Seattle Opera’s “Lucia di Lammermoor”

Seattle Opera’s performance of “Lucia di Lammermoor” is a good example of a great opera adequately done. It left the average listener satisfied and happy. In fact, I felt it was the best evening I have experienced at Seattle Opera in recent memory. This gives us a great chance to look at the evening in more detail and see what separates a nice evening at the theater from a really exceptional performance.

I imagine some of you saying, “why nit-pick” what was ostensibly a good, enjoyable performance. This goes to the essence of why I blog. As I have stated before (maybe too many times), I believe that we have lowered our standards for classical musicians to such an extent that just getting through a performance without any major flaws deserves a standing ovation. I feel very strongly that we have to change our mind-set and expect more from our major arts presenters. When it comes to singers, we have to train our ears to appreciate good singing and good technique and not mere sound. We need to demand that our conductors do more than just direct traffic and that our stage directors support composers’ ideas and not just showcase their own novel stagings and costumes. But most importantly, we, as an audience, must view a production with open eyes and ears and not decide something must be good because it was produced by a major company.

The other day someone (anonymous by name) wrote a comment to my blog of “Amelia” complaining about another commenter who said, “the singers were not up to the task”. Anonymous said, “they must be good because Speight Jenkins chose them”. I do not wish to comment on my views of Mr. Jenkins’ expertise, but for someone to say that a singer must be good because they were hired by an established director or conductor is too ludicrous to waste too much print on. If you follow the logic (or lack thereof) then it would be impossible to have a bad, or even just “so-so” performance, as long as the singers were chosen by Mr. Jenkins or one of his colleagues. That would surely put music critics out of work. Actually, that might not make too much difference, since it seems that the majority of critics today are afraid to appear too negative and simply stick to a vague recounting of the performance. Or perhaps, in some cases, they haven’t the expertise to delve too deeply into detail.

What we badly need are more Martin Bernheimers. If you are not familiar with the name (and you should be), he was for many years the very powerful music critic for the L.A. Times, received a Pulitzer Prize and since his move to New York, continues to be one of the most respected voices in the classical music world today as a reviewer for the Financial Times and Opera News. He, of course, reviewed Beverly Sills on many occasions and would often raise questions as to how she handled one of the many Donizetti “queens” she was so famous for. It seems to me that if Ms. Sills could have her performances scrutinized at the height of her career, then, Aleksandra Kurzak, singing her first “Lucia” ever, should have had and, in fact, deserved to have had her performances discussed in more depth than “Wow’, “Oh Boy”, and “What a surprise”.

Let’s take a “critical” look at the performance, and we might as well start with Lucia herself. Basically, I found Miss Kurzak’s voice enjoyable. She sang very musically and has a good command of coloratura. I found her (and perhaps the stage director’s) interpretation of the role very interesting and engaging, with the exception of her mounting her brother during the mad scene, which I found out of character and just downright vulgar. What troubles me is that her voice is a bit smaller than the Lucias to which we are accustomed and perhaps smaller than the role demands. This caused her to widen and push in her middle range in order to fill a hall the size of McCaw. I mentioned to my wife, after the first act, that I thought she was placing her voice a bit too far in her throat, trying to make it seem larger than it naturally is, and that this could fare badly for her high notes as the opera progressed. Sure enough, as the opera continued, her high notes suffered, and indeed, the night we attended, near the end of the run, her final high E flat was really not there at all. I know there were people and reviewers who said, after opening night, that she “nailed” her E-flats, and I must believe them. But the weight of the role, and the way she was singing took a toll on her voice as the performances wore on. As I stated, I think she has a good instrument and is a fine performer, but it will be interesting to follow her career in the next few years. I would bet that she will either re-think her approach to her middle voice, or perhaps drop “Lucia" from her repertoire.

William Burden, the Edgardo, was also a lighter more “lyric” voice than is usual in that role. Edgardo is a difficult tenor role since the tessitura, especially in the first act is very difficult for the more spinto voice, but the second act needs a spinto’s dramatic chest quality. It should be noted that pitch in the period when Donizetti composed was quite a bit lower than it is today, thus making the tessitura that much harder. Although I prefer a more dramatic and less lyric tenor in the role, I feel Mr. Burden is to be applauded for the way he championed his resources to turn in a fine performance. I especially liked his final arioso, “ Tu che a Dio spiegasti l’ali”, and found it the emotional high point of the opera (which I guess, it should be).

Although I enjoyed the full, rich sound of Arthur Wooley
both times I have heard him with Seattle Opera, I found myself very troubled by his (or perhaps the stage director’s) presentation of Raimondo. (I am still trying to figure out what he was wearing and why.) Raimondo is a cleric and tutor / confidant of Lucia. He is after all, her only real ally within her brother’s castle. But I found his demeanor to be very aggressive both physically and vocally and could not understand how the frail Lucia could relate to, or more to the point, trust his counsel.

The stage director, Tomer Zyulun, has a way of making beautiful pictures on stage. This on it own sounds very admirable. But when the director, along with those beautiful scenes, changes the composers intent or indeed adds elements that were not in the score or libretto, I think , while it may be interesting and very clever, it isn’t to my thinking an honest service to the work. For example, my grand daughter saw this production ( her first live opera) and was very taken by it. It was, obviously, her first Lucia and it made quite an impression on her. I am thrilled that she is so into opera now, and we have discussed Lucia, together, many times, but I haven’t the heart to tell her that there is not a ghost in the original plot line. And, although, some people found it an interesting addition, I believe it convolutes the emotion that Donizetti had in mind.
Donizetti took the plot from Walter Scott’s novel, “The Bride of Lammermoor”; perhaps this production would have been more aptly named the “The Ghost of Lammermoor”

The opera according to Mr. Zyulun is updated and appears no longer to be in Scotland. This is no big deal except it seems the only reason for this change is so the mourners in the last scene could come in dressed all in black, wearing top hats and carrying black umbrellas (They must all shop at the same store). Oh, by the way, they are carrying umbrellas because it is snowing. Edgardo must not have listened to the morning weather forecast because he came to the tombs in his shirtsleeves. Perhaps, since he was determined to die at the hands of Enrico, he figured if by chance Enrico didn’t show up, he could just remain and freeze to death. At any rate it was a beautiful moment with the stage all in black and white, but it was more Zyulun than Donizetti or Scott.

Also his idea (perhaps dictated by the up-dated period change) to have the protagonists point pistols at one another right at the beginning of the sextet (one of the most famous in all of opera) elicited laughter from the audience. I wonder if that is what Donizetti had in mind. I’m still not sure if one carries a pistol and a sword or…..

I must once again state that I believe that an overture to an opera serves as an introduction and a setting of mood for the audience and is not intended to be staged. Any stage business during the overture is purely the director showing his own cleverness since it was clearly not intended by either composer or librettist.

Where this opera performance was the weakest, however, was in the pit, where it should be the strongest. As I have stated before, I am convinced that the most important element in an opera performance is the conductor. Opera, be it drama, comedy, folk tale or whatever, is basically music. A good conductor with adequate singers can equal an exciting performance, but a poor conductor can turn an evening with wonderful singers into a very dull event. Good singing alone does not a great opera performance make. It may be good singing, but it’s not a good performance. And in fact, it is very hard for a singer to achieve his or her best performance if the conductor does not phrase the music and breathe with the singer. The Metropolitan Opera’s performance of Verdi’s Attila, that I reviewed earlier is a good example of a conductor turning a very average cast and a second rate opera into a great musical evening.

Maestro Cinquegrani (can that really be his name) seemed to have no real grasp of Donizetti. His lethargic conducting made the first act duet (“Verrano a te sull’aure”) seem longer and more repetitive than I have ever heard it. The orchestra instead of connecting the phases, simply plodded along making one of opera’s most moving duets seem mundane. In the second act when Edgardo confronts Lucia and asks if she has, indeed, signed the marriage contract, he has one of the musical and emotional highlights of the opera; in fact it would be hard to find many, more powerful “ariosi” in the entire tenor repertoire (“Maledetto,maledetto sia l’istante”).
Here, Maestro Cinquegrani took a tempo that would make a grand prix driver envious but an opera fan cry.
It clearly made no musical or emotional sense. What the maestro needs to learn is: it’s not fast or slow that’s important, it’s rubato. But I guess if he doesn’t know that by now, he probably never will

In an earlier posting I pointed out what I feel to be a shocking fact and one that should bother many more people than just me; SEATTLE OPERA DOES NOT HAVE A MUSICAL DIRECTOR.

Seattle Opera has a:

General Director
Executive Director
Chief Financial Officer
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Programs and Media
Director of Education
Director of Production
Interim Director of Development
Director of Marketing and Communications
Director of Artistic Operations and Season Planning
Technical and Facilities Director

?????????? WHAT SEEMS TO BE MISSING ?????????????


There is more I could say, but I will leave you to your own conclusions. I only ask that you read this with an open mind and give it some thought.

If you’re happy, and you know it, clap your hands!