A Fresh Start

The San Francisco Bay Area. The place is amazing. In my experience thus far in the world I have to say that it is second only to Juneau for being magical and full of the best, most creative, most welcoming people. The Bay Area has world class opera, cutting edge arts, rich music, a thriving and creative DIY and entrepreneurial community, the best food in the USA, and is a spiritual mecca. The people are interesting and interested. Every one can be themselves. The weather is great. And, if I may wax hippy, there's *just something* there. Like, it must be on one of those earth spirit meridians that I have heard of.

And...... it was choking my soul. I overstayed myself by at least two years. I stopped listening to music. I constantly felt trapped. I felt overwhelmed, oppressed by stuff and motion and thrum. The non-rational part of my being was dying a slow death.

How can I tell this was for sure? I am ecstatic here. The quiet is deafening. I feel like I can hear so much more. My brain is thinking! I have so much more space for others and for myself. I don't feel so panicked. And I'm listening to music again. And singing. I sing all around the house. What am I listening to these days? Still a lot of classical music. Although I'm craving some opera: I don't own any Ruth Ann Swenson or Susan Graham! We recently discovered Florence and the Machine. Sort of like Regina Spector meets 60s rock and soul? Absolutely fab. Adam's been listening to this neat ambient/world stuff that I really like called Angel Tears (which is THE WORST name for a band ever). Right now I am downloading The Corner Laugher's newest album, Ultraviolet Garden.* And, on Tuesday, it's a double winner of a music day: John Mayer AND Hem both release new albums.

My soul is just so damn happy these days. It's almost in a manic state. After being weighed down and deadly lethargic for so long it's like... well, it's like Bennett at bedtime: cracked out.


*Yay for fellow UWLampeter student and Bay Area homies!

On Tuesday night I went to see Mozart's Idomeneo at the San Francisco Opera. I went with The Opera Tattler for standing room. I just love going to the opera; I get so excited when the conductor walks in the for the first time. Mozart is my favorite so I knew I would love the opera. Without fail there was a love triangle and mistaken identity. It was sufficiently ridiculous, although not quite as absurd and soap opera-like as his later operas.

The production was delightful to look at. Again, appropriately silly: Greek ruins, with costumes that were late 18th century with Greek themed embroidery or togas over the top. The color scheme was an invigorating shade of turquoise. Act II ended with a deep shade of red and 4 angry horse heads rising up from the sea (on a scrim).

The singing was for the most part absolutely wonderful. Kurt Streit played Idomeneo. His voice was beautiful and dramatically raw in some places. I thought his acting was the best of the show. It's hard to be a good opera actor. The main soprano of the work, Ilia, played by Genia Kuhmeier, was beautifully sung. Her aria in the second act, in which she sings to Idomeneo, was moving - in part because of Streit's acting, even though he didn't sing a note.

The love interest, Idomeneo's son, Idamente, played by the cover in this performance, Daniela Mack, was not too good. Her voice is unsuited for Mozart, mainly due to a rather heavy vibrato. Her acting looked stock and stiff from the back of the house. However, just before Act II a couple approached the Tattler and me and said they weren't going to stay, would we like their seats in the second row? Yes, we would indeed! Sitting there, I realized that I liked Mack more. Her face was charming. However, in a large opera house her acting needs to be more physical to translate beyond the first few rows.

I just love pants roles. Through out the operas that have them I like to switch my thinking to imagining that it's really a lesbian couple. That is much fun.

The chorus must also be mentioned. Mozart wrote some beautiful chorus pieces for this opera. Turns out I knew and have sung a piece from the third act, "Placido e il mar," in my high school chorus. No wonder I can still remember the piece! I may even have the sheet music still. Anyway, the chorus was great. I especially loved the men's chorus in the first act - the echo effect was expertly written. But it's Mozart, so why am I surprised?

The last thing I'll mention is that the motifs and orchestration used for Elettra's character prefigure the Queen of the Night in Mozart's later Die Zauberflote. At least, I think they do.

Do you like opera? How about the Muppets? Surely, you must love opera + Muppets?

To put a grin on your face today, please check out the Muppet Habenera (from Bizet's Carmen), either on YouTube or at The Opera Tattler. 1 and a half minutes of silliness!

ctiee and I went to the opera last night and as always it was a delight. I have seen four of the eight productions this fall. I think Rake's is my second favorite. While Mozart's Magic Flute was fun and I adore the music, the production was quite over the top and my experience being in the nosebleed seats definitely diminished the experience. Wagner's Tannhauser takes the cake and Puccini's La Rondine was certainly just plain bad.

It's hard to rate opera, for there are so many factors, all being almost entirely subjective opinion. Did you like the music? And did the orchestra play it well? Did you like the songs? And were they sung well? Acting? Voice type? Plot, character development, libretto (lyrics)? Production (sets and costumes, including theme/era/etc)? And then, what was the overall impression? Did you have a good time? And possibly, would you ever go see this opera and/or production again? Whew. That's a lot. But it's part of what makes this so fun. It's kind of like going to see a very long, big budget movie performed live.

Let's break down Rake's Progress in the order I listed the above questions. ( For the truly interested, please read on )
As I have recently discovered, the opera reviewer for the SF Chronicle (I can't believe such a literate, major American city has a newspaper this bad) has wildly different opinions than me. Kosman seems to prefer standard opera, with standard productions. He said that "the new production of "Tannhäuser," [was] a far more invasive and off-putting piece of directorial folly". Whoa. This is in stark contrast to my opinion that this production was fantastic, despite one or two indulgences. In fact, it was one of the greatest things I've ever seen on stage. And, I also heard from ctiee that he thinks soprano Ruth Ann Swenson emotionally distant. Kosman and I are from entirely different planets, me thinks.

I just learned why friends locking is so important:
My sister, who doesn't even know I have an LJ, and from whom I had decided to keep my pregnancy a secret in order to surprise her in December, called me and said "YOU'RE PREGNANT?!" To which I replied, "Who told you?!" Her response: "Don't post things on the internet if you want to keep them secret!" Good point, sis.

I suspect my crafty brother-in-law. I've got my eye on you. You know you who are!

Also, I am going to the opera tomorrow to see La Rondine by Puccini. Remembering this reminded me that I will not be able to see the opera in June! I cannot stand for 4 hours when I am nine months pregnant. This is horrible!! There are two operas I MUST see next year and I do not want the crappy seats I had for The Magic Flute. I will gladly accept donations.

Last I night I attended the opening night of Tannhauser at the San Francisco Opera. I could tell it wasn't as popular as other operas since standing room was mostly empty. Wagnernerian opera has a reputation for being heavy, dense, with fat ladies and horns, and as a piece of Nazi propaganda. The last point I'll leave alone, but I found none of the other stereotypes to be true.

Tannhauser was fantastic and may very well have been the best opera I've ever seen.

This opera clocked in at close to 4 hours and I was engaged the entire time. Whereas most opera, particularly my beloved Mozart, tends to repeat things - musical lines and themes, lyrics, songs are basically doubled up for emphasis, rather than furthering the plot - Wagner repeated nothing. Everything was done to move the story forward. In the third act, even after knowing the general synopsis of the plot thanks to the pre-show lecture, I was still hanging in suspense as Tannhauser recounts his pilgrimage to Rome, wanting to know how the story would turn out. Would he be redeemed? Would he be damned?

The plot in some ways is typical oepra: a man loves two women, one woman has two men who love her, purity is major factor, shame and redemption are included as spice. Except this plot was significantly more interesting: Tannhauser, a knight of song in medieval Germany, has spent many years in the underground domain of Venus (paganism has been driven underground), enjoying her sensual love of the flesh. He longs for the grass and sunshine of the world above, so he leaves. He remembers he once loved a woman, Elizabeth, who is pure and chaste and faithful. He returns, a singing contest is held - the winner, he who can sing most beautifully about love - will win a prize from Elizabeth. One knight sings about how love is too pure to ever be touched, one sings about how love makes him do brave things, but Tannhauser is appalled at the naivete of these men and he sings about how love is real - so real it can and should be touched. The other knights are shocked. Tannhauser ends up admiting he was with Venus all these years and the knights want to kill him for blasphemy. Elizabeth, in all her love and mercy, sends him on pilgrimage to Rome; if the Pope will pardon him, he will be welcome again in the kingdom. In the third act, we see Elizabeth praying for his soul, she dies. Tannhauser comes back a wreck and tells his story. He was not pardoned and now longs for the best thing he's ever known: Venus. But! Elizabeth's soul reaches heaven and God grants her wish and Tannhauser is redeemed.

And wow. It's hard for me to separate how much I liked the opera itself from the production. The production was beautiful. The lighting, the slow decay of the stage over the three acts, the pagan dancing, the use of fire (yes! real fire on stage!!), motifs of the Virgin Mary.... it was all incredible and added tremendously to the mood of the show. In fact, my favorite scene had to be in the second act when the male chorus comes out as knights singing of their piety and women chorus come out each dressed as the Virgin Mary. I thought I was going to choke on my glee! But all of my manners kept me from laughing out loud and clapping with joy. 30 Virgin Marys on stage. I was beside myself.

And did I mention there was a real horse too?

Was it the music I loved so much? Was it the beautiful and clever production? Was it the themes of paganism vs Christianity, and redemption (I am a sucker for redemption)? What did I love so much? It's hard to say, but I was enamoured from the get-go. If the rest of Wagner is this good, I may have to forsake my beloved Mozart as favorite composer. I will be holding out my judgement until the summer season of opera when Wagner's first opera in the Ring cycle is performed, Das Rheingold.

Tannhuaser. Seriously, the best thing I've seen on screen or stage in ages.

I am at work on a Sat. I just need to do a few final things before tomorrow's conference. Unfortunately, I am falling ill. I can hold up through tomorrow. No problem. But man, I may be very ill on Monday. Equally as unfortunate is that my office is across the street from UC Berkeley on the east side, near the stadium. And today is The Big Game. Holy shit. I have never seen so many pedestrians, so many parked buses, seen so many people milling about frat houses as I did on the annoying, but surprisingly uneventful drive here. I intellectually understand the rivalry, but I still think Fuck Stanford shirts are tacky.

In better news, I went to the opera last night with ctiee. We saw Puccini's Manon Lescaut. In the music, which was lush and beautiful, if slightly sentimental and overly dramatic, I heard hints of things to come: Gershwin, Bernstein, John Williams; I saw the precursor of the American musical. I had never noticed this about Puccini before. The singers in this opera were superb, even if I found the tenor's vibrato extremely unsettling in the first act; by the middle of the show he was warmed into his voice and the vibrato seemed so appropriate to the grandiose, over-the-top qualities of Puccini. The soprano was amazing. She started out timid, like the young girl she is supposed to be, and throughout the opera her voice deepens, mirroring the tragedy she is experiencing. It's subtle and so lovely. Plus, Puccini loves to write for sopranos (think La Boheme and Madama Butterfly).

I also think this particular opera is flat out absurd for the following reasons, besides complete lack of development: tired gendered cliches; no overture -except for act 3, which is all of ten minutes!; and act 4 takes place in some strange desolate land (supposedly Louisiana, but that is not made clear in the libretto) and the soprano, Manon, spends the entire act dying on a rock. Act 4 is musically gorgeous and the soprano hit everynote, dramatic and sung, just perfectly, but again - it's all climax; it was hard to be moved at all. In fact, I have never laughed out loud at an opera as much as I did during this one.

My overriding thoughts about Puccini are that he is like the suave, extremely good looking lover that totally sucks you in. You agree to go to bed with this guy, only to discover that while he's very good at bringing you to orgasm, that's all he wants you for. He scored, and now he's moving on. Frankly, I'm a woman who needs some build up. All climax and no foreplay makes for some spectacular but empty sex.

As always, going to the opera is just plain fun, especially with Ms. Tiee. We took pictures of our get-ups and drank illicit vodka and Pepsis. Not inside the auditorium, though. Some things are sacred. Whee!

Last week I knocked and something in me opened. I have been thinking about how to engage musically again after a dry spell/hiatus/period of creative block lasting approximately 2 years. I shuffled over to craigslist last week and low and behold found a perfect band listing. I loved their instrumentation line up; they sounded like something I'd be good for. I replied, arranging an audition for today.

But between then and now I went to 3 different music events. Last Saturday I went to the SF Opera to hear Le Nozze de Figaro. It was a fabulous performance. The sets were gorgeous, the music was Mozart (which means it was brilliant), the acting was surprisingly spot on, and the singing was all of the adjectives above. I was most especially moved by Ruth Ann Swenson, who sang the role of Countess. Her high soprano was breathtaking: full, rich, poised, warm. I found myself tipping forward during her arias, as if drawn forward. Several lines in her arias started on (what I'm guessing was) a high B. Swenson plucked these notes from the air delicately and not a shrill tone was to be heard. I have been converted to the Swenson fan club.

The other two shows were Red Meat, a country band with a rockabilly persona, on Friday night and Jolie Holland, a jazzy-pop-indie-drunken-sounding-warbler, on Saturday. Both shows were highly enjoyable, although I had to get over the not quite on pitch female singer of Red Meat and the oddness of Holland's affected style and her unfortunate banter. Once I did that though, the music more than made up for my admittedly anal retentive critical issues.

Onto my singing. Let's say that today's audition was a success on many, many fronts. Let's also say that I am no rock star, nor will I ever be one. Perhaps never even a pop star. I have delusions of both things. And fantasies of either being an R&B queen or Ella Fitzgerald. Alas, upon hearing the audition - the group recorded everything - it is clear that I am a high soprano. I have a light, though not thin, soprano voice that obviously wants to sing high soprano. I am going to sit on this information for a few days and see how I feel. Do I want to try to sing pop/rock music? It's doable, though I fear I'll hurt myself (my throat is tired after singing only 7 songs). Do I want to commit to my instrument and dive back into the world of formal operatic and choral singing? Both? Neither?

Tune in next week.