Classical Music & Opera Forums

mogliettina wrote:Unlike most of you, I do recognize that Michael Jackson was a Pop Guru and, like Elvis Presley, deserves that moniker in my book. His talent was awesome.

I don't think anyone around here has denied Jackson's talent or that he was a very important figure in pop music (and therefore, for better or worse - worse, IMO - an important person in our culture). But MOZART....? Gimme a break!

As for the wall-to-wall coverage: I don't really fault the networks for that, certainly not for covering the funeral. TV is a business and ratings are critical and this was a huge story of interest to a huge number of people. (Sad testimony to the debased state of our culture, but there it is.) If ABC, for example, had not televised the funeral, they would have had near-zero audience share, and this happens to be in an important ratings period. What I DO fault the networks for, particularly the news people (who should know better but who obviously don't) is the fawning, tabloid nature of the coverage, and the willingness to participate in the grotesque exaggeration of Jackson's importance and significance outside his life as an entertainer and the glorification of the life of a very disturbed, grotesque individual. I wonder if Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson and their anchor colleagues looked as uncomfortable, cheap, and debased as they may have felt. On the other hand, given their fawning, slobbering coverage of Barack Obama, maybe they don't have much shame left, if any. Once a whore turns her first trick, making a living on her back gets easier. I don't agree with those who say that journalism in America is dead, but it is definitely on life support.

David Brooks' recent column on the loss of dignity in our culture is most apropos: [urlnw]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&em[/urlnw]

He has expressed one reason why I feel I'm living in the wrong era...

pczipott wrote:David Brooks' recent column on the loss of dignity in our culture is most apropos: [urlnw]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&em[/urlnw]

And his closing graf could not be more perfect. To wit:

But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery.

To which we say, Amen!

ACD

"But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity. The cultural effects of his presidency are not yet clear, but they may surpass his policy impact. He may revitalize the concept of dignity for a new generation and embody a new set of rules for self-mastery."

To which we say, Amen!

ACD

Hear, hear!

Bizarro Politico quote of the day:

A war of words developed between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers over the fruit-related focus of three new bills.

"The governor is not against condiments. The governor's not against fruits of any kind," said spokesman Aaron McLear."

I find absurd the notion that the governor of California could be against fruits. After all, California is the land of fruits and nuts.

Dumb blondes of the world, unite.

The lights are on but nobody's home.

Try this on for size:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSG807d3 ... re=related

calvert wrote:Dumb blondes of the world, unite.

The lights are on but nobody's home.

Good lord man, don't you know a set-up when you see one?
He's even referring to his next question.
So obvious!

Hmmm! I lost my login and had to login in again. I was wondering why I couldn't find the "new postings" listing.

I hope my day gets better.

Saturday, WETA World of Opera is broadcasting Manon Lescaut, a Houston Grand Opera production (not live, of course) with Karita Mattila, Teddy Tadheu (can't remember his full name; he's from Australia) and Thomas Hampson. Am looking forward to it but for some reason cannot imagain Mattila as Manon. Coming after Ercole amante, it will be a tough act to follow. (Calvert, did you see this production.)

Listening to Lisa Simeone give the synopsis and talk about the opera, I wish she had taken the place of Peter Allen as host announcer instead of Margaret Juntwait. I wish they would get rid of Ira Siff but I am getting used to Juntwait although I still am not too fond of her and won't miss her if she is replaced.

Lulusheen:
Obviously a little gremlin was at work during the night, because I too had to sign in again. Never happened to me before.
As for Ira Siff, I think you would clearly change your mind if you ever really knew him or saw him in action. He is not only a very talented writer but he is an hilarious performer as well, of his Madame Galoupe Borzsh (I know I messed that one up!) He would have you in stitches. Maybe it's the sound of his voice that turns you off.
Now, that other one she performs with during the week...pass.
I also agree that I have sometimes wished some other women I have heard on other stations (Chicago Lyric comes to mind) could take the place of our perfect speaking Pollyanna, but there you have it.

lulu wrote:Hmmm! I lost my login and had to login in again.

mogliettina wrote:Obviously a little gremlin was at work during the night, because I too had to sign in again.

See this post.

ACD

Lulu:

Unfortunately, I missed Mattila's Manon Lescaut here in Houston. I had a ticket for a performance but had to be out of town unexpectedly, and I could not catch the next (and last) performance. From what I saw and heard in the HD telecast, I did not miss a great Manon Lescaut. I thought Mattila was completely unsuited to the part, vocally and dramatically. However, I am going to listen to the broadcast this Saturday; let's compare notes afterwards!

Scary Movie Update: I introduced my older sister to The Woman in Black this past weekend, when she was visiting from Philadelphia. (She loves a good scary movie, too, especially if it is stylishly done.) She thought it was excellent. When the guy goes back up to the locked door with the axe, and the door is open (brrrrr!), my sister actually squeaked, "Oh no, the door's open!! Don't go in!!"

Loved that movie too.
As to Mattila's Manon, fergit it, baby! She looked like an older woman trying to "Netrebko" it. It didn't work anymore than the zero chemistry between her and Giordani.

Thanks, calvert, I thought that too about Mattila. Still, at no cost, I will give it a listen. I can always turn it off.

As for The Woman in Black, I first saw it on A&E when it was a respectable channel and had intelligent programing, and it scared me unbelievably, particularly that ending. The book is excellent. A pretty good version of the book.

Interesting that "The Woman in Black" made that impression even interrupted by commercials, as it must have been on A&E. Watching it complete, without interruptions, the buildup of tension and fear is nigh-unbearable.

Yesterday I saw a show in NY called Next to Normal that was ruined for me by the disgraceful over-the-top miking of the cast. The theater was a small Broadway theater and it was ridiculous to have that obstreperous noise invading my eardrums for 2 hours. Not only that, but the dynamic of it changed the sound radically to me. The stupidity is that years ago the self same theaters used to house the Hello Dollys and Brigadoons and Oklahomas and Auntie Mames etc., and never did we need any mikes to hear the cast. Call me a fuss budget.
I have noticed that even the movie theaters, when they show all those coming attractions, the sound is pumped louder than the feature attraction.
What gives?
(or is it the delicacy of my old lady ears?)
My brother-in-law told me a fascinating story about a NJ concert hall where they took him up to the very top of the theater and hollered down to one of the workers onstage, "Do you have a coin in your pocket?" To which the man answered, "Sure." "Would you drop it onto the stage please?" And sure enough, that ping was heard loud and clear way up at the top of the theater.
Everybody wants everything louder than loud these days.

mogliettina wrote:I have noticed that even the movie theaters, when they show all those coming attractions, the sound is pumped louder than the feature attraction.

What gives? (or is it the delicacy of my old lady ears?) [...] Everybody wants everything louder than loud these days.

The following from this 2005 S&F post ("ACD Goes To The Movies"):

Those initial shocks, however, were as nothing compared with what awaited me even before the main feature began.

First came almost twenty minutes worth of non-movie commercials and a few coming attractions. That, however, wasn't the shock. In our present culture, the pimps and the pimping are so pervasive and omnipresent that nothing about their turning up in any context whatsoever would be cause for shock. The shock came from the decibel level of the audio in all its Dolby, surround-sound glory. It was, I swear, at the threshold-of-pain level for a person with normal hearing, and seemed specifically calculated to meet the needs of an audience constituted exclusively of the partially deaf although I was assured by the management that the audio level in the theater was the theater's norm.

I thought to myself hopefully, and with fingers planted squarely in ears (literally!), Maybe the audio is at that level only for the pimping just like it is on TV where the pimps do their pimping at an audio level pegged some 3-4 dB above the audio level of the actual show.

No such luck. That decibel level prevailed for the entire show, and whenever I removed my fingers from my ears it was near unbearable.

ACD

Move on over, Bro.
Unless maybe it's just "us" being our old irascible senior citizen selves?

Count Marisa and me among the amplification naysayers. We completely agree about the sound (noise) level in live and movie theaters. We even stopped going to one of the distinguished local playhouses because the artistic director at the time (the otherwise estimable Des McAnuff) favored earsplitting volume; even foam earplugs weren't quite enough to bring it below the distortion threshold. Thankfully, the current a.d. has turned it down a notch or two.

One of the problems is that so many actors get their training in TV and film, so they never learn how to project properly in the theater -- and miking is the easy "solution".

P.S. I only just got old enough for AARP discounts at some venues this year -- and I keep forgetting to check whether they're offered!

Several years ago I went to a lecture in the (relatively new) Stude Hall at Rice Univerity, a smallish (1,200 seat) theater, simply and elegantly appointed with superb acoustics. I had heard many concerts there (and sung in some), but this was my first time to hear the spoken word in the theater. The speaker began, and about 10 minutes into his talk the sound system cut out. The man had good projection and with the superb acoustics, I could clearly hear every word, even without amplification. He continued speaking for another couple of minutes but people began shouting that they couldn't hear. That was ridiculous; I could hear every word. But still they stopped the lecture for 15 minutes while they sorted out the problems. That confirmed what I have thought for some time, namely, that the pervasiveness of amplification is not a necessity but a habit, a crutch for lazy listening. Significantly, a good part of the audience was students, part of what ACD accurately calls the "iPod generation." (Or is that the "iPod sensibility?" amounts to the same thing.)