a lot of sense.

[vinteuil]

I find today’s reviewer’s view that the Witch rather than Aeneas is the Other character in the work (or to that effect as far as I can remember) very interesting.

... yes, I found that an interesting view. If one follows further the idea that the Witch might be seen as another aspect of Dido it wd perhaps tend to make one prefer those performances with a female Witch - or again perhaps not. Certainly there was food for thought there. Her point that the sailors' 'Take a boozy short leave... ' was a comic prefiguring of the tragic - Aeneas's taking his leave - was nicely made.


.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Having made a few radio appearances does not, in my book, amount to "broadcasting experience".

I think you need a better book, MJ.

[Master Jacques]

‘Jejeune’ is a new one on me. What do you think it means, Maître? ‘Y-young,’ perhaps?

Thank you, I'll correct my typo!

[Master Jacques]

... yes, I found that an interesting view. If one follows further the idea that the Witch might be seen as another aspect of Dido it wd perhaps tend to make one prefer those performances with a female Witch - or again perhaps not. Certainly there was food for thought there. Her point that the sailors' 'Take a boozy short leave... ' was a comic prefiguring of the tragic - Aeneas's taking his leave - was nicely made.

For the latter, we need to thank Nahum Tate, who got it from Virgil. It's hardly the first time anyone has "noticed" this! As for the former, it's the sort of strained academic point which looks good in an essay but comes across as total nonsense in performance (or the theatre). The Sorceress and witches are representative of malign - or random - fate, working consistently against Dido. If you want another "aspect" of her, look to Belinda her sister - hardly mentioned at all this morning, alas.

[Master Jacques]

I think you need a better book, MJ.

My book is certainly old, well-fingered and stained by years of usage! But if you think Dr Gibson is a good (or even half-proficient) broadcaster, I think it is up to you to give reasons, perhaps? She fails every test (except pleasant personality) which I can come up with.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But if you think Dr Gibson is a good (or even half-proficient) broadcaster, I think it is up to you to give reasons, perhaps?

Where do you get this idea from? You said in your #23 that Dr Gibson was an example of an "academic" with "no broadcasting experience". Not "little broadcasting experience", nor "insufficient broadcasting experience", but "no broadcasting experience". This is factually wrong. I pointed out that this was factually wrong - if your "well-fingered and stained" book leads you to think that this means that I "think that Dr Gibson is a good (or even half-proficient) broadcaster" then it is indeed time that you put it in the recycling bin.

[Master Jacques]

Where do you get this idea from? You said in your #23 that Dr Gibson was an example of an "academic" with "no broadcasting experience". Not "little broadcasting experience", nor "insufficient broadcasting experience", but "no broadcasting experience". This is factually wrong. I pointed out that this was factually wrong - if your "well-fingered and stained" book leads you to think that this means that I "think that Dr Gibson is a good (or even half-proficient) broadcaster" then it is indeed time that you put it in the recycling bin.

"Broadcasting" is a deeper science than merely being interviewed (helpfully) by AMcG on the radio. Many of us here count as "broadcasters" if that's the criterion!

Let me be clear: Dr Gibson has been an interviewee on this programme three times, but she has no broadcasting experience (being left to herself, that is) and so my statement is factual. There's a danger of angels dancing on the heads of pins here, which is why I asked you precisely why you found her performance this morning - whether as an interviewee or "broadcaster" if you prefer - more professionally acceptable than I do? If you don't, why defend this doubtless capable academic?

[Richard Tarleton]

Having made a few radio appearances does not, in my book, amount to "broadcasting experience".

Dr Gibson's inability to get her thoughts across articulately, her failure (despite half-attempts) to sketch the historical overview, or place recordings in a useful context (e.g. Flagstaad's performance and recording as a tribute to England during the Festival of Britain, as something very special in our musical history and as an internationally noticed rehabilitation of Purcell; or Britten's signal edition as a "completion" of a work which may or may not have been passed down to us in its finished form) were marks of a pleasant academic who was completely out of her depth - or comfort zone - in this broadcasting context.

....................

I didn't listen - have largely given up on BAL - but must ask, Master Jacques, did you by any chance hear Dr Gibson's excellent and largely well received solo effort on Dowland's Lachrimae a while back? A perfectly scholarly, well-judged and balanced BAL of the essay variety and which furthermore came to the right conclusion ? Is this (without having listened ) yet another case of the Curse of McGregor - being forced to spar with him being enough to throw anybody off their game? He's become a bore.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

why defend this doubtless capable academic?

Where do I do this, MJ? Your statement in #23 that Dr Gibbon had "no broadcasting experience" was factually inaccurate - and it remains so. To point this out (which I did) is not to "defend" anyone or anything else.

[Master Jacques]

Where do I do this, MJ? Your statement in #23 that Dr Gibbon had "no broadcasting experience" was factually inaccurate - and it remains so. To point this out (which I did) is not to "defend" anyone or anything else.

If you're not "defending" Dr Gibson, then we are in agreement. I've articulated the difference between a professional broadcaster and an academic interviewee as best I can, and I'm sorry that I've not been capable of making my point more clearly. Dr Gibson is not a professional broadcaster, how ever you or I like to parse the word, but an academic, and I would hope we can agree on that.

In any case, I've no wish to say anything more on the matter - except to regret the wasted opportunity of this morning's BaL.