If a questionnaire asked me “Are you a Nabucco/Macbeth or an Otello/Falstaff person?”, I am afraid I would tick the first box. These early masterpieces have such an immediate appeal in their right-to-the-point-ness: in terms of invention, the ball is always in the air here; the dramatic tension is constant, the balance between solo singing and chorus is ideal; and nothing feels pretentious. One might prefer more sophisticated music, but here the relation between aims and means is just ideal. One is tempted to say that, as many apparently simple works of art, it requires perfection – but as often with Romantic Italian operas, the difficulty is a central part of the experience. You’ll rarely (or never) hear anyone beyond reproach in the three main roles in this opera, but you’ll cherish the memory of singers who dealt with the formidable requirements with panache.
I had seen Anna Pirozzi only once as Maddalena in Giordano’s Andrea Chenier in San Francisco. She was the new diva in the block back then, and I expected something entirely different from what I heard. On writing about her, I used the word “Mozartian” (which is a compliment) and wished she tried lighter repertoire. Now I see that this was a bit off the mark. That said, I wouldn’t call her a dramatic soprano even now. One can see that she is at 110% when the writing requires laser-like acuti, and yet she copes very well with being a bit beyond her natural limits, what makes the experience even more exciting. Anyway, remarkable as this is, it is not what is truly remarkable about Ms. Pirozzi. What makes her special is the intriguing multicolored quality of her voice. It has a remarkable naturalness à la Anita Cerquetti that makes it sounds like a singing voice in every register. Does this sound tautologic? Yet it is not – many a singer in heavy roles resort to all kinds of manipulation to survive the heavy weather and end up sounding basically nondescript. Not Ms. Pirozzi, who resorts to good old technique and a lot of common sense. Whenever Verdi relaxes the demands on her, she scales down to, yes, Mozartian poise and saves her resources for the moments where there’s no holding back. The sound is always individual in tone and the text comes across crisply and idiomatically. Of course, you won’t find here the sheer monumentality of a Dimitrova, but I bet that what Verdi expected comes closer to what Ms. Pirozzi offered last evening. Behind the piercing high notes, there is a chiaroscuro of vulnerability, glamour and bite.
This was not the first time I’ve seen Lucio Gallo as Nabucco. Nine years ago in Tokyo, he made for a less than voluminous and dark quality than what one expects from a Verdi baritone with singing incisive and a voice forceful enough. Now he does sounds overparted here and there, the legato is patchy and the command that the part requires is not entirely there. Yet he throws himself with all he’s got in it – and this is something you can’t learn. Either you have it or not – and it’s a requirement for a role like this. I took a while to recognise Alexander Vinogradov’s voice, which I remember from his Sarastros in the Lindenoper as rather noble in tone. Now it has a curdled patina that takes some time to get used to. That said, once you do, you’ll notice that it has also grown quite massive throughout its range, to exciting effects in combination with the chorus. I found Omer Kobilijak’s more secure and brighter in his notes here as Ismaele than when I heard him in Bellini’s I Capuleti e I Montecchi last year. He was well contrasted to Alisa Kolosova’s fruity, rich-toned Fenena.
One could arguably say that the main part in Verdi’s Nabucco goes for the chorus – and the house chorus was in top form this evening, singing with Italian fulness and clarity throughout. One would hardly call Donato Renzetti’s conducting a game-changer as one hears in Riccardo Muti’s or Giuseppe Sinopoli’s recordings, but it was stylish, solid and sensible. The orchestra had its rough-edged moments, but this is exactly what you would hear in a bona fide Italian opera house, including in what regards the quicksilvery quality of the strings.
When it comes to Andreas Homoki’s 2019 production, all I could say it is an Andreas Homoki production. This time it was green. There were also silly choreographies (as in Broadway-like moves with bowler hats while Abigaille sings she is climbing up the bloody steps to the throne). It did not spoil at all the fun, although one feels that it could have been a concert performance without any loss in insight. It did not change my life, but it was enjoyable. And I don’t think I am alone there. The level of concentration from the audience (including a large group of teenagers nearby) was high.
Split the difference? I can’t bear Nabucco, but can never get enough of Macbeth. I think Otello is objectively incredible but also cold and clinical. Falstaff I’ve come to worshipping after having spent decades not really getting it.
Haha, Peter! Macbeth is superior to Nabucco, no doubt, but I still like its unpretentious straightforwardness. As much as you, I took a while to get Falstaff, but today I prefer it to Otello, which I find a bit all over the place. By saying this, I don’t mean I dislike it – but it requires some patience.
I guess I just think that a lot of that unpretentious early Verdi is so singer dependent and since Nabucco is in some aspects one of the harder operas to cast from that period, I often find myself sitting there thinking how much better Verdi got even in operas where he was still basically in a more traditional format. I can sit through a poorly sung Macbeth and still find myself admiring the opera and fully loving the most inventive aspects. I don’t feel that way about Nabucco. I’d rather just listen to Rossini, a composer I’ve suddenly come to esteem so highly after having been on a listening binge.
Otello has that kind of *perfection* to it paradoxically keeps me at arms length. I do think the problem there unfortunately to some extent is that there really aren’t any tenor who can bring the visceral punch to it that will get me emotionally invested. So of the later Verdi masterpieces it’s not a personal favorite of mine, though of course there’s a lot to choose from. Falstaff I just find remarkable but I had to see it what felt like a hundred times to come to that conclusion.
I agree and disagree about Nabucco being singer-dependent. It is definitely very very hard to cast (this is where I agree), but it is also a piece where the CHORUS is absolutely important. So I would say that a good conductor, a good orchestra and a very good chorus can make for an ok-ish cast. They wouldn’t rescue it from a bad cast, no doubt about that.
Me too, I have become fonder of Rossini – and if his music requires a lot of technique, it is far more reasonable tailored on the human voice than Verdi’s. That said, many Rossini work – especially the serious ones – have long stretches of formulaic composition, while a work like Nabucco just move forward (even when it is formulaic).
I have to stay that there are parts of Otello that I find a bit awkward – that long scene with children singing for Desdemona, for instance. There are, of course, tenors who manage to sing the part of Otello – but very few in the history of opera who can produce the frightening intensity that is essential for the plot to make sense. And the score requires an intense, slightly rough sound that we rarely hear for any sensible conductor would keep it under leash to spare his singers. With Falstaff, if the cast is characterful, you won’t mind if their voices are excellent or not.
Interesting. I don’t think we quite agree regarding Nabucco vs. other serious Rossini (not all serious Rossini mind you). I’ve been on a Ermione and Maometto binge and while I would hesitate to label them as perfect, both of those operas essentially dispense with the aria/cabaletta/recit and are really compact and theatrically dynamic in a way I wouldn’t have suspected. Weirdly I had seen these operas at different times, enjoyed myself thoroughly, and promptly forgot about them. Similarly, I am not much of a Tell fan. But in terms of the form I’d argue it’s pretty much ahead of the curve compared to Nabucco simply in terms of the musical structure (my issue is that I find it filled with dramatic longueurs). I also just have to admit that I don’t find the solo music in Nabucco particularly inspired aside from the sheer bravado of it. There’s a vividness to it, but I think Abigaille is when all is said and done fairly generic musically once you put aside how brutal the writing is.
Falstaff I simply find remarkable in terms of its economy. It’s quite possible the ONLY Shakespeare adaptation that is superior to the source. And there is depth and mature warmth to it that emerges on repeated listens. I also love Falstaff and Alice Ford as characters.
We don’t either quite agree or disagree hahaha. We don’t have to discuss about the Rossini – I see your point. I can’t remember the stage director who said this, but his point was – he liked bel canto operas because their music is so free of psychology that characters come across as essentially free for the singers and the audience to fill in the blanks with their own concept. On the other hand – still quoting this director – late Romantic drama would be so psychologically profiled that you feel inclined to respond in a rather “analytic” way. Such as “nobody would ever do something like that”. In that sense, yes, Rossini’s drama is an open canvas, while Verdi inspires this “I buy it” or “I don’t buy it” response. I myself “buy it” more readily a Nabucco than an Otello. I don’t have to “get” Abigaille – she’s face-value cliché. In this sense, her music not being particularly persuasive is of secondary importance. It’s punchy – and that’s it.
As for the inspiration in Nabucco. Yes, “Va, pensiero” (not my favourite number in the opera) is probably the most memorable melody. And yet I like the fact that it doesn’t need to be melodically persuasive to make its point. For instance, I don’t think there are many opera goers who could sing the baritone’s solos in Nabucco by memory, but they just deliver what they have to deliver at the moment. Like “he regrets it”.
I find it surprising to read myself when I write it “Falstaff is charming”, because I really disliked it when I first heard it. But now it’s always a pleasure to see it in the theatre – if the production is intelligent, the singers can act and their voices are pleasant enough (I guess the Falstaff should have a little more than just that…), then it’s going to be fun.
I guess the “open canvas” aspect of Rossini is relatively new thing for me, as someone who spent the vast majority of my opera going life as being fairly indifferent to bel canto unless the singers were thrilling. But I’ve been re-reading Phillip Gossett and also listening to performances like the Elder Semiramide or the serious opera recordings from the 1980s. So it feels like a discovery of sorts for me. Whereas Nabucco just feels like it’s been there my whole life, although actually I guess I didn’t see it until I’d seen most of the other standard Verdi many times.
I forgot to say, glad to see a good word for Pirozzi, who I like a lot. I could use some more volume and power lower down and of course she’s not exactly the most charismatic lady you ever did see but she really SINGS these roles and is not inexpressive.
I have already told you that, it was love at the first sight for me with Cenerentola and Tancredi. It doesn’t require a big effort to enjoy a performance of the comedies, even when you don’t absolutely love the music. With the tragedies, Semiramide was my first “new acquisition”, even though it feels long in the theatre. My greatest surprise was La Gazza Ladra. I found it really touching when I saw it live.
I have to say I edited my review of Pirozzi. The first version was almost enthusiastic. Yes, we can make observations about this and that, but I really was fascinated by the naturalness, the tonal variety and the spontaneity she displayed in such an unsingable part.
Maometto and Mose were the surprises for me because I’m rarely moved by Rossini and those two did move me quite a bit on return visits. And I will say as someone who was decidedly not a fan of June Anderson, I saw her sing in the former and listened again to the commercial recording and she incredible and was in person that time. Odd, since I did not care for her Semiramide at all. Tancredi I like quite a bit, but was fortunate to see Horne with a several different terrific sopranos as her costar so that helped.
Semiramide is a paradox, because it’s simultaneously this massive edifice while also being so delicate. If the singers are 100% up to it or the conductor is asleep at the wheel it can be unbearable. Elder is amazing in that respect.
I remember Pirozzi making her Met debut before the pandemic and having the unfortunate scenario of splitting the run with the other Anna, Netrebko. Not only did Netrebko predictably get the attention but when I went to see Pirozzi there we multiple audience members who had only just realize they had bought the ticket for the wrong Anna and promptly left.
I have the Mose recording but haven’t listened to it in ages. Now you made me curious. June Anderson is a singer who can be awesome and frustrating. I’ve seen her live only once in a French mélodie recital, and she was in top form and very expressive.
Semiramide is like a multi-teared cake – and there’s a lot going on there in many levels. You’re the second person to recommend the Elder recording. I wasn’t really curious about the case, but again, Peter, you make me buy recordings 🙂
I remember reading about the double Anna Macbeth. It must have been fascinating to compare two singers so different in approach in the same role.
I think if you are a Semiramide fan, it’s basically essential. It’s complete and the conducting and orchestral playing are such that a case is made for it in totem. The ornamentation is mostly appealing and Elder doesn’t let the singers drop out at the ends of duets and arias so they can pump out loud high notes at the end. So there’s real momentum and it feels like propulsive theater, as opposed to a pageant, Daniella Barcelona aside (and she’s maybe past her absolute prime) it’s not a cast ordained from above but they are all in something like their best form and all very into it. I am not a big Albina S. fan but that’s the closest I’ve come to being in her corner. She’s in good voice and is as close to being genuinely expressive as I’ve ever heard her. It does seem a little counterproductive to make a HIP Semiramide and still go with a high soprano in the title role. But she does a good job. Beyond all that all of the other commercial Semiramide’s, despite having individual strengths, are also highly flawed.
In terms of the two Anna’s, I skipped Netrebko second time around. I thought Pirozzi was pretty terrific and she actually maybe acted it with more detail.
I’ve seen Shagimuratova as Konstanze and I couldn’t quite picture her as Semiramide. That is why I was a bit unconvinced by the idea of actually buying it. But a friend had already recommended it to me. He also said I should check the video from Munich with DiDonato and maybe Barcellona too. He was upset I had fun with the Studer/Larmore/Ramey haha
As for Pirozzi, she has an edge on Netrebko in terms of delivery of the text. In her own language and with her very good diction, she scores lots of point there.
I really enjoyed the Munich video. It’s not a perfect production but it’s interesting and more importantly does achieve the seemingly impossibly feat of making the opera something other than a pageant and Alden is a good director of singers. It also probably does have on average a more glamorous cast than the Elder recording. Didonato is stretched but less so than you might imagine and the conducting is also very good. The whole thing is on YouTube so it’s not hard to dip into. Like you, Shagimuratova was not someone I would have pictured in the role. But she does have a kind of brittle edge and thrust that turns out to work for the role and she shows *comparatively* more bit with the words, which must be due to Elder I’d imagine.
I have to admit that on repeat visit, Netrebko’s Lady Macbeth diminished somewhat. Her physical commitment and charisma are off the chart, which is vital for the role, and because her sound is so glamorous and without real hard edges she was innately more musical than almost anyone you’d be likely to hear in the role. But I do think conceptually her approach to the role is basically at the end of the day Maria Guelghina, balls to walls intensity are hurling the voice around. Given that I think she has (or had) enough capitol for a role that doesn’t necessarily require a dramatic voice, I think she could have afforded to pull back and put less pressure on her voice and offer up some more niceties. To be clear, I am not saying her Lady Macbeth wasn’t a success and when I first saw it I cheered heartily. But the novelty of it kind of wore out when I saw her again and watched performances elsewhere. Pirozzi has nothing like Netrebko’s charisma and glamour, but I actually thought beyond her textual advantage she actually acted the role with more detail and put over some vulnerability and guilt.
I’ll look for the video. Again the idea of DiDonato in the role didn’t seem quite right for me, although she has the imagination for it and the technique for the florid music.
I’ve never seen Netrebko’s Lady Macbeth. She had to cancel her appearances in Zurich, and I have seen it only on broadcast from the Met. I agree with your description. I like the idea that she clearly shows that sex has to do with what is going on there – and the voice is very impressive in terms of weight and color. Yet the part gains a lot when the singer really uses the text. After all, it’s an adaptation from Shakespeare!
Didonato gives an “artist” performance. Basically whatever she lacks in sound she wills herself into putting over through technique and artistry. She also is terrific actor and is made to look more slinky and glamorous than usual and pulls the look off.
About the Studer/Larmore/Ramey -these early nineties Studer extravagances are complicated haha. It has a reputation for being a party tape on her end that isn’t at all merited because whether or not one considers her suitable for the role, the recording was made when she was still in her prime and so the basic sound is one of quality and as usual she brings her customers intelligence and certain fruity kind of nuttiness that does work for the role. That being said I think it’s not really a comfortable fit and though she had actually done the role live earlier on, it still very much feels like a studio “Star doing a turn” type of thing which IMO isn’t really justified by the results. I also think (and I feel this way about her Lucia, which is similarly inoffensive in the studio but which I actually saw her do in person and which was a disaster) she makes it worse for herself but inserting all kinds of ornaments and high notes that really aren’t in her voice and end calling even more attention to the fact that the role isn’t really her fach. ALL that being said, if you divorce yourself from the Studer narrative it’s not at all an unaccomplished performance. But given that the recording was made a time where there was unusual abundance of accomplished sopranos singing the role, it is annoying that the record company just defaulted to Studer. My REAL problem with that recording is the conducting. I think Larmore and the men all put in a good showing and would have potentially been genuinely excellent with a better conductor at the helm. It has a kind of hammy fun to it, but I think he can’t sustain the opera at all.
My bizarre “what if Semiramide” would be (brace yourself)-Julia Varady. I think her timbre and odd severity would have been weirdly great in the role and I think her coloratura capabilities are the type that would have worked especially well in some Rossini.
Yes, the Marin recording is campy – and Studer embraces the campiness as if her life depended on it. This is not the grandeur Rossini expected, but it is better than the usual dutifulness. And the big orchestra is part of it. It’s odd, but it’s effective in a bizarre way. And there’s Larmore and Ramey. The Lucia I find a bit worse than inoffensive haha It’s a truly weird recording.
Varady. I still have to process that information 🙂 It would have been a bit wild. The big challenge would make sure that it would be the right kind of wildness. This would have included making sure she sang the right consonants in the right places 🙂
Yes, Italian text is weak point of Varady, but I think her basic manner and gait combined with her timbre would be oddly apt for the role. She has an angsty kind of authority that I wish more singers in the role had. And I feel like the specific coloratura of Rossini and that role in particular would work out somehow. She also did sing Rossini. I have a German performance of Adele (!) in Comte Ory (!!) and it’s weirdly kind of good (?). Plus she tends to blend well with other singers. I don’t find any of the women on record ideal so I think in fantasy baseball terms it could be interesting.
Studer’s Lucia…I think of the bel canto rep something like Semiramide, which has a lot declamation and force, disguises so of the kinks in Studer’s armor more than other roles. The glare, edge and tendency towards flatness is really put under a microscope in something like Lucia (I actually feel that way about her in some of the Mozart she did where repose is needed, her Countess even in her prime never really did it for me. As Donna Anna and Elettra she gets to sing out and it works better). I’ll admit I have not listened to that Lucia basically since it came out. I had seen her one off Lucia in Philly a couple of years earlier and it was THE first time I began to wonder about her. She went for all of the standard high notes and ornaments and missed all of them and couldn’t really stay in tune. So the recording just kind of came off better in comparison. But in no way is it good and the Semiramide is certainly superior. But for all that, she probably by a large just should have stayed away from that stuff. But I guess she wouldn’t still be talked about if she hadn’t gone for it the way she did,
Varady as Adele? Now I’m curious! I agree that she had the voice and the attitude for Semiramide. The gleam in her voice produced a beautiful effect in ensembles too.
Studer in Italian roles. I once saw an interview in which she mentioned having asked Caballé for some advice on mezza voce etc, and we see this is something she really wanted to do, to master the art of pianissimo etc. I don’t think she had it in her, though, and the result it that the sound could become unstable and flat. As you’ve said, me too I never really warmed to her Countess Almaviva for that reason. In her jugendlich dramatisch roles, on the other hand, she mostly kept it bright and forward and produced softer notes in a more consistent way.
To be honest, I never understood that obsession with finding a soprano assoluta. I mean, I understand why the audience would enjoy the idea of their favorite singer singing everything. What I don’t understand is why the singer would risk his or her vocal health stretching his or her possibilities like that. Yes, you get a lot of publicity when you do something on that lines, but the price and the risk are too high . And I imagine it’s not as fun as singing what more or less agrees to your vocal nature.
I’m biased because I wish this opera would go away, especially because it’s rarely done well, but why would anyone decide to step outside their fach and get egg on their face for Lucia?
You did kind of get to the hear of the matter regarding the Semiramide (for me). Rossini sounds like it would be a lot of fun to sing but it also must be torture if it’s not for your voice. Studer does sound like she’s going for it, even I find her somewhat generically campy, and as we’ve said she’s in healthy voice generally so there’s nothing she should be ashamed of. But there is just a lot of hard work involved. Studer’s live Semiramide was actually as a sub for Caballe. I wonder if they were friends, there is documentary about Caballe (when she was alive) where the usual suspects (Horne, Ramey) are interviewed. But Studer is also interviewed at length and it’s never clear why.
I guess Lucia – maybe because of Callas – is considered an essential item in the “assoluta” list. It must be horrid having to sing it without feeling 100% confident about what you can do.
Just went back and read all these interesting comments. Didn’t comment when I first read this review because 1) never was able to figure out what Otello had in common with Falstaff (except, of course, the time of composition & the source material) – the former is just plain dull – the latter is a favorite of mine; and 2) never cared much for either Nabucco or Macbeth. But have always realized that Macbeth has Verdi’s best collection of arias all together in one place & despite the rudimentary choruses, enjoy the ballet music from Macbeth – never liked the play so that may have something to do with it. Nabucco, after the brilliant Act 1, is just a matter of sitting through it patiently to the end – there’s nothing much there for me. Yes I do have favorite early Verdi (Oberto, I Lombardi, Il Corsaro, Ernani, Attila, Stiffelio, I due Foscari).
– Sticking to Verdi, the great masterpieces for me are Don Carlo[s], Sicilian vespers & Forza del destino.
Hi, Jerold! Otello has nothing in common with Falstaff – the idea there is to discuss the established idea that the last works are tremendously superior to the early ones. Some of the choruses in Macbeth and Nabucco are indeed simplistic, but I find their lack of pretension refreshing.
It’s funny you mention Stiffelio – I’ve never understood why it is not more widely performed. The plot is a bit awkward for contemporary audiences, but it is also closer to “normal life” than, say, Aida or Ernani. And the music is beautiful.
Stiffelio is my favorite of all the early Verdi. Musically and dramatically, it offers more detailed character delineation, faithfully following the drama and the motives of the protagonists –> particularly in the last act. It always draws me in & holds my attention.