The second step in Robert Lepage’s new production of Wagner’s Ring for the Metropolitan Opera House has few surprises for the audiences treated to his Rheingold a couple of months ago. All money, energy and creativity have been invested in the development of the structure called “the machine”. In act I, it represents, with the help of realistic projection, both tree trunks in a forest and then the ceiling of a wallless house plus the ash tree; in act II, it becomes a rocky landscape where Fricka arrives in her chariot; in act III, individual planks going up and down are supposed to be horses for Valkyries and, by the end, projections take care of the magic fire. Considering that costumes look almost exactly like those Amalie Materna wore in 1885, I cannot recall the point of making a new Otto Schenk production whose single novelty is a mechanical structure that makes singers afraid of falling down: Voigt was on scene for barely 2 minutes when she had her first accident. So far the director has not showed a single insight about the libretto. In an interview, his profound take on the role of Brünnhilde is “she has the wisdom she inherited from Erda and the personal sense of justice that comes from Wotan – these two things are in conflict and she’s trying to find a way to be faithful to both, which is typical of a tragic character, trying to reconcile two aspects of one’s own personality”. At this point, my 6 or 7 readers may have guessed that singers ran to and fro striking stock gestures while the machine turned and showed Lion-the-king-like “flashback” little films to add some spice to Wagner’s narrative episodes.
Maestro James Levine is, of course, an experienced Wagnerian, but at his age and afflicted by health problems, he is no longer able to provide the richness of sound necessary for a slow-paced performance. At times, a surge of energy seemed to come from the podium, such as in the closing of act I, with beautiful transparent sonorities, but the Walkürenritt was basically messy and, in the last scene, the orchestra seemed just tired – brass were variable from the beginning. It must be said that the conductor had to adapt for a very particular cast with various levels of difficulties and never failed to help them out in the many instances in which they found themselves in trouble.
For instance, Eva-Maria Westbroek’s rich soprano started to hang fire after 30 minutes. In the end of act I, the voice was grey and unfocused. Before act II, she was announced indisposed but willing to go on, but was finally replaced by a powerful Margaret Jane Wray, who understandably seemed a bit short of breath in act II before a most-satisfying farewell to Brünnhilde in act III*. In her debut as Brünnhilde, Deborah Voigt seemed to be in control of her resources and survived to the end of the opera, but what these resources are deserve consideration. Round, big top notes have always been her assets in this repertoire, but in a hoch dramatisch assignment one quickly realizes that bracing for every one of them does not make her the most comfortable Brünnhilde in the market. Also, her middle register is foggy and overgrainy and the basic tonal quality is extremely unattractive, shrewish and nasal, as if she were dubbing a Walt Disney character instead of evoking anything noble or heroic. One could adjust to that nonetheless if there were some interpretation going on. As far as I can remember, she sang everything in the basic mezzo forte, uninflected style, not to mention a not really idiomatic German. Although Stephanie Blythe barely moves in this production, her presence alone exposes the lack of true Wagnerian quality in almost everyone in this cast. This is a true dramatic, flashing voice in the whole range, with some intelligent and discrete word-pointing. If you want to sample a legitimate Wagnerian mezzo soprano, you really have to listen to Blythe.
Voigt’s was not the only role debut this evening: Jonas Kaufmann’s first Siegmund was probably the raison d’être of this evening. Although his tenor is adequately dark, the fact is that his voice is a bit more lyrical than the usual Siegmund’s. As a result, a great deal of low lying passages sounded a bit timid. He took sometime to understand how to make his voice work in the role and his attempts at intensity often ended in lachrymosity and lack of immediate impact. The intermission proved to be providential, for the German tenor seemed more at ease then, readier to try his hallmark soft singing and to convey stamina when necessary. I don’t think he will ever be a really powerful Siegmund, but I am convinced that a little bit more experience will focus his performance into something more in keeping with his reputation.
Bryn Terfel’s bass-baritone is more incisive than rich, but it is big and authoritative enough. I am not sure if I agree with his whimpering approach to the role, but one must acknowledge that his detailed delivery of the text brought it to life, even if this involved some hamming. Last but not least, Hans-Peter König was a strong, reliable Hunding.
*My original text read “I first thought that the problem was nerves, for she was in far better shape. The voice was then bright and clean, but one could see she needed a great deal of extra breath pauses to reach the end of phrases. The effort cost her act III, when she was replaced by a powerful and solid Margaret Jane Wray”. Although it seems that the Met has confirmed that Ms. Wray sang act II, she too sounded (and looked) different in act II and III. No conspiracy theory suggested, but the whole situation is somewhat strange.
Well, this seems to be a case of different strokes…. I disagree regarding your characterization of Kaufman as appearing timid at times. In fact, he appeared strong, decisive and larger-than-life. He seems to have the perfect voice and carriage for the part to me.
I also thought Voigt’s middle register was full and strong – a surprise after it sounding so weak in recent productions. And her high notes largely were gorgeous – also a surprise given the “screechiness” that she’s exhibited recently. For the first time in a long time, I thought her upper register often gleamed and, to me, she did more than get through the opera, she strengthened throughout Act III. She wasn’t *the* powerhouse singer of the night, but she represented herself extremely well.
I also loved Blythe’s vocal coloring, but must say, I like movement. All of the other characters were working physically hard out there, while also singing. They crafted physical and vocal parts. I wish Blythe could have done that.
Again.. to each his/her own. This is what makes the world so interesting….
Hi, Jackie!
Yes, you’re right – that is what makes it interesting. I would only like to observe that I used to the word “timid” applied to volume and not to interpretation.
Well RML. I think I’m with Jackie here but expectations play a large part. The top of Voigt’s range did indeed sound impressive most of the night and her middle register was indeed much fuller and stronger than it has on many recent occasions. In this comparative sense and in view of the expectations established by that recent form this was indeed and excellent performance, all the more given the difficulty of the role. To be sure the midrange was clearly less than ideal and there were occasional moments of screechiness and sometimes a sense that she was holding on for dear life but on the whole it could have been much worse (and with my luck probably will be when I go see it live in the theater.
The same applies to Terfel except that there was a bit less concern in his case in that one wasn’t necessarily expecting ugliness, just potential lack of power and weakness at the bottom. He did, as you say, sing very purposefully, much better in the bottom of his range and with adequate power most of the time – though he did just seem to make it at the end.
This was the first night, role debuts for Voigt and Kaufmann and much nerves going on so it will be interesting how future performances will go. Also I heard this on the livestream which can on occasion flatter singers so we’ll see what its like in the theater.
Listening to the stream, as Cavalier did, it’s hard to be sure how effectively singers projected in that big barn. JK was definitely fighting the music (and probably nerves) in the first act but settled into the role in Act II. Terfel sounded much better than when I saw him in the Rheingold HD. But the radio mics may have made a difference.
Voigt tends or roll her consonants too strongly; it sounded at times as if she was singing in Spangerman. The injury was for her very unfortunate; the last thing she needed on this night. She is not and probably never will be a first-rate Brunnhilde.
Wray was excellent but I’m hoping Eva-Maria W. is back in the cast when I see this show. Stephanie Blythe has a splendid set of pipes but I wanted to hear more passion, more fury. Turn it on, lady!
Jimmy’s conducting sounded almost manic-depressive. The Todesverkundigung scene dragged; the tempii did no favor to the singers. Other times, I thought he needed to get backstage and make a pit stop.
The drop-outs in last night’s audio stream were very irritating.
Thanks for the review. While I came to Berlin to see and listen to Die Walküre, you`re away to see far less interesting production. 😉
I see, the dry Ring with talentless Lepage continues in Die Walküre. Why did they bother replacing the Schenk`s production with Lepage squandering millions of dollars to bring no ground idea to his show?!
I very much liked Voigt several years ago, but today all the color of her voice seems to have disappeared while the volume remained where it was before. The result is not pretty but I guess it is still efficient for the Met´s auditorium.
I am not surprised that Kaufmann´s Siegmund is underwhelming. Maybe even he should have tried on the role in some smaller theater, get a good measure of the role to scale it up for the Met. Resorting to the lacrimosa effects in Siegmund may be a sign of him being desperate.
Talking about the smashing heldentenors, I saw Stephen Gould yesterday in Tannhäuser at Semperoper (Dresden). Absolutely fan-freaking-tastic!
In the end I am not surprised that Hans-Peter König is the only one you truly liked in that show. He is a great singer and possesses a subtle sense for drama that not many singers do.
Cheers (and hey we are MORE than 6 or 7 readers!)
I’m glad to see that there is much to comment here!
1) Cavalier. Definitely the top notes are – and have always been – DV’s best feature. Nota bene, I have written that above. What I said Is that, in a hoch dramatisch role, although she can still hold her own, she has to manage her resources very carefully in order to get to the end. As for her middle register, the fact that it is hearable and better than usual is not an advantage per se. If DV was a volcanic performer with an amazing personal contribution to the role usw, then one could take that in consideration. But her performance is exclusively about the notes – and, but for the high ones, they are not really something to die for. So again what’s the point?
As for Terfel, he was all right forceful in the whole range and could even produce some big top notes. The voice is not warm and full as most famous Wotans’, but it does pierce through. And differently from DV, he was really living his role and sharing with us his view on it. So minor vocal inadequacies (if I should even describe them like that) could and should easily be overlooked.
Still 1) Kaufmann is of course a great singer, but one a bit in the light side in the role. This is no problem in itself, once he learns (and he’ll only do that by experience) where his strengths are in it. I would not chose to debut my Siegmund at the Met and understandably he was nervous and went to the 100% approach. If he were a dramatic tenor, that would probably give him some space and time to settle, but for the kind of tenor he is, that just made things a bit more difficult for him. Again, considering his usual intelligence and technical security, I would venture to say that he will already be better next time.
2) Loki, I guess I’ve covered most of what you said in my response to Cavalier. I would add that Levine too is probably going to find what is his present optimal point later in the run. You guys tell me when you have seen it!
3) OC, I did think of you in the theatre! I _really_ don’t see the point. As for DV, yes, it is still efficient. Maybe the Siegfried Brünnhilde is going to show the best in her.
In what regards the Berlin Walküre, not so fast! If Continental Airlines doesn’t play me any tricks, I’ll be home for the last performance!
Gould’s Tannhäuser at the DO a couple of years ago was AMAZING. I am glad to hear that he is going to be Janowski’s Tristan with Nina Stemme in a couple of months.
I heard half the audio feed and found the singing clearly superior to Bayreuth in 2007. I am to attend the May 9 performance.
I have seen the “Rheingold” only at the HD showing, so I need to wait to see a performance in the house.
As for the Schenk production, it always seemed tired and bland to me on my three visits in the house. Perhaps I am in the minority. For newer, less schooled audiences, the Lepage approach might offer a sense of contemporary relevance. A very close friend, who does not particularly like Wagner, enjoyed the HD “Rheingold” a great deal and will see the “Walkure” in the house. One would hope the production will mature in performance.
Good evening. Actually Eva-Maria Westbroek, in her Met debut, only sang act one last night. While she was announced as ill prior to the second act and had agreed to continue the performance by the time of her second act entrance she had backed out. Margaret Jane Wray sang both acts two and three.
Hello, Tom!
I had never thought of the Met’s policy for choice of stagings in terms of reaching new audiences. If this is intentionally so, then good – I’m always for it. I just don’t understand why the Lepage Ring has to be so empty in ideas other than mechanical structures to do that.
Hello, Michael!
I’ve just read that in Tommasini’s review, but it’s strange nonetheless. It is true that “act II Westbroek” sounded very different from act I Westbroek, but the fact remains that Wray did not sound like the act II Sieglinde either. To start with, the voice was immediately larger. The waistline too… But who knows?
Why did you come all the over here for this thing (and that tired old Cappricio, too)? You are a very tolerant man with a great deal of patience.
There are certainly more than 7 or 8 of us that read your ihearvoices regularly.
I don’t have the diplomacy nor the tact to discreetly describe what I thought of that Walkure nonsense I heard on the radio the other night. Suffice it to say that very few have mentioned that particular Brunnhilde’s rattling tremolo-ridden Todesverkündung for good reason.
The Easter Bunny must have avoided West 66th Street this weekend. Sad. It wasn’t always like this.
Well, perched, I have a soft spot for the Met: it was my first “international” theatre and Schenk’s was my first Ring. And it doesn’t hurt the fact that the Met is in New York!
Deborah Voigt’s voice is definitely irritating (as well as her good but artificially sounding diction (no real emotion)), Stephanie’s Blythe’s delivery was good, nice colour, Hans-Peter König strong (in voice and acting).
I enjoyed most the macth of Eva-Maria Westbroek’s soprano and Jonas Kaufmann’s tenor.
I really loved the smoothness of his voice. All in all, I would watch Act 1 again.
(May 14, 2011)
No wonder I liked Kaufman….a spinto tenor ….reminds me of the glorious, most amazing voice of Zinka Kunc Milanov – the Leonora in Il Trovatore …
and she did sing Sieglinde http://www.allmusic.com/artist/zinka-milanov-q40482/biography ….
if I could have heard her voice today my heart would have weeped, melted and broke.
What is this infatuation with “steely” soprano voices…Voight must be a horrible Sieglinde choice…Sondra Radvanovsky as Leonora was bad (not only steel but vibrato, ughhhh) …
Has The Met gone crazy?
Hello, Katja!
Back in 1997 Voigt was a very good Sieglinde. The roundness limited today to her top notes could be heard in the whole range and, well, this was 14 years ago, I had the impression that her whole approach was more natural. If there is one recording by Voigt that shows her at her very best, it is, in my opinion, Sinopoli’s Gurrelieder. Listen to it and compare to what to her Brünnhilde and you’ll see the difference.
As for Radvanovsky, well, she was a good Elisabetta in Don Carlo (2005) – some exquisite high mezza voce. I saw this Trovatore in the original run, but not this time (same cast and I wasn’t really impressed last time). I guess that you have to assess Radvanovsky’s Verdian singing taking in account the competition these days…
Thanks …I will try to find and listen to these…
yes, yes but!
“you have to assess Radvanovsky’s Verdian singing taking in account the competition these days” doesn’t apply to me …
have been “brain washed” with Zinka…
Today’s broadcast only confirmed how miscast Ms. Voigt is as Brunnhilde. And I’m still not convinced that Jonas Kaufmann should be singing Siegmund in a house the size of the Met. He should stay with lighter Wagner roles and forget the heldentenor repertory.
I won’t say today’s broadcast was the worst Walkure I’ve ever had but it was far, far from being the best. I’m glad I didn’t waste time trudging to the cinema to see the HD presentation of a production that I did not like when I saw it live shortly after it premiered.
Much seems to have improved by the time of the HD telecast.
Of the numerous reviews/critiques of the production I’ve read, most seem to have ignored what the visual plays reveal about Lepage’s understanding of the text, e.g.:
— the golden “eye” in Act II visually quotes the Rhinemaidens’ own description of the Rhinegold in _Das Rhinegold_: “des Goldes Auge, / das wechselnd wacht und schläft”. Here, Lepage uses what is ostenibly Erda’s own eye, emerging cthonically (and hinting that she very much sees all), to illustrate what Wotan details to Brunnhilde. The eye’s iris turns rainbow when he speaks of building Valhalla, offers images of his two ravens when he speaks of the process, and culminates, fittingly, in the spears of teh Valkyries Wotan sired with Erda herself (and which make perfect sense appearing in Erda’s own eye).
— Voigt’s slow approach at the beginning of the Todesverkündigung scene revealed her dual emotions: her literal lstalking of the leeping pair, and her reluctance to do what she has been bid as she sees Siegmund and Sieglinde together and comes to see, for the first time, a love different than filial.
— the avalanches projected onto the Valkyries’ crag occurr at two key points in Wotan and Brunnhilde’s dialogue, when Wotan’s wrath seems literally to melt toward his daughter once he learns of her motivation.
— etc.
Also, Lepage has a massive task before him, as he outlines in several interviews: to introduce Wagner is specific, and opera in general, to a new generation used to totally different methods of storytelling than their parents. I’ve argued this point endlesly with workmates, and have come to insist: “purist” and “Wagnerite” are incompatable. How much of Wagner’s own theoretical writing — from “Kunstwerk du Zukunft” to _Oper und Drama_ to “Kunstmusik” — advocated technological advance toward the gesamtkunstwerk? Wagner is the only operatic compser to create something like Beyreuth specifically to house what was, in his own time, oprea’s most cutting-edge mechanical and technological stagework. He knew that tradition for its own sake frequently kills art. There are certainly universally-agreed missteps but wvwn those are re-evaluated as time passes (remember the blathering in the wake of the now-praised cenetennial Chereau/Boulez Beyreuth production?).
As to the singing, Jonas Kaufmann’s Act I spooked the hell out of me: I thought I was hearing Fritz Wunderlich returned from beyond the pale.
Thank you, though, for your careful consideration of the Lepage production.
Hello, PhDiva!
I feel guilty for saying “you’re welcome” to your “thank you”, because I am afraid I dislike Lepage’s Ring. I understand all your considerations – that it should be didactic for new audiences, that it should incorporate technology – but I don’t know why all this means that he should: a) have very basic stage direction; b) avoid having a concept. Characters go on and off stage and you don’t really learn much about who they are but for Wagner’s words and music, something like a concert version with old costumes and a big machine in the background.
Your description of the eye effect in act II is very apt, but really – if one doesn’t know the text as you do, it means nothing; and if you do know the text, so what? It is just illustrating something without any added insight about it. I am not saying that Lepage should do a Regie production German-style, but my impression is that he has not really delved into the text to form his own understanding of Ring as a whole – what it means historically, philosophically, aesthetically, psychologically whatever – and just contented himself with “Brünnhilde is torn between her duty to her father and her sympathy for Siegmund”, “Wotan is devastated because he lost both his favourite children in one day”. There has to be more than this. If it were as simple as that, believe me: people would have stopped bothering about Wagner’s Ring a long time ago… This does not mean either that it should be a complicated staging with an incomprehensible Dramaturgie. You’ve mentioned the Chéreau Ring – that is a classic example of a sophisticated concept that works very clearly and understandably on stage. You don’t have to go into historiography to “read” it, but if you do, it delivers even more meaning and insight. In other works, it works in different levels for different people.
As you’ve mentioned, some of the images and symbols in Lepage’s Ring are beautiful and even powerful, but they really are isolated effects that do not relate to a coherent and profound core of meaning in the end. And, once you’ve spent a million dollars in a staging, I guess that too should be included in the package…
now what I did not like is the subtitles in a “so so” English translation…
since Wagner’s libretto is so poetical, so magical, so deep I am going to print the whole libretto in German and see the encore HD presentation (and all other “Der Ring des Nibelungen”) with it …there!
the worst is to be able to understand the original and then read a bad translation in the subtitle …Bruennhilde sings “whilzu verstossen dein trautestes Kind” in 3rd scene, 3rd act.
English translation says “to abandon your favourite child”….favourite!? instead of “most trustworthy”? …whole underlying values (loyalty, trustworthiness) lost in the use of such a bland word “favourite” …ahhhh
Well, Katja, it seems that the Met prefers to adopt a simplified translation for its subtitles. While I can understand that sometimes the libretto is too wordy for the little screen, I find it funny their adaptations into more “modern” and “politically correct” versions of the text. I remember that Monostatos’s aria in Die Zauberflöte becomes something really bizarre, for example.
an Italian proverb “tradurre e tradire” says it all
ohhhh, “political correctness”, just a miracle Die Walküre hasn’t been “abridged”yet. I guess Fricka saves it in Act II, Scene 1 🙂
Howard Capell has written: “(…) …all of you want that wide hoot in singers….Kaufmann was superb and not timid…Sigmund does not require the Wagnerian hoot….K will inherit the role from the wonderful Jon Vickers….DV did not sound tired….fully in control…..and as for Radanovsky’s voice….it too is superb….(…)”. I have edited the impolite parts of his message.