# Carmen and La Bohème - your thoughts are appreciated



## eager to learn (Dec 25, 2014)

On my journey to self-educate about opera, I've discovered the following at my library (below).

I was curious about the thoughts of others more informed about these operas regarding these recordings?

Have you found other recordings or performances you prefer to these?

Can you please possibly share *your* favorite recordings/performances concerning these operas?

Thank you so much!

1). Carmen by Bizet [libretto, Henri Meilhac & Ludovic Halévy]. Pub Info - EMI Classics, p1997. Performers: Maria Callas, Andréa Guiot, sopranos ; Nicolai Gedda, tenor ; Robert Massard, baritone ; with supporting soloists ; Chœurs René Duclos ; Chœurs d'enfants Jean Pesneaud ; Orchestre du Théâtre national de l'opéra de Paris ; Georges Prêtre, conductor - Recorded July 6-20, 1964, in the Salle Wagram, Paris.

2). La Bohème by Puccini wuth Performers: Renata Tebaldi, Hilda Gueden, sopranos; Giacinto Prandelli, tenor; with supporting singers; Coro e orchestra dell'Accademia di Santa Cecilia, Roma; Alberto Erede, conductor.
- Recorded in 1951.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Maria Callas is such dynamite that she may spoil you for other Carmens, but don't hesitate to listen to that recording. All the singers are fine and you'll get a very good introduction to the opera.

About _La Boheme_ I'll let the Puccini lovers advise.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I agree with Woodduck's assessment of the Maria Callas Carmen ... I have lived with it since it was first released oh so many years ago. For a modern performance, I have a very warm feeling about the recent Metropolitan Opera DVD with Elina Garanca and Roberto Alagna.

I don't have much that I can say about the La Boheme other than to avoid the Freni/Pavarotti/von Karajan recording. The singing may be great but I can't stand von Karajan's glacial tempi, especially in the second act.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Maria Callas is such dynamite that she may spoil you for other Carmens, but don't hesitate to listen to that recording. All the singers are fine and you'll get a very good introduction to the opera.
> 
> About _La Boheme_ I'll let the Puccini lovers advise.


Callas certainly doesn't spoil me for Leontyne Price's seductive Carmen with Karajan. One problem with the Callas Carmen is the supporting cast with Massard being about the dullest Toreador of them all"! Gedda is predictably tasteful but colourless. Also Pretre's conducting rushes everyone off their feet. By that time Callas voice was going and it tells. Her vocal acting is astonishing but the actual sound of her voice takes some putting up with.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> .
> 
> I don't have much that I can say about the La Boheme other than to avoid the Freni/Pavarotti/von Karajan recording. The singing may be great but I can't stand von Karajan's glacial tempi, especially in the second act.


I would advise the opposite. To me this is a magnificent Boheme. Of course there are other ways of doing it as Karajan himself showed when he filmed it. But then what's the point of recording it just to do it like everyone else? BTW what is a glacial tempo?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

They're both fine to learn the opera.
Once u know them u will form an opinion.

I never listen to either opera any more and they're not on my favorites list.
BUT, if I do it's the ones conducted by Beecham. with de los Angeles.


----------



## OperaMaven (May 5, 2014)

I should think Callas would blow the roof off as Carmen - she was that kind of a singer! (Have to look up that recording - am familiar with Gedda from his work vs. Victoria de los Angeles, no slouch he *or* she either.)

Have taken an absolute detestation to the Baltsa/Carreras recording, which "Viva la Voce" plays all too often. It may have essential dialogue re-added, but Baltsa is *not* to my taste as Carmen. Personal pet peeve is that schoolgirl screech she gives as she pulls off Don J's ring at the end.

Not fond of Jessye Norman as Carmen either - didn't think she had enough fire to her.

And of course "Viva la Voce" _never_ plays the older stuff - I'm not sure they have very many pre-1980 recordings. :-(

As to Boheme - anybody _but_ Pavarotti, I'm oversaturated with him and quite over him.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Elena Garanca is my favorite Carmen.

Here you go:






and her complete performance.






Enjoy!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

My detailed review of the Callas *Carmen* can be read here, post #319 http://www.talkclassical.com/33051-new-maria-callas-box-22.html#post733196

If you're allergic to Pavarotti, then maybe go for Beecham for *La Boheme* with Victoria De Los Angeles and Jussi Bjoerling.

But the Callas set is also worth hearing, My review of that set can be found here, post #615

http://www.talkclassical.com/33051-new-maria-callas-box-41.html#post757250


----------



## OperaMaven (May 5, 2014)

I think I agree overall with most of your thoughts, except...Don Jose is not exactly a milksop. He's very repressed - on purpose, because he _already knows_ how far he will go if he loses control. (It's explicit in Merimee, hinted at in the original spoken dialogue, but lost in the recitative: he killed a man in a fight over a tennis match(!), and that's why he's in the army to begin with.)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Carmen is attracted to bad, dangerous men. She unerringly picks them out and draws them to her, plays with their fire for a while, then moves on to the next one. Escamillo would probably have let her do that - he knows what she is, and that it's a tossup who will tire of whom first. But Jose...just won't let go, and develops an extreme case of "If I Can't Have You, No One Else Will".


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

For La Boheme, my favorite recording is going to be this one:


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Oh, I'm totally floored that for Carmens, no one here has mentioned the wonderful classic Met performance.









Rise Stevens was such a beauty! Wish that she were still around.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Callas certainly doesn't spoil me for Leontyne Price's seductive Carmen with Karajan. One problem with the Callas Carmen is the supporting cast with Massard being about the dullest Toreador of them all"! Gedda is predictably tasteful but colourless. Also Pretre's conducting rushes everyone off their feet. By that time Callas voice was going and it tells. Her vocal acting is astonishing but the actual sound of her voice takes some putting up with.


Such a sourpuss! You make this sound like a poor recording. It is anything but that. Does Pretre favor a light touch and quick tempi compared to a Teutonic drama queen like your pet Karajan? It's a valid option, and more French in flavor. Gedda is excellent throughout; he doesn't bellow and sob as if this were Puccini. Andrea Guiot is a beautiful, youthful Micaela. Massard isn't charismatic but he sings very solidly. Callas is unique and she must be heard in ths role; the dusky, sultry sound of her voice suits this part superbly, both the character and the mezzo range, and for many of us she takes no "putting up with" whatsoever. Quite the contrary: she is fascinating at every moment.

The person asks for a recommendation of a recording you like, and your first order of business is to dump cold water on someone's recommendation of a recording of _Carmen_ that vast numbers of people consider indispensable?

Why not just pick a recording that you like and say why you like it?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

OperaMaven said:


> I think I agree overall with most of your thoughts, except...Don Jose is not exactly a milksop. He's very repressed - on purpose, because he _already knows_ how far he will go if he loses control. (It's explicit in Merimee, hinted at in the original spoken dialogue, but lost in the recitative: he killed a man in a fight over a tennis match(!), and that's why he's in the army to begin with.)
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, Carmen is attracted to bad, dangerous men. She unerringly picks them out and draws them to her, plays with their fire for a while, then moves on to the next one. Escamillo would probably have let her do that - he knows what she is, and that it's a tossup who will tire of whom first. But Jose...just won't let go, and develops an extreme case of "If I Can't Have You, No One Else Will".


Implicit in my review, I think, is that at that moment in the opera, Carmen thinks Jose is a milksop, and he disappoints her. Just listen to the way Callas's Carmen taunts him. Had Zuniga not interrupted them, then there is no doubt he'd have gone back to the barracks and that would have been the end of Jose and Carmen. I doubt she'd have been too concerned.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> Elena Garanca is my favorite Carmen.
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> ...


Man, how I hate that aria.........:lol:


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Incidentally, I'm not a Tebaldi fan, but I believe her second recording of the opera, conducted by Serafin and with Bergonzi as Rodolfo, is much more highly regarded than the one the OP details in his original post.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Incidentally, I'm not a Tebaldi fan, but I believe her second recording of the opera, conducted by Serafin and with Bergonzi as Rodolfo, is much more highly regarded than the one the OP details in his original post.


Tebaldi's later recording with Bergonzi was my first _Boheme_. It isn't usually a top recommendation but it's beautifully sung and thoroughly idiomatic, as we'd expect from cast and conductor.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Such a sourpuss! You make this sound like a poor recording. It is anything but that. Does Pretre favor a light touch and quick tempi compared to a Teutonic drama queen like your pet Karajan? It's a valid option, and more French in flavor. Gedda is excellent throughout; he doesn't bellow and sob as if this were Puccini. Andrea Guiot is a beautiful, youthful Micaela. Massard isn't charismatic but he sings very solidly. Callas is unique and she must be heard in ths role; the dusky, sultry sound of her voice suits this part superbly, both the character and the mezzo range, and for many of us she takes no "putting up with" whatsoever. Quite the contrary: she is fascinating at every moment.
> 
> The person asks for a recommendation of a recording you like, and your first order of business is to dump cold water on someone's recommendation of a recording of _Carmen_ that vast numbers of people consider indispensable?
> 
> Why not just pick a recording that you like and say why you like it?


Hitting a moving target is very difficult.

I love Carmen so I have multiples for it .


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Schippers, Gedda, EMI

Very underrated Boheme.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

OperaMaven said:


> As to Boheme - anybody _but_ Pavarotti, I'm oversaturated with him and quite over him.


I'd recommend the Freni/Pavarotti recording for Freni alone, even if you have to 'tolerate' Pavarotti. I think she does a magnificient job.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> Schippers, Gedda, EMI
> 
> Very underrated Boheme.


That was Freni's first recording of it. The Pavarotti/Karajan overshadowed it, but many feel that's unfortunate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

My essential Carmens and Bohemes:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Itullian- Schippers, Gedda, EMI

Very underrated Boheme.

Woodduck- That was Freni's first recording of it. The Pavarotti/Karajan overshadowed it, but many feel that's unfortunate.

Another Boheme to add to the Wish List.

Tebaldi's later recording with Bergonzi was my first Boheme. It isn't usually a top recommendation but it's beautifully sung and thoroughly idiomatic, as we'd expect from cast and conductor.

And another...


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> My essential Carmens and Bohemes:


Might have known that _you_ would post one with a stark naked female on the cover- and what's with all the disembodied hands? 

I'll share my favourite Carmen with you all tomorrow. It's from 1911, so no nudity...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Itullian- Schippers, Gedda, EMI
> 
> Very underrated Boheme.
> 
> ...


If you're going to listen to that many Bohemes you'd better order these:

http://www.amazon.com/Kleenex-Facia...&qid=1424662595&sr=8-2&keywords=facial+tissue


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Might have known that _you_ would post one with a stark naked female on the cover- and what's with all the disembodied hands?
> 
> I'll share my favourite Carmen with you all tomorrow. It's from 1911, so no nudity...


nude Carmen versus nude Lara St. John--- it's no contest here.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> That was Freni's first recording of it. The Pavarotti/Karajan overshadowed it, but many feel that's unfortunate.


I think so. Along with Beecham's classic I think its the best recording.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Oh and I forgot... Kozena and her hubby Rattle did a rather interesting read on Carmen and wasn't bad.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Such a sourpuss! You make this sound like a poor recording. It is anything but that. Does Pretre favor a light touch and quick tempi compared to a Teutonic drama queen like your pet Karajan? It's a valid option, and more French in flavor. Gedda is excellent throughout; he doesn't bellow and sob as if this were Puccini. Andrea Guiot is a beautiful, youthful Micaela. Massard isn't charismatic but he sings very solidly. Callas is unique and she must be heard in ths role; the dusky, sultry sound of her voice suits this part superbly, both the character and the mezzo range, and for many of us she takes no "putting up with" whatsoever. Quite the contrary: she is fascinating at every moment.
> 
> The person asks for a recommendation of a recording you like, and your first order of business is to dump cold water on someone's recommendation of a recording of _Carmen_ that vast numbers of people consider indispensable?
> 
> Why not just pick a recording that you like and say why you like it?


Oh the usual reply! As I have often said calling people names is no argument! And as usual you have read things into my reply I didn't say. You cannot seem to distinguish a light touch from racing through the thing which I don't like. I know some of Karajan's tempi are slow but at least he does show Bizet' wonderful score. Massard sings stolidly not solidly - the reverse of what a romantic bullfighter should be. He sounds plain uninteresting - like the bloke coming to fix the drains. As for Callas the central tessitura suites her well but as been remarked by many apart from me, she is more the tigress than the sexy vamp. Undeniably an exciting, interesting performance but more Merimee's Carmen than Bizet's perhaps. However, her vocal unevenness is problematic on repeated hearings. Of course, Callas fans will disagree as she could do no wrong in their eyes. However, some of us would like to express an honest opinion in a mature way when being asked without the name calling!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Oh the usual reply! As I have often said calling people names is no argument! And as usual you have read things into my reply I didn't say. You cannot seem to distinguish a light touch from racing through the thing which I don't like. I know some of Karajan's tempi are slow but at least he does show Bizet' wonderful score. Massard sings stolidly not solidly - the reverse of what a romantic bullfighter should be. He sounds plain uninteresting - like the bloke coming to fix the drains. As for Callas the central tessitura suites her well but as been remarked by many apart from me, she is more the tigress than the sexy vamp. Undeniably an exciting, interesting performance but more Merimee's Carmen than Bizet's perhaps. However, her vocal unevenness is problematic on repeated hearings. Of course, Callas fans will disagree as she could do no wrong in their eyes. However, some of us would like to express an honest opinion in a mature way when being asked without the name calling!


I find myself in sharp disagreement with you about the set, as I've said before but particularly as regards the bit highlighted in blue. I hope you'll allow me to quote what I wrote in my own review of the set in the Callas Re-mastered thread.

_And so we come to Callas. Many of the objections when the set first came out were not about her singing, but about her characterisation, one critic opining that she was closer to Merimee than Meilhac and Halevy. But that's an objection that makes no sense at all. Meilhac and Halevy may have watered down Carmen's indiscretions with other men when she was still with Jose, but they still make it clear she is a free spirit, not to be tied down. In the 1960s, women were still fighting for equality (they still are). Much of the debate about the contraceptive pill in the 1960s centred around the fact that it would encourage promiscuity. People, especially men, were not comfortable with the idea of a sexually promiscuous woman, so Carmen's character was often played down. The De Los Angeles recording with Beecham had been highly praised, but, love De Los Angeles though I do, can anyone really imagine her Carmen pulling a knife on a fellow worker in a cat fight? She is altogether too ladylike to even think of such a thing. But Callas is exactly what she is described in the text,"dangereuse et belle", as Micaela calls her. This Carmen definitely lives free. As she tells Jose in the last act, "Libre elle est nee et libre elle moura!"

When she admits to her friends "Je suis amoureuse", Callas gives the line an ironic twist, even more so on the following "amoureuse a perdre l'esprit". We know absolutely, as her friends do, that this is the whim of the moment, the mood of the day, and that there will be others.

Her seduction of Jose is brilliantly charted. "Ou me conduirez-vous?" she asks Jose, as he is about to take her to prison, and the little girl lost tone she uses is just what's needed to draw him in, which she does expertly till she has him eating out of her hand. Carmen always gets her way.

Later on when Jose comes to the inn and they end up arguing, some have found her rage too over the top, but there is justification for this too. When Jose tells her he has to go back to the barracks, that could be the moment she realises that maybe she is not in love with this milksop after all. Have a row, send him packing. That's the best way to get rid of him. Only things don't quite work out that way; her cry of "Au diable le jaloux!" is actually quite matter of fact. Finally she realises she is saddled with him, but is quite pragmatic. In fact, now that I think of it, the whole plot only works if you accept that Carmen was never in love with Jose in the first place; that he was first a challenge, then a convenience. Escamillo is much more up her street (for a while anyway); when he comes looking for her and Micaela comes looking for Jose, this is just the way out she is looking for. Unfortunately, Jose turns out to be even more unhinged than she had imagined, but defiant to the last, she refuses to give in to him, and staring death in the face, asserts her freedom from all men. No doubt this is what commentators found so disturbing. Some no doubt still do. It doesn't make for comfortable listening.

Apart from a few squally top notes in the ensembles (which she didn't need to sing anyway), her voice was absolutely right for the role at this stage in her career and the performance is full of miraculous detail, as well as some really lovely singing in the Habanera, darkly telling in the Card Scene. I notice something different in it each time I hear it.

When it was reissued, Richard Osborne in Gramophone wrote,

"Her Carmen is one of those rare experiences, like Piaf singing La vie en rose, or Dietrich in The Blue Angel, which is inimitable, unforgettable, and on no account to be missed."

I couldn't put it better myself. 
_

Clearly it is not just the "Callas fans" who agree with me.

As for the rest, I'll take Gedda over Corelli's sobbing heroics and execrable French any day. Freni is lovely of course, but Guiot more idiomatic, Massard is thoroughly plausible as Escamillo and I prefer Pretre's swift, lightness of touch to Karajan's Germanic heaviness.

I wonder if you have listened to it recently or whether you formed your prejudices years ago and are determined to stick to them whatever.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I find myself in sharp disagreement with you about the set, as I've said before but particularly as regards the bit highlighted in blue. I hope you'll allow me to quote what I wrote in my own review of the set in the Callas Re-mastered thread.
> 
> _And so we come to Callas. Many of the objections when the set first came out were not about her singing, but about her characterisation, one critic opining that she was closer to Merimee than Meilhac and Halevy. But that's an objection that makes no sense at all. Meilhac and Halevy may have watered down Carmen's indiscretions with other men when she was still with Jose, but they still make it clear she is a free spirit, not to be tied down. In the 1960s, women were still fighting for equality (they still are). Much of the debate about the contraceptive pill in the 1960s centred around the fact that it would encourage promiscuity. People, especially men, were not comfortable with the idea of a sexually promiscuous woman, so Carmen's character was often played down. The De Los Angeles recording with Beecham had been highly praised, but, love De Los Angeles though I do, can anyone really imagine her Carmen pulling a knife on a fellow worker in a cat fight? She is altogether too ladylike to even think of such a thing. But Callas is exactly what she is described in the text,"dangereuse et belle", as Micaela calls her. This Carmen definitely lives free. As she tells Jose in the last act, "Libre elle est nee et libre elle moura!"
> 
> ...


Why must treat someone whose opinion disagrees with yours as 'prejudiced'. It is unbelievable to me the way you can address people with words we usually associate with things like racism. I actually have all the Carmens I discuss on my shelves. Callas' vocal condition is not pristine however much you guys may argue it is! I am not prejudiced. I am a Callas fan. But not so much that I can can close my ears to the fact she is less pleasant to listen to than some others. I find the surrounding cast incredibly dull, as if picked to highlight Callas. This is not prejudice. What I hear coming through the speakers. 
I could say the same about your 'prejudice' against the Price / Corelli set but I won't. I will agree that the French Corelli sings is nowhere found in that country! But what a sound! 
But please again don't resort to name calling. We are music lovers who have different preferences - not prejudices!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Why must treat someone whose opinion disagrees with yours as 'prejudiced'. It is unbelievable to me the way you can address people with words we usually associate with things like racism.


I find it rather alarming that one cannot use a word such as prejudice without incurring racial overtones, but I'll allow that preconception might have been better. I just recall that many of your objections are the same ones that certain critics made at the time of the set's original release, which is why I wondered if they were based on preconceptions, or if you had listened to it recently with an open mind. Many of those critics have since changed their view. Used to the more conventional, hip-swinging, vampish coquette, many were not prepared for Callas's more challenging view. (Incidentally and by the by the Callas/De Sabata *Tosca* was not universally acclaimed on its initial release.)

John Steane once perceptibly noted that the Callas *Carmen* was one of those sets that was never quite as he remembered it, and this was certainly my impression when I listened to it again recently after acquiring the Warner box set. I came away thinking it was one of her greatest achievements on disc and with renewed appreciation of the opera itself. What you hear coming through your speakers is evidently not what I hear coming through mine.


----------



## Yashin (Jul 22, 2011)

For La Boheme:

Tebaldi/Bergonzi - gorgeous singing and conducting. Bergonzi was a prince amongst tenors and he sings so passionately it is hard to ever hear anyone else in the role.

Freni/Pavarotti and Karajan - I hated it the first few times I heard it. Mainly because of Karajan's tempo. However, I grew to love it. Listen to any other tenor sing the role, any part and then listen to Pavarotti- he is stunning. Freni is in arguably her best role (maybe butterfly also) and the whole thing is just so 'right'.

I also love the Tebaldi/Prandelli as mentioned in the OP. The sound lets it down a little. Other favourites are the live recordings of Albanese/Di Stefano (more coughing in the audience than on stage as mimi dies!) and a rarer one Freni/Grilli again a live recording from La Venice. I enjoy this one.

As a more modern version I like Richard Leech singing Rodolfo but Te Kanawa is no Mimi!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I find it rather alarming that one cannot use a word such as prejudice without incurring racial overtones, but I'll allow that preconception might have been better. I just recall that many of your objections are the same ones that certain critics made at the time of the set's original release, which is why I wondered if they were based on preconceptions, or if you had listened to it recently with an open mind. Many of those critics have since changed their view. Used to the more conventional, hip-swinging, vampish coquette, many were not prepared for Callas's more challenging view. (Incidentally and by the by the Callas/De Sabata *Tosca* was not universally acclaimed on its initial release.)
> 
> John Steane once perceptibly noted that the Callas *Carmen* was one of those sets that was never quite as he remembered it, and this was certainly my impression when I listened to it again recently after acquiring the Warner box set. I came away thinking it was one of her greatest achievements on disc and with renewed appreciation of the opera itself. What you hear coming through your speakers is evidently not what I hear coming through mine.


Semantics aside, I think when someone (not you) says something like: "Maria Callas is such dynamite that she may spoil you for other Carmens" one does start to resist the Callas myth as if she was the last word on everything. There are other great Carmens to be had on record of whom Callas is one, as long as you can put up with the state of the voice at that time. When she is not singing the dramatic temperature of the performance falls as those around her tend not to be on the same artistic plane.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

First, I would just like to share my personal opinion that when one is starting this wonderful journey to discover Opera, I don't think that the different versions (short a complete disaster) are all that important. The whole joy of discovering so many different operas, should be more than enough to get most people fully busy for at least a couple of years. 

Having said, that, these are my favorite Carmen recordings:

















About "La Bohème", there are three recordings that I really love:

Karajan-Freni-Pavarotti

Beecham-De los Angeles-Bjorling

Serafin-Tebaldi-Bergonzi​


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Why must treat someone whose opinion disagrees with yours as 'prejudiced'. It is unbelievable to me the way you can address people with words we usually associate with things like racism. I actually have all the Carmens I discuss on my shelves. Callas' vocal condition is not pristine however much you guys may argue it is! I am not prejudiced. I am a Callas fan. But not so much that I can can close my ears to the fact she is less pleasant to listen to than some others. I find the surrounding cast incredibly dull, as if picked to highlight Callas. This is not prejudice. What I hear coming through the speakers.
> I could say the same about your 'prejudice' against the Price / Corelli set but I won't. I will agree that the French Corelli sings is nowhere found in that country! But what a sound!
> But please again don't resort to name calling. We are music lovers who have different preferences - not prejudices!


No points for diversionary tactics.

Race is a red herring.

What was being aesthetically weighed and assessed was the unrivaled dramatic impact of Callas' shadings, inflections, and colorations for the role:



> GregMitchell: Apart from a few squally top notes in the ensembles (which she didn't need to sing anyway), her voice was absolutely right for the role at this stage in her career and the performance is full of miraculous detail, as well as some really lovely singing in the Habanera, darkly telling in the Card Scene. I notice something different in it each time I hear it.


There's an admission that Callas' voice isn't at her vintage best with a couple of high notes- but then, there's more to the essence of Carmen than a couple of notes, isn't there?

If not, then perhaps the opera shouldn't be listened to but only the couple of high notes in the opera.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

_eager to learn_ - you may regret asking your question!

There are as many opinions as there are recordings of these two fabulous operas :lol:

I adore José Carreras so my choices are these


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

As for La Boheme? 



 Enjoy!!

Just part with your bucks and get that unforgettable DVD Carmen with Garanca/Alagna. They sizzle!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> No points for diversionary tactics.
> 
> Race is a red herring.
> 
> ...


What was also being weighed was the generally deteriorated condition of her voice at the time. perhaps that doesn't matter to the star struck admirers though!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Oh the usual reply! As I have often said calling people names is no argument! And as usual you have read things into my reply I didn't say. You cannot seem to distinguish a light touch from racing through the thing which I don't like. I know some of Karajan's tempi are slow but at least he does show Bizet' wonderful score. Massard sings stolidly not solidly - the reverse of what a romantic bullfighter should be. He sounds plain uninteresting - like the bloke coming to fix the drains. As for Callas the central tessitura suites her well but as been remarked by many apart from me, she is more the tigress than the sexy vamp. Undeniably an exciting, interesting performance but more Merimee's Carmen than Bizet's perhaps. However, her vocal unevenness is problematic on repeated hearings. Of course, Callas fans will disagree as she could do no wrong in their eyes. However, some of us would like to express an honest opinion in a mature way when being asked without the name calling!


No one questions that you are entitled to dislike this recording. You have made your dislike clear more than once in my recollection. What I questioned was your choice not to respond to the OP by suggesting a recording you prefer, but merely by negating someone else's recommendation and discouraging the inquirer from investigating what many regard as an excellent recording of the opera. Frankly I can't understand the motives behind such an action, but the attitude that it exudes is sour and sad. There have been numerous recommendations here in response to the OP's request. If we all spend our time doing nothing but criticizing each others choices I doubt that the originator of this thread will feel particularly grateful.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> No one questions that you are entitled to dislike this recording. You have made your dislike clear more than once in my recollection. What I questioned was your choice not to respond to the OP by suggesting a recording you prefer, but merely by negating someone else's recommendation and discouraging the inquirer from investigating what many regard as an excellent recording of the opera. Frankly I can't understand the motives behind such an action, but the attitude that it exudes is sour and sad. There have been numerous recommendations here in response to the OP's request. If we all spend our time doing nothing but criticizing each others choices I doubt that the originator of this thread will feel particularly grateful.


Actually it was your sweeping statement I was replying to, when you implied that Callas' Carmen negated all other recordings. I'm so sorry but my remark was not aimed at the OP but at your own rather dogmatic statement. Of course Callas' Carmen doesn't spoil you for other interpretations. Hers is just one way of doing it - a pretty remarkable way if not done with so pretty a voice. But the supporting cast is not good. Like Szell once remarked to Clifford Curzon when the pianist was recording a concerto with Knappersbusch conducting: " A very good performance considering all that was going on around you!"


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> What was also being weighed was the generally deteriorated condition of her voice at the time. perhaps that doesn't matter to the star struck admirers though!


So I'm star-struck, am I?

Knowing Callas's work probably better than most, I am well aware of the deterioration in her voice in the 60s, and I don't think I have ever been deaf to the vocal problems in her later year. Her last Normas in Paris, which she was doing round about the time of this recording were very much hit and miss affairs. She can still spin out a Bellinian cantilena better than anyone else, but the role was really beyond her by that time, for all the depth of understanding she still brought to it. On the other hand, Carmen's tessitura doesn't really tax her too much. There are no stratospheric notes, though she does take the occasional high variants in some of the ensembles, which I rather wish she hadn't. Vocally it suited her very well at this stage of her career, and in fact probably better than it would have back in the 50s.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Actually it was your sweeping statement I was replying to, when you implied that Callas' Carmen negated all other recordings. I'm so sorry but my remark was not aimed at the OP but at your own rather dogmatic statement. Of course Callas' Carmen doesn't spoil you for other interpretations. Hers is just one way of doing it - a pretty remarkable way if not done with so pretty a voice. But the supporting cast is not good. Like Szell once remarked to Clifford Curzon when the pianist was recording a concerto with Knappersbusch conducting: " A very good performance considering all that was going on around you!"


If I had meant to say that Callas's Carmen "negated all others," I would have said exactly that. What I did say was: "Maria Callas is such dynamite that she may spoil you for other Carmens." You will note the presence of the word "may" and the absence of the word "all." You may also recognize, now that I'm forced to point it out, a certain lightness of spirit and of touch in my remark. Unlike you, I was not condemning anyone or anything, merely expressing my enthusiasm in a semiserious tone. Alas, I was not counting on my _oiseau libre_ being shot at by a big-game hunter who would mistake it for a charging rhino.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> So I'm star-struck, am I?
> 
> Knowing Callas's work probably better than most, I am well aware of the deterioration in her voice in the 60s, and I don't think I have ever been deaf to the vocal problems in her later year. Her last Normas in Paris, which she was doing round about the time of this recording were very much hit and miss affairs. She can still spin out a Bellinian cantilena better than anyone else, but the role was really beyond her by that time, for all the depth of understanding she still brought to it. On the other hand, Carmen's tessitura doesn't really tax her too much. There are no stratospheric notes, though she does take the occasional high variants in some of the ensembles, which I rather wish she hadn't. Vocally it suited her very well at this stage of her career, and in fact probably better than it would have back in the 50s.


I think that, while we may indeed be starstruck by our favourite singers, we are usually more conscious of their flaws than of the flaws of singers we are less enthralled by, simply because we listen to our very favourite singers more often and more attentively, and we know when they are not on form or in voice or whatever. If I sometimes agree with DavidA about the Callas fanaticism on display here, it's only because I'm bitter that nobody else hero-worships the singers I hero-worship!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If I had meant to say that Callas's Carmen "negated all others," I would have said exactly that. What I did say was: "Maria Callas is such dynamite that she may spoil you for other Carmens." You will note the presence of the word "may" and the absence of the word "all." You may also recognize, now that I'm forced to point it out, a certain lightness of spirit and of touch in my remark. Unlike you, I was not condemning anyone or anything, merely expressing my enthusiasm in a semiserious tone. Alas, I was not counting on my _oiseau libre_ being shot at by a big-game hunter who would mistake it for a charging rhino.


Sorry, Wooduck's,but I'm not going to get into an injured innocence game with you! I'm just listening to Callas' Carmen again and I don't see reason to alter my opinion. It is certainly remarkable but the sound of the voice here is trying. So is Pretre's rather ordinary conducting. And Massard's flat as pancake toreodore.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I think that, while we may indeed be starstruck by our favourite singers, we are usually more conscious of their flaws than of the flaws of singers we are less enthralled by, simply because we listen to our very favourite singers more often and more attentively, and we know when they are not on form or in voice or whatever. If I sometimes agree with DavidA about the Callas fanaticism on display here, it's only because I'm bitter that nobody else hero-worships the singers I hero-worship!


I want to point out I'm an admirer of Callas generally - I find her Tosca, Leonore and Butterfly pretty incredible. If I don't listen to her in the more overt Bel Canto stuff it is because I don't care for that sort of music. Listening to her Carmen is fascinating for her skill at dealing with the problems of her vocal condition at the time. But I cannot agree with those who say she comes out tops. When it comes to enjoyment I prefer Price any time as the voice is so much more beautiful.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I want to point out I'm an admirer of Callas generally - I find her Tosca, Leonore and Butterfly pretty incredible. If I don't listen to her in the more overt Bel Canto stuff it is because I don't care for that sort of music. Listening to her Carmen is fascinating for her skill at dealing with the problems of her vocal condition at the time. But I cannot agree with those who say she comes out tops. When it comes to enjoyment I prefer Price any time as the voice is so much more beautiful.


I don't worship any human. Freni is just so awesome in La Boheme.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I have only one Carmen: Marston's remastered CD of the 1911 Pathé recording conducted by François Ruhlmann, with Agustarello Affre as José, Marguerite Merentié in the title role, Henri Albers as Escamillo, Hippolyte Belhomme as the Dancaïre, and Aline Vallandri as Micaëla. Anyone familiar with the period will know that this is a pretty much ideal cast, for the male roles at least- the women's roles are not sung by especially charismatic singers, and for Carmen herself that's a bit of a problem, as it's not easy to imagine such a José and such an Escamillo fighting over the uninvolved-sounding Merentié. The other problem with this recording (beyond the obvious caveats about period sound quality and the difficulty of doing justice to the sound of an orchestra) is the dialogue, which seems to be spoken mostly by actors. Those two major drawbacks aside, it's an amazing performance. Affre isn't captured quite in his prime- a year earlier, he would have been- his voice by 1911 has lost some of its purity and become thicker, and his top is no longer as effortless as it had been- but here we have one of the very greatest heroic tenors of all time and the possessor at his zenith of perhaps the most beautiful voice ever recorded, as well as a singer steeped in French tradition who had perfected his art well before the verismo rot set in. To have such a singer in a complete role is of inestimable historical value- and let us not forget his complete Romeo of the following year, which is even better: 1912 found him in slightly better form vocally, and Romeo was one of his signature roles, whereas José wasn't. Even so, it's a stunning performance with so many treasurable moments. My favourite is José's 'Dragons d'Alcala' song, sung offstage (?) and unaccompanied. Affre's sheer spiritual presence and the beauty of voice that still remained make this an almost unbearably moving moment for me. He is of course most in his element in the moments of high drama, particularly in the final act: the line 'Eh bien, damnée!' is delivered so vehemently that it literally made me jump the first time I heard it. Albers is a believably sexy toreador with a beautiful rich voice, and macho without being coarse. (In my heart of hearts I rather wish the role had gone to Jean Noté for his even sexier voice and his obvious chemistry with Affre... I guess I'm never satisfied.) Belhomme as the Dancaïre- what can I say, except that it's a tragedy that the role is so tiny and affords relatively little opportunity for vocal display. Belhomme is second only to Plançon among French basses, and like Affre, it's a scandal that so few of his recordings are available on modern formats.

I wouldn't mind hearing Emmy Destinn's German language Carmen. I bet she would wipe the floor with Marguerite Merentié, although the rest of the cast don't look to be anything like as good as on the Pathé set. Speaking of strong casts, I would also like to get the Callas recording. Having heard a few of Robert Massard's solo records I can imagine that David A's criticism of him is not wholly unfounded, yet he always makes a pleasant sound. Massard can unblock my drains any day, though naturally I'd prefer Henri Albers!

Here's Affre in a slightly earlier version of the Flower Song. Not that he was quite in his fiery, heroic element singing soppy songs about flowers, but his more exciting José moments aren't on Youtube.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I have only one Carmen: Marston's remastered CD of the 1911 Pathé recording conducted by François Ruhlmann, with Agustarello Affre as José, Marguerite Merentié in the title role, Henri Albers as Escamillo, Hippolyte Belhomme as the Dancaïre, and Aline Vallandri as Micaëla. Anyone familiar with the period will know that this is a pretty much ideal cast, for the male roles at least- the women's roles are not sung by especially charismatic singers, and for Carmen herself that's a bit of a problem, as it's not easy to imagine such a José and such an Escamillo fighting over the uninvolved-sounding Merentié. The other problem with this recording (beyond the obvious caveats about period sound quality and the difficulty of doing justice to the sound of an orchestra) is the dialogue, which seems to be spoken mostly by actors. Those two major drawbacks aside, it's an amazing performance. Affre isn't captured quite in his prime- a year earlier, he would have been- his voice by 1911 has lost some of its purity and become thicker, and his top is no longer as effortless as it had been- but here we have one of the very greatest heroic tenors of all time and the possessor at his zenith of perhaps the most beautiful voice ever recorded, as well as a singer steeped in French tradition who had perfected his art well before the verismo rot set in. To have such a singer in a complete role is of inestimable historical value- and let us not forget his complete Romeo of the following year, which is even better: 1912 found him in slightly better form vocally, and Romeo was one of his signature roles, whereas José wasn't. Even so, it's a stunning performance with so many treasurable moments. My favourite is José's 'Dragons d'Alcala' song, sung offstage (?) and unaccompanied. Affre's sheer spiritual presence and the beauty of voice that still remained make this an almost unbearably moving moment for me. He is of course most in his element in the moments of high drama, particularly in the final act: the line 'Eh bien, damnée!' is delivered so vehemently that it literally made me jump the first time I heard it. Albers is a believably sexy toreador with a beautiful rich voice, and macho without being coarse. (In my heart of hearts I rather wish the role had gone to Jean Noté for his even sexier voice and his obvious chemistry with Affre... I guess I'm never satisfied.) Belhomme as the Dancaïre- what can I say, except that it's a tragedy that the role is so tiny and affords relatively little opportunity for vocal display. Belhomme is second only to Plançon among French basses, and like Affre, it's a scandal that so few of his recordings are available on modern formats.
> 
> I wouldn't mind hearing Emmy Destinn's German language Carmen. I bet she would wipe the floor with Marguerite Merentié, although the rest of the cast don't look to be anything like as good as on the Pathé set. Speaking of strong casts, I would also like to get the Callas recording. Having heard a few of Robert Massard's solo records I can imagine that David A's criticism of him is not wholly unfounded, yet he always makes a pleasant sound. Massard can unblock my drains any day, though naturally I'd prefer Henri Albers!
> 
> Here's Affre in a slightly earlier version of the Flower Song. Not that he was quite in his fiery, heroic element singing soppy songs about flowers, but his more exciting José moments aren't on Youtube.


I must say, Figleaf, that for all the solidity and ring of his voice (not very well captured by the recording, but still audible), Affre's rendition here sounds to me terribly square and almost crudely declamatory. This is a love song about a flower! Really, I don't see Jose as a heroic tenor role, or the character as heroic. And while I wouldn't presume to say on the basis of this that Affre is miscast - he may perform the role as a whole quite convincingly - I'm just surprised to find a French tenor singing a French lyric aria with so little subtlety. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Too bad no full length recording of Supervia singing Carmen. I would die to get my hands on a copy.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

OP
Beecham..............


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> Too bad no full length recording of Supervia singing Carmen. I would die to get my hands on a copy.


So would I. I find that woman, with her odd vibrato and outsized personality, irresistibly lovable. I know of no singer, past or present, who seems to enjoy singing so thoroughly or pours more heart into everything she sings. How sad that she died in childbirth in 1936 at age 41.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> So would I. I find that woman, with her odd vibrato and outsized personality, irresistibly lovable. I know of no singer, past or present, who seems to enjoy singing so thoroughly or pours more heart into everything she sings. How sad that she died in childbirth in 1936 at age 41.


So sad. She was barely older than when Wunderlich was dead .

Two great legends under fate.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> So would I. I find that woman, with her odd vibrato and outsized personality, irresistibly lovable. I know of no singer, past or present, who seems to enjoy singing so thoroughly or pours more heart into everything she sings. How sad that she died in childbirth in 1936 at age 41.


Good news. Just found a CD recording of highlights for her Carmen.

http://www.amazon.com/Carmen-Highlights-Conchita-Georges-Bizet/dp/B0009RHCCS

Still no full length version.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I must say, Figleaf, that for all the solidity and ring of his voice (not very well captured by the recording, but still audible), Affre's rendition here sounds to me terribly square and almost crudely declamatory. This is a love song about a flower! Really, I don't see Jose as a heroic tenor role, or the character as heroic. And while I wouldn't presume to say on the basis of this that Affre is miscast - he may perform the role as a whole quite convincingly - I'm just surprised to find a French tenor singing a French lyric aria with so little subtlety. Any thoughts on this?


I wouldn't have fallen in love with him just on the basis of that record, it's true. But he's marvellous elsewhere on the complete recording, in the more heightened dramatic moments. I agree it's surprising that Pathé didn't cast a tenor from the Opera Comique as José, and likewise, that they did choose Leon Beyle for Faust the following year instead of Affre, a famous Faust. (Probably because Affre was in America at that time- he did make many excellent records from that opera, though his various records of 'Salut, Demeure' invite similar accusations of squareness to his records of the Flower Song- but then the ideal 'Salut, Demeure' is elusive.) Was Affre a subtle singer? Probably not, but when I listen to him I don't miss subtlety. He does sound imposing if not exactly lovelorn on the Flower Song, and he has _les larmes dans la voix_. I think in the 1906 Flower Song on youtube, Affre sings this part gorgeously and with conviction:

_Puis je m'accusais de blasphème,	
Et je ne sentais en moi-même,
Je ne sentais qu'un seul désir,	
Un seul désir, un seul espoir:	
Te revoir, ô Carmen, oui, te revoir!_

After that there's a slight loss of enthusiasm and 'O ma Carmen' doesn't really sound like a man hopelessly in love. Interestingly the Flower Song on the 1911 complete recording is very similar indeed in terms of phrasing, though the high notes are no longer so easy: it's as if he played his 1906 record and thought 'Yep, sounds good, I don't need to change a thing'.  On the other hand, he is marvellous slightly later in the scene when José refuses to follow Carmen. I don't think anyone could sing this part or the rest of the scene any more thrillingly:

_ Quitter mon drapeau... déserter...
C'est la honte... c'est l'infamie!..._

He is electrifying in that whole scene and sings 'la liberté! la liberté!' with such fire that it's as if José is the charismatic leader of Carmen's gang of smugglers and they are following him meekly, rather than the other way around. Miscast, you say?  Well, I would challenge you to find a more convincing murderer in Act IV... but I won't lie, I'd rather hear him in a complete Samson. Beggars can't be choosers though...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

We mustn't forget the Beecham set, superbly conducted and with a very real presence in de Los Angeles. She never sang Carmen on stage but she is here pretty convincing, if not quite nasty enough, the opposite of Callas' creation. The supporting cast is fair. Blanc good, Gedda fair, Michau past her best, more like Jose's long lost mum!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> We mustn't forget the Beecham set, superbly conducted and with a very real presence in de Los Angeles. She never sang Carmen on stage but she is here pretty convincing, if not quite nasty enough, the opposite of Callas' creation. The supporting cast is fair. Blanc good, Gedda fair, Michau past her best, more like Jose's long lost mum!












De Los Angeles sings gorgeously- and I treasure her voice- but I just love exciting and psychologically compelling singing- so its 'You-Know-Who' for me all the way.

I want maximum impact and meaning.

I prefer the 'falcon' to the 'nightingale' (and thank you Woodduck for that Shakespearean coinage _;D_ ).

_;D _


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I wouldn't have fallen in love with him just on the basis of that record, it's true. But he's marvellous elsewhere on the complete recording, in the more heightened dramatic moments. I agree it's surprising that Pathé didn't cast a tenor from the Opera Comique as José, and likewise, that they did choose Leon Beyle for Faust the following year instead of Affre, a famous Faust. (Probably because Affre was in America at that time- he did make many excellent records from that opera, though his various records of 'Salut, Demeure' invite similar accusations of squareness to his records of the Flower Song- but then the ideal 'Salut, Demeure' is elusive.) Was Affre a subtle singer? Probably not, but when I listen to him I don't miss subtlety. He does sound imposing if not exactly lovelorn on the Flower Song, and he has _les larmes dans la voix_. I think in the 1906 Flower Song on youtube, Affre sings this part gorgeously and with conviction:
> 
> _Puis je m'accusais de blasphème,
> Et je ne sentais en moi-même,
> ...


Figleaf is as ga-ga for male singers as I am for female ones.

Perhaps she should do the male review for all opera singers and I should do the female ones.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> We mustn't forget the Beecham set, superbly conducted and with a very real presence in de Los Angeles. She never sang Carmen on stage but she is here pretty convincing, if not quite nasty enough, the opposite of Callas' creation. The supporting cast is fair. Blanc good, Gedda fair, Michau past her best, more like Jose's long lost mum!


Love Beecham's conducting and love De Los Angeles normally, but she doesn't work as Carmen for me. She's altogether too ladylike. I just can't imagine this Carmen ever pulling a knife on a workmate in a cat fight. I love her as Butterfly, as Mimi, as Marguerite, as Manon, but she never convinced me she was a Carmen.

Interesting footnote to the Beecham recording is that Legge originally suggested Callas to Beecham. Beecham was quite happy to work with her, but when Legge broached the subject with Callas, she declined, stating that her French wasn't yet good enough. She was always equivocal about singing it. When Zeffirelli tried to get her to do a stage production, she said she couldn't dance like a gypsy. It seems she was always coming up with excuses. It's a miracle she ever recorded it at all.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Love Beecham's conducting and love De Los Angeles normally, but she doesn't work as Carmen for me. She's altogether too ladylike. I just can't imagine this Carmen ever pulling a knife on a workmate in a cat fight. I lover her as Butterfly, as Mimi, as Marguerite, as Manon, but she never convinced me she was a Carmen.
> 
> Interesting footnote to the Beecham recording is that Legge originally suggested Callas to Beecham. Beecham was quite happy to work with her, but when Legge broached the subject with Callas, she declined, stating that her French wasn't yet good enough. She was always equivocal about singing it. When Zeffirelli tried to get her to do a stage production, she said she couldn't dance like a gypsy. It seems she was always coming up with excuses. It's a miracle she ever recorded it at all.


I _ALMOST _lost my coffee on that one- that's a perfect encapsulation.

De Los Angeles is the beautiful, nearly self-effacing girl of the convent.

Callas is the bad Catholic school girl. . . . . . which is to say, the 'right' girl.

_;D_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I _ALMOST _lost my coffee on that one- that's a perfect encapsulation.
> 
> De Los Angeles is the beautiful, nearly self-effacing girl of the convent.
> 
> ...


Carmen is not a schoolgirl at all, however, as gypsies (at that time anyway) would not have gone to school. de los Angeles based her interpretation on her knowledge of Spanish gypsies who, she said, were charmers. Probably she and Callas show two different sides of Carmen's character. I could not really imagine Callas' Carmen charming any man - more likely to have sent them running for their lives!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Victoria de los Angeles did sing Carmen on stage, towards the end of her career:






However, in my view she was much better suited to sing Micaela.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Carmen is not a schoolgirl at all, however, as gypsies (at that time anyway) would not have gone to school. de los Angeles based her interpretation on her knowledge of Spanish gypsies who, she said, were charmers. Probably she and Callas show two different sides of Carmen's character. I could not really imagine Callas' Carmen charming any man - more likely to have sent them running for their lives!


Well she certainly sounds dangerous, which is exactly as she is described in the libretto _dangereuse et belle_. Of course some men find the whole idea of a sexually promiscuous, free-spirited woman, one who treats them the way men have treated women for years on end, somewhat terrifying. Others would find a dangerous woman fascinating, or a challenge. The former are no doubt happier with the idea of Carmen as a charming coquette, but _that_ Carmen is hardly born out by the libretto. After all, she does draw a knife on a co-worker. De Los Angeles' may be the more comfortable reading of the role, but who says it has to be comforting? The Carmens who work for me are the dangerous ones.

There are a couple of concerts preserved on DVD of Callas singing the _Habanera_ and _Seguedille_. She is utterly beiwtching, and gives some indication of what she might have been like if she'd ever sung the role on stage.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Carmen is not a schoolgirl at all, however, as gypsies (at that time anyway) would not have gone to school. de los Angeles based her interpretation on her knowledge of Spanish gypsies who, she said, were charmers. Probably she and Callas show two different sides of Carmen's character. I could not really imagine Callas' Carmen charming any man - more likely to have sent them running for their lives!


Why would Callas have to be 'charming' when she's 'irresistibly sexy?'

Charm can be overcome. A force of nature never can.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Well she certainly sounds dangerous, which is exactly as she is described in the libretto _dangereuse et belle_. Of course some men find the whole idea of a sexually promiscuous, free-spirited woman, one who treats them the way men have treated women for years on end, somewhat terrifying. Others would find a dangerous woman fascinating, or a challenge. The former are no doubt happier with the idea of Carmen as a charming coquette, but _that_ Carmen is hardly born out by the libretto. After all, she does draw a knife on a co-worker. De Los Angeles' may be the more comfortable reading of the role, but who says it has to be comforting? The Carmens who work for me are the dangerous ones.
> 
> There are a couple of concerts preserved on DVD of Callas singing the _Habanera_ and _Seguedille_. She is utterly beiwtching, and gives some indication of what she might have been like if she'd ever sung the role on stage.


Wagner's young acolyte who eventually came of age- the brilliant classical philologist Friedrich Nietzsche- initially idolized Wagner for his epic and heroic sense of life, only to eventually abjure the Christian asceticism of the mature Wagner.

The opera Nietzsche felt best exemplified the completely free, exuberant, and untamed spirit of what live can and should be was _Carmen_.

I completely agree with that assessment.

Carmen understands that freedom cannot be granted, but that it must be taken.

- My kind of girl all the way.

_;D_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Wagner's young acolyte who eventually came of age- the brilliant classical philologist Friedrich Nietzsche- initially idolized Wagner for his epic and heroic sense of life, only to eventually abjure the Christian asceticism of the mature Wagner.
> 
> The opera Nietzsche felt best exemplified the completely free, exuberant, and untamed spirit of what live can and should be was _Carmen_.
> 
> ...




If one dares to bring up the name "Wagner" here, one must know what moth - or duck - is going to be attracted to the flame! :tiphat:

Nietzsche, bless his crazy little _Herz_, did indeed claim an infatuation with Bizet at a time when his early subjugation, and lifelong indebtedness, to Wagner's domineering - and superior - genius had become a weight upon his spirit and an embarrassment to his aspiring inner _Uebermensch_. The apparent Christianity of _Parsifal_ (which Nietzsche misunderstood) did annoy him, but it was against Wagner's entire aesthetic of weighty, histrionic, Teutonic idealism, which he characterized as unhealthy, that Nietzsche held up _Carmen_ as an exemplar of sunny, carnal, salubrious, Mediterranean _joie de vivre_. He did so as an act of exorcism that never succeeded; he needed something to oppose to Wagner, something to fan the flame of a resentment which could only arise from the pain of love - or, more accurately, of excessive and unrequited worship. Yet, when he finally heard the music of _Parsifal_, having already excoriated Wagner for composing a work of spiritual corruption, he was overwhelmed; he said that it "cut through the soul like a knife," and asked rhetorically "Has Wagner done anything finer?" When pressed later about his elevation of Bizet, he backpedalled and said that his comments about _Carmen_ should not be taken "too seriously." Of course one never knows, with Friedrich Nietzsche, how seriously is "too" seriously. But we can be seriously certain, because he acknowledged it even at the sad end of his days, that Wagner and Wagner's music, and not Bizet and his, remained his greatest influence and benefactor.

I'm saying this, of course, only to set the record straight about the nature of Nietzsche's interest in _Carmen._ No reflection on the lady herself, who remains as delectably _dangereuse_ as ever.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If one dares to bring up the name "Wagner" here, one must know what moth - or duck - is going to be attracted to the flame! :tiphat:
> 
> Nietzsche, bless his crazy little _Herz_, did indeed claim an infatuation with Bizet at a time when his early subjugation, and lifelong indebtedness, to Wagner's domineering - and superior - genius had become a weight upon his spirit and an embarrassment to his aspiring inner _Uebermensch_. The apparent Christianity of _Parsifal_ (which Nietzsche misunderstood) did annoy him, but it was against Wagner's entire aesthetic of weighty, histrionic, Teutonic idealism, which he characterized as unhealthy, that Nietzsche held up _Carmen_ as an exemplar of sunny, carnal, salubrious, Mediterranean _joie de vivre_. He did so as an act of exorcism that never succeeded; he needed something to oppose to Wagner, something to fan the flame of a resentment which could only arise from the pain of love - or, more accurately, of excessive and unrequited worship. Yet, when he finally heard the music of _Parsifal_, having already excoriated Wagner for composing a work of spiritual corruption, he was overwhelmed; he said that it "cut through the soul like a knife," and asked rhetorically "Has Wagner done anything finer?" When pressed later about his elevation of Bizet, he backpedalled and said that his comments about _Carmen_ should not be taken "too seriously." Of course one never knows, with Friedrich Nietzsche, how seriously is "too" seriously. But we can be seriously certain, because he acknowledged it even at the sad end of his days, that Wagner and Wagner's music, and not Bizet and his, remained his greatest influence and benefactor.
> 
> I'm saying this, of course, only to set the record straight about the nature of Nietzsche's interest in _Carmen._ No reflection on the lady herself, who remains as delectably _dangereuse_ as ever.


Where did you read the text that I highlighted in blue?- in his epistolary correspondence? In his posthumous (notebooks edited into a book) _The Will to Power_? Where? Because I've never come across it. Not even in Walter Kauffmann's _Nietzsche: Psychologist, Philosopher, Antichrist_- which is considered the deepest single-volume exegesis of Nietzsche ever done in any language.

_Les esprits délicieusement dangereux veulent savoir._

_;D_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Where did you read the text that I highlighted in blue?- in his epistolary correspondence? In his posthumous (notebooks edited into a book) _The Will to Power_? Where? Because I've never come across it. Not even in Walter Kauffmann's _Nietzsche: Psychologist, Philosopher, Antichrist_- which is considered the deepest single-volume exegesis of Nietzsche ever done in any language.
> 
> _Les esprits délicieusement dangereux veulent savoir._
> 
> _;D_


I wish I could remember where I encountered the remark about _Carmen._ I will try to find out for you. The other point, about his sense of indebtedness, is pretty well-known; I think Nietzsche expressed that more than once in his last years.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I wish I could remember where I encountered the remark about _Carmen._ I will try to find out for you. The other point, about his sense of indebtedness, is pretty well-known; I think Nietzsche expressed that more than once in his last years.


Okay Grail Keeper- 'scout's honor.'

_;D_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Why would Callas have to be 'charming' when she's 'irresistibly sexy?'
> 
> Charm can be overcome. A force of nature never can.


There is a difference between being a man eater and 'irresistibly sexy'.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Well she certainly sounds dangerous, which is exactly as she is described in the libretto _dangereuse et belle_. Of course some men find the whole idea of a sexually promiscuous, free-spirited woman, one who treats them the way men have treated women for years on end, somewhat terrifying. Others would find a dangerous woman fascinating, or a challenge. The former are no doubt happier with the idea of Carmen as a charming coquette, but _that_ Carmen is hardly born out by the libretto. After all, she does draw a knife on a co-worker. De Los Angeles' may be the more comfortable reading of the role, but who says it has to be comforting? The Carmens who work for me are the dangerous ones.
> 
> There are a couple of concerts preserved on DVD of Callas singing the _Habanera_ and _Seguedille_. She is utterly beiwtching, and gives some indication of what she might have been like if she'd ever sung the role on stage.


I can see you have never worked with people who draw knives! They can be charming as well! That's what makes them so dangerous! I do agree that Los Angeles is perhaps too nice about it. But Callas is the other extreme. WhyI find Price so convincing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Whether one considers Maria Callas's intelligent, knife-edged characterization to be the essence of Carmen or one among many valid approaches to the role, it is a force to be reckoned with, and it does pose a challenge to the casting of the role of Don Jose. Such a domineering female lead might at first seem to require an equivalent force in her leading man, perhaps a dramatic tenor along the lines of a Del Monaco or a Corelli. Callas's tenor in the recording is the graceful Nicolai Gedda, a singer of intelligence and refined musicianship whose strong lyric instrument, while capable of forcefulness, is several notches short of heroic. This Carmen might at first glance threaten to overpower him. But would it be inappropriate if she did? 

I am impressed, in considering the plot, reading the libretto, and listening to the music of the opera, with the fact that there is nothing at all heroic about Don Jose, neither in anything he does nor anything he sings. On the contrary, he is presented as a nice, unassuming boy from the countryside, deeply attached to his home and his mother, devoted to a pretty girl he has probably known from childhood, and obedient to authority, without pretension or ambition to be or achieve anything beyond his modest station in life. He is, in short, an unworldly fellow who has apparently left the bosom of home and family only to find a home away from home in the military, and who fully expects to return home and marry his sweetheart and live an unadventurous, conventional life. We may presume that this fellow has never encountered anyone like the unconventional, free-spirited Carmen, and that she stirs in him feelings that have never been stirred before. And we can see by the swiftness with which he crumbles before her charismatic charm that his comfortable and unconsidered existence has not provided him with the powers of introspection or the strength of character even to comprehend his feelings, much less to resist them. Far from being heroic, he is a pitiable weakling, and never more so than in his final protestation of love over the body of the woman he has just stabbed to death. His breakdown is not tragic, but sordid and pathetic. We are perhaps left with the question: what does Carmen see in him? Of course the first thing she sees is freedom; she knows he will untie her and let her go. But given that she has had - and discarded - many men, I don't think a genuine attraction to him would be hard to believe: he is a handsome man in a handsome uniform, who will be a pretty trophy and ornament to her until she begins to despise the weakness and naivete that, quite possibly, she finds at first somewhat appealing. 

Considering the sensitive, immature, soft-centered character that Don Jose is, I find that the casting of Gedda against Callas's Carmen is extremely apt, and is one of the many virtues of their recording.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I have certainly known one or two women who were capable of great tenderness and also unreasonable temper. I always imagined Carmen in this mould. Personally I dont see Callas as the truly tender type of heroine but she does come over as the sly seductress in her Carmen. We dont see the fight in the factory, but we accept that Callas would be 'Up for it' Real life tells us though...'Its always the quiet ones!' 
I have to admit to liking Julia Migenes in the role. While not perhaps being in the same vocal sphere as a Callas or De Los Angeles, I think she displays the sensuality required and I believe the potential for violence called for. Carmen has to be one minute a lover tender and considerate, the next minute a fighter, volatile and almost bi-polar by modern description.
My humble opinion anyhoo!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

The first Carmen was the French mezzo Célestine Galli-Marié. A real character, she was every bit as impetuous and determined woman as the Gypsy herself. She was 34 years old at the time of the premiere, and was a very good match for Carmen both singing and acting, with her voice that was described as that of a high mezzo. Bizet was at times overpowered by his star singer. 

About Don José, I think there are two main approaches to the role, that are there almost from the premiere, back in 1875.

Let's call them the 'lover' approach, and the 'macho' approach.

The first one, of course, privileges the lyricism present on the role, will sing "Parle-moi de ma mère!" racked with emotion, "La fleur que tu m'avais jetée" is a desperate plea for love, while the more dramatic passages and the killing of Carmen will be the regrettable actions of a nice guy pushed beyond any reasonable limit by the wanton conduct of her lover.

The 'macho' approach, however, will sing "Parle-moi de ma mère!" at the manner of a virile young man that just happens to love her 'mamma', "La fleur que tu m'avais jetée" is a manly declaration of affection while the more dramatic passages and the killing of Carmen the actions of a dangerous man, the you-can't-play-with-me kind.

Let's find the traces of the first approach in France, at the Opéra Comique, where singers like David Devriès or Edmond Clément were performing the role:

Charles Friant - 




Lucien Muratore - 




Georges Thill - 




But we have also the second approach in France, like Agustarello Affré, that was introduced before in the thread, or one of my favorites, José Luccioni:






Interestingly, Paul Lhérie was the first Don José. Though he started his career as a tenor, he later changed his fach to baritone, and was considered a good performer of Rigoletto or Posa. Of course, that means his voice was from the beginning rather dark, dramatic and not so exciting in the top notes... but this kind of voice can also be a good Don José, for sure.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Whether one considers Maria Callas's intelligent, knife-edged characterization to be the essence of Carmen or one among many valid approaches to the role, it is a force to be reckoned with, and it does pose a challenge to the casting of the role of Don Jose. Such a domineering female lead might at first seem to require an equivalent force in her leading man, perhaps a dramatic tenor along the lines of a Del Monaco or a Corelli. Callas's tenor in the recording is the graceful Nicolai Gedda, a singer of intelligence and refined musicianship whose strong lyric instrument, while capable of forcefulness, is several notches short of heroic. This Carmen might at first glance threaten to overpower him. But would it be inappropriate if she did?
> 
> I am impressed, in considering the plot, reading the libretto, and listening to the music of the opera, with the fact that there is nothing at all heroic about Don Jose, neither in anything he does nor anything he sings. On the contrary, he is presented as a nice, unassuming boy from the countryside, deeply attached to his home and his mother, devoted to a pretty girl he has probably known from childhood, and obedient to authority, without pretension or ambition to be or achieve anything beyond his modest station in life. He is, in short, an unworldly fellow who has apparently left the bosom of home and family only to find a home away from home in the military, and who fully expects to return home and marry his sweetheart and live an unadventurous, conventional life. We may presume that this fellow has never encountered anyone like the unconventional, free-spirited Carmen, and that she stirs in him feelings that have never been stirred before. And we can see by the swiftness with which he crumbles before her charismatic charm that his comfortable and unconsidered existence has not provided him with the powers of introspection or the strength of character even to comprehend his feelings, much less to resist them. Far from being heroic, he is a pitiable weakling, and never more so than in his final protestation of love over the body of the woman he has just stabbed to death. His breakdown is not tragic, but sordid and pathetic. We are perhaps left with the question: what does Carmen see in him? Of course the first thing she sees is freedom; she knows he will untie her and let her go. But given that she has had - and discarded - many men, I don't think a genuine attraction to him would be hard to believe: he is a handsome man in a handsome uniform, who will be a pretty trophy and ornament to her until she begins to despise the weakness and naivete that, quite possibly, she finds at first somewhat appealing.
> 
> Considering the sensitive, immature, soft-centered character that Don Jose is, I find that the casting of Gedda against Callas's Carmen is extremely apt, and is one of the many virtues of their recording.


i can't agree with you about Jose. he is certainly immature but also has a psychotic part to his character which makes him dangerous. After all anyone who can behave like this (even in fiction) is obviously emotionally unbalanced. He is the victim of fate but also of his own impulses. Why I enjoy Corelli's characterisation (despite his French horrifying francophiles) as it includes this highly dangerous element in his singing. He is not a nice boy gone bad. He is a highly dangerous character capable of psychotic outbursts when his desires are thwarted - something more like Canio, in fact.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> There is a difference between being a man eater and 'irresistibly sexy'.


Just not with Callas' Carmen.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Just not with Callas' Carmen.


Just listening again to Callas. it is tremendously intelligent but she never sounds like a temptress to me. She is a man eater! She sounds like a cavewoman about to knock her man over the head and drag him off. I find your loyalty to your heroine touching though! One thing about Callas is she keeps you riveted. I don't like the rather unpleasant flutter she had developed in her voice by this stage when she tried to let fly. It's also remarkable how she can't seem to pronounce the French la. It comes out as le, le, le lerurgh!

Actually I see parallels between Don Giovanni and Carmen. Both psychopathic sexual predators. And Jose and Canio - prone to murderous, psychotic outbursts! A wonder Jose doesn't say at the end, "La commedia è finita!"


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

schigolch said:


> The first Carmen was the French mezzo Célestine Galli-Marié. A real character, she was every bit as impetuous and determined woman as the Gypsy herself. She was 34 years old at the time of the premiere, and was a very good match for Carmen both singing and acting, with her voice that was described as that of a high mezzo. Bizet was at times overpowered by his star singer.
> 
> About Don José, I think there are two main approaches to the role, that are there almost from the premiere, back in 1875.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for those links. It's a shame Paul Lhérie never recorded- he lived long enough to, although of course he would have already become a baritone by the time any recordings were made. There are so many frustrating gaps in our knowledge of the singing of the period as a result of such major singers not recording- but of course there is much great French singing to enjoy. Of the links you posted, Luccioni would be my favourite: I've never really thought of him as a 'macho' singer but he certainly avoids the opposite extreme, while still singing with refinement and expression- and what a gorgeous voice! Muratore likewise has an interesting sound and sings expressively: both he and Luccioni were handsome men in their prime and would have been appropriately sexy Josés. (Whether they actually sang the role on stage I don't know.) Thill as usual is impossible to fault, but he always sends me to sleep for some reason. Friant's performance is superb: what a shame he is so off-puttingly wimpish! I don't think that quality reflects badly on his artistry as such: it seems to have been a dry-sounding voice of modest size, and singers can't help the size and opulence of their natural vocal endowment, and shouldn't try to. Better to sound a bit wimpish than to force one's voice, but also better to stay away from those leading roles where animal magnetism is required.

Mention of animal magnetism brings me back to the great Agustarello Affre: none of these excellent singers could hold a candle to him when it comes to authority, charisma or sheer beauty of voice. In the Flower Song however, he has a rival: I've always loved this recording by Emile Scaramberg who, to my mind, is the ultimate 'tenor-as-lover', and without any sacrifice of virility or power.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Whether one considers Maria Callas's intelligent, knife-edged characterization to be the essence of Carmen or one among many valid approaches to the role, it is a force to be reckoned with, and it does pose a challenge to the casting of the role of Don Jose. Such a domineering female lead might at first seem to require an equivalent force in her leading man, perhaps a dramatic tenor along the lines of a Del Monaco or a Corelli. Callas's tenor in the recording is the graceful Nicolai Gedda, a singer of intelligence and refined musicianship whose strong lyric instrument, while capable of forcefulness, is several notches short of heroic. This Carmen might at first glance threaten to overpower him. But would it be inappropriate if she did?
> 
> I am impressed, in considering the plot, reading the libretto, and listening to the music of the opera, with the fact that there is nothing at all heroic about Don Jose, neither in anything he does nor anything he sings. On the contrary, he is presented as a nice, unassuming boy from the countryside, deeply attached to his home and his mother, devoted to a pretty girl he has probably known from childhood, and obedient to authority, without pretension or ambition to be or achieve anything beyond his modest station in life. He is, in short, an unworldly fellow who has apparently left the bosom of home and family only to find a home away from home in the military, and who fully expects to return home and marry his sweetheart and live an unadventurous, conventional life. We may presume that this fellow has never encountered anyone like the unconventional, free-spirited Carmen, and that she stirs in him feelings that have never been stirred before. And we can see by the swiftness with which he crumbles before her charismatic charm that his comfortable and unconsidered existence has not provided him with the powers of introspection or the strength of character even to comprehend his feelings, much less to resist them. Far from being heroic, he is a pitiable weakling, and never more so than in his final protestation of love over the body of the woman he has just stabbed to death. His breakdown is not tragic, but sordid and pathetic. We are perhaps left with the question: what does Carmen see in him? Of course the first thing she sees is freedom; she knows he will untie her and let her go. But given that she has had - and discarded - many men, I don't think a genuine attraction to him would be hard to believe: he is a handsome man in a handsome uniform, who will be a pretty trophy and ornament to her until she begins to despise the weakness and naivete that, quite possibly, she finds at first somewhat appealing.
> 
> Considering the sensitive, immature, soft-centered character that Don Jose is, I find that the casting of Gedda against Callas's Carmen is extremely apt, and is one of the many virtues of their recording.


Absolutely spot on, Woodduck. It's exactly how I feel. Gedda is the perfect foil for Callas's Carmen, and his portrayal is one of the reasons I feel the _whole_ performance hangs together so well. Guiot is also absolutely right as Micaela too. Not some wilting violet, but a plucky young girl, who is quite capable of looking after herself. I've no doubt she would have ended up wearing the trousers if she and Jose had got married.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> i can't agree with you about Jose. he is certainly immature but also has a psychotic part to his character which makes him dangerous. After all anyone who can behave like this (even in fiction) is obviously emotionally unbalanced. He is the victim of fate but also of his own impulses. Why I enjoy Corelli's characterisation (despite his French horrifying francophiles) as it includes this highly dangerous element in his singing. He is not a nice boy gone bad. He is a highly dangerous character capable of psychotic outbursts when his desires are thwarted - something more like Canio, in fact.


But nice boys, and weak characters, can and do behave badly. That is one of the tragedies of life. I feel much the same about Pinkerton, whom people often portray as a terrible cad. But I don't agree. I don't think that he ever intends to hurt Butterfly. That he does so, is down to thoughtlessness and his remorse is genuine. Puccini obviously thought so, otherwise he wouldn't have written _Addio fiorito asil_ to emphasize the point. I find Gedda utterly convincing on the Callas set.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> But nice boys, and weak characters, can and do behave badly. That is one of the tragedies of life. I feel much the same about Pinkerton, whom people often portray as a terrible cad. But I don't agree. I don't think that he ever intends to hurt Butterfly. That he does so, is down to thoughtlessness and his remorse is genuine. Puccini obviously thought so, otherwise he wouldn't have written _Addio fiorito asil_ to emphasize the point. I find Gedda utterly convincing on the Callas set.


Sorry but I thought we were talking about Jose in Carmen not Pinkerton in Butterfly! Two very different characters. If Jose was just a nice boy he wouldn't have drawn his sword on his commanding officer! No there's more to Jose than that!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Has anyone else heard the 1911 Carmen? I'd be interested to know if others find Marguerite Merentié as dull as I do, or if it's just my anti-soprano prejudice flaring up again. Marston's liner notes very much talk up Merentié's performance (and they are planning to release some of her solo records) but they would, wouldn't they? They could hardly have used Affre's name to sell the set, though he was very much the star singer on it, because he is very unfashionable , having been quite unjustly overlooked and dismissed by (mostly) anglophone critics for the last sixty years at least.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> But nice boys, and weak characters, can and do behave badly. That is one of the tragedies of life. I feel much the same about Pinkerton, whom people often portray as a terrible cad. But I don't agree. I don't think that he ever intends to hurt Butterfly. That he does so, is down to thoughtlessness and his remorse is genuine. Puccini obviously thought so, otherwise he wouldn't have written _Addio fiorito asil_ to emphasize the point. I find Gedda utterly convincing on the Callas set.


Ha! Butterfly is just 'collateral damage'. Most of those kind of men cry crocodile tears after the deed is done, but do they ever make amends? Do they heck! In Pinkerton's case we'll never know, because Butterfly is dead- a predictable consequence of his selfish, inconsiderate actions. I hate that guy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I thought we were talking about Jose in Carmen not Pinkerton in Butterfly! Two very different characters. If Jose was just a nice boy he wouldn't have drawn his sword on his commanding officer! No there's more to Jose than that!


Different characters, same principle- by way of illustration.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> Ha! Butterfly is just 'collateral damage'. Most of those kind of men cry crocodile tears after the deed is done, but do they ever make amends? Do they heck! In Pinkerton's case we'll never know, because Butterfly is dead- a predictable consequence of his selfish, inconsiderate actions. I hate that guy.


Oh yes what a cad! But you can never imagine him taking out a knife to Butterfly the way Jose does to Carmen. However, you feel sorry for Jose in a way you can never feel with Pinkerton. Actually Pinkerton uses Butterfly in the same way as Carmen uses Jose. If Jose was the 'nice boy' some reckon he'd probably have taken the knife to himself rather than Carmen!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Just listening again to Callas. it is tremendously intelligent but she never sounds like a temptress to me. She is a man eater! She sounds like a cavewoman about to knock her man over the head and drag him off. I find your loyalty to your heroine touching though! One thing about Callas is she keeps you riveted. I don't like the rather unpleasant flutter she had developed in her voice by this stage when she tried to let fly. It's also remarkable how she can't seem to pronounce the French la. It comes out as le, le, le lerurgh!
> 
> Actually I see parallels between Don Giovanni and Carmen. Both psychopathic sexual predators. And Jose and Canio - prone to murderous, psychotic outbursts! A wonder Jose doesn't say at the end, "La commedia è finita!"


I find the statement highlighted in blue somewhat patronising. I trust you didn't intend it to be so. 

No, my assessment of Callas's Carmen is based entirely on her intelligent treatment of the score and the text, not on some extraneous source that states that Spanish gypsies could be very charming. Truly, I had quite forgotten about it until I listened again recently. I was thoroughly unprepared to be so completely convinced by her characterisation, but it makes completete sense dramatically to me. I honestly cannot understand your protestation that she sounds like a cavewoman about to knock her man over the head and drag him off. She actually charts her seduction of Jose very well. You can hear it in the lead up to the _Seguedille_. (I'm just listening to it now).The defiance she shows towards Zuniga dissipates the moment she is left alone with Jose. Adopting a little girl lost tone, she starts to draw him in, slowly but surely. She has already seen his weakness and knows she can work on it. The _Seguedille_ is actually sung quite lightly. The minute he tells her to be quite, you can tell she knows she's got him; the little duet in the middle of it is beautifully played. Of course she doesn't love Jose. She just uses him.

Later in Act II, she loves the _idea_ of him, but confronted with the _actuality_ (a man who deserts her to go back to the barracks) she is not so sure, hence her rage. She realises this man isn't for her and no doubt she just wants to send him packing. Unfortunately for her, subsequent events dictate otherwise.

Funny, I see no real parallels between Jose and Canio, just as I can't see any between Carmen and Nedda, except for their ultimate fate.The former is a young man driven to a desperate act when his life has no other meaning, the latter is a bully from the word go.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Oh yes what a cad! But you can never imagine him taking out a knife to Butterfly the way Jose does to Carmen. However, you feel sorry for Jose in a way you can never feel with Pinkerton. Actually Pinkerton uses Butterfly in the same way as Carmen uses Jose. If Jose was the 'nice boy' some reckon he'd probably have taken the knife to himself rather than Carmen!


Personally I feel more sorry for Carmen. If she hadn't hooked up with someone from a completely different background and culture, she would no doubt still be around to tell the tale. Jose was a miscalculation on her part, one that cost her her life.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I thought we were talking about Jose in Carmen not Pinkerton in Butterfly! Two very different characters. If Jose was just a nice boy he wouldn't have drawn his sword on his commanding officer! No there's more to Jose than that!


We are and I was using Pinkerton as an example of another character who is often misunderstood. You brought in comparisons with Canio. Am I not allowed to bring a comparison of my own?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> We are and I was using Pinkerton as an example of another character who is often misunderstood. You brought in comparisons with Canio. Am I not allowed to bring a comparison of my own?


Yes Greg but I didn't feel your comparisons were valid as they are two very different characters. Pinkerton is not misunderstood - he is a cad who used a trusting young girl who was willing to give up everything for him. And at the end he is too cowardly to face her.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I find the statement highlighted in blue somewhat patronising. I trust you didn't intend it to be so.
> 
> No, my assessment of Callas's Carmen is based entirely on her intelligent treatment of the score and the text, not on some extraneous source that states that Spanish gypsies could be very charming. Truly, I had quite forgotten about it until I listened again recently. I was thoroughly unprepared to be so completely convinced by her characterisation, but it makes completete sense dramatically to me. I honestly cannot understand your protestation that she sounds like a cavewoman about to knock her man over the head and drag him off. She actually charts her seduction of Jose very well. You can hear it in the lead up to the _Seguedille_. (I'm just listening to it now).The defiance she shows towards Zuniga dissipates the moment she is left alone with Jose. Adopting a little girl lost tone, she starts to draw him in, slowly but surely. She has already seen his weakness and knows she can work on it. The _Seguedille_ is actually sung quite lightly. The minute he tells her to be quite, you can tell she knows she's got him; the little duet in the middle of it is beautifully played. Of course she doesn't love Jose. She just uses him.
> 
> ...


We'll just have to agree to differ, Greg. No problem!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Personally I feel more sorry for Carmen. If she hadn't hooked up with someone from a completely different background and culture, she would no doubt still be around to tell the tale. Jose was a miscalculation on her part, one that cost her her life.


Feel sorry for Carmen? You might as well feel sorry for the devil, which is what Jose calls her at the end!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Yes Greg but I didn't feel your comparisons were valid as they are two very different characters. Pinkerton is not misunderstood - he is a cad who used a trusting young girl who was willing to give up everything for him. And at the end he is too cowardly to face her.


Again I am beginning to feel your tone is rather patronising.

I happen to think that Canio and Jose aren't in the least bit similar either, so I don't think your comparison is valid. I was using my comparison to show how nice people (let me say this again very slowly, as people don't seem to get it) can and do act badly.

I actually don't think Pinkerton is a cad. He is what his music tells us he is, a charming, but ultimately thoughtless young man, who is swept up in the moment and doesn't give a second thought to his actions, whatever Sharpless tries to tell him. By the time he returns, thoughts of Butterfly have receded to the back of his mind, any twinges of guilt he might have felt, put in their place. We can tell he does feel some guilt though because he writes to Sharpless (remember he has been telling himself that, according to Japanese law, he is no longer married to Butterfly anyway). The existence of the child suddenly brings home to him the consequences of his deeds, and his remorse is genuine. I find this interpretation much more valid than the one of a heartless cad. Could a heartless cad really sing that love duet with her?

So back to Jose. There are numerous examples of nice young men thrown into unexpected circumstances whose passions are aroused to such an extent that they behave out of character. Unlike Canio, Jose is never in control of Carmen, She won't allow herself to be controlled, and the only way he can truly posses her in the end is to kill her, and act he instantly regrets, a real crime of passion. Canio is something of a bully from the outset. We see it in the very first scene. There is even a hint that Nedda might be a battered wife. I don't see them as being similar at all.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> We'll just have to agree to differ, Greg. No problem!


David, respectfully: Its not a mere matter of 'feelings' and 'perspectives.'

Greg backs up his views with very _specific_ examples of Callas' seductive treatment of Carmen.

To gainsay such a self-evident analytic truth is the equivalent of saying that "one plus one 'kind of but not really' equals two."


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Feel sorry for Carmen? You might as well feel sorry for the devil, which is what Jose calls her at the end!


Actually yes I do. Had she not hooked up with someone with psychopathic tendencies she would have been just fine. But Carmen was never going to give in to someone like Jose. She is quite modern really and will not allow herself to be possessed by any man. She chooses death rather than subjugation. I find that rather admirable. What was she supposed to do? Give in to him and be miserable for the rest of her life?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Actually yes I do. Had she not hooked up with someone with psychopathic tendencies she would have been just fine. But Carmen was never going to give in to someone like Jose. She is quite modern really and will not allow herself to be possessed by any man. She chooses death rather than subjugation. I find that rather admirable. What was she supposed to do? Give in to him and be miserable for the rest of her life?


Freedom never has to ask _anyone's _permission- not even Don Jose's.

_Que viva Carmen!_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair wrote:

Wagner's young acolyte who eventually came of age- the brilliant classical philologist Friedrich Nietzsche- initially idolized Wagner for his epic and heroic sense of life, only to eventually abjure the Christian asceticism of the mature Wagner.

The opera Nietzsche felt best exemplified the completely free, exuberant, and untamed spirit of what live can and should be was _Carmen._ 

Woodduck wrote:

Nietzsche, bless his crazy little Herz, did indeed claim an infatuation with Bizet at a time when his early subjugation, and lifelong indebtedness, to Wagner's domineering - and superior - genius had become a weight upon his spirit and an embarrassment to his aspiring inner Uebermensch. The apparent Christianity of _Parsifal_ (which Nietzsche misunderstood) did annoy him, but it was against Wagner's entire aesthetic of weighty, histrionic, Teutonic idealism, which he characterized as unhealthy, that Nietzsche held up _Carmen_ as an exemplar of sunny, carnal, salubrious, Mediterranean _joie de vivre_. He did so as an act of exorcism that never succeeded; he needed something to oppose to Wagner, something to fan the flame of a resentment which could only arise from the pain of love - or, more accurately, of excessive and unrequited worship...*When pressed later about his elevation of Bizet, he backpedalled and said that his comments about Carmen should not be taken "too seriously." Of course one never knows, with Friedrich Nietzsche, how seriously is "too" seriously. But we can be seriously certain, because he acknowledged it even at the sad end of his days, that Wagner and Wagner's music, and not Bizet and his, remained his greatest influence and benefactor.*



Marschallin Blair said:


> Where did you read the text that I highlighted in blue?- in his epistolary correspondence? In his posthumous (notebooks edited into a book) _The Will to Power_? Where? Because I've never come across it. Not even in Walter Kauffmann's _Nietzsche: Psychologist, Philosopher, Antichrist_- which is considered the deepest single-volume exegesis of Nietzsche ever done in any language.
> 
> _Les esprits délicieusement dangereux veulent savoir._
> 
> _;D_


My source is Bryan Magee's _The Tristan Chord_, in the chapter "Wagner and Nietzsche." Magee writes: "Famously, in his published writing Nietzsche sets up Bizet against Wagner, declares _Carmen_ to be the greatest of all operas...[But] Privately, in a letter to a friend he writes: 'What I say about Bizet, you should not take seriously; the way I am, Bizet does not matter to me at all. But as an ironic antithesis to Wagner, it has a strong effect.' "

Nietzsche, desperate to get out of the shadow and influence of his mentor and father-proxy, needed more than anything to make a "strong effect," and probably no one save Wagner himself has ever so excelled at that. Nietzsche devoted a suspiciously large portion of his last decade of lucidity to fighting off the older (by 31 years) man's influence in book after book, and his fulsome praise of _Carmen_ in contrast to Wagner has been cited again and again with little understanding of its source in his personal psychology, specifically in his struggle for emotional and intellectual independence. Magee's essay on the relationship of Nietzsche and Wagner is a clear and penetrating portrait of both men which I strongly recommend.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Again I am beginning to feel your tone is rather patronising.
> 
> I happen to think that Canio and Jose aren't in the least bit similar either, so I don't think your comparison is valid. I was using my comparison to show how nice people (let me say this again very slowly, as people don't seem to get it) can and do act badly.
> 
> ...


Sorry, Greg, but having someone disagree with you does not mean their tone is patronising. I have absolutely no problem with you disagreeing with me so please do not get upset when I disagree with your opinion.

If you look at what I actually said then you will notice I was pointing out similarities in their respective psychotic tendencies.

Unfortunately thoughtless young men who deal with women like Pinkerton deals with Butterfly are cads! Those of us who have daughters will no doubt agree!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> David, respectfully: Its not a mere matter of 'feelings' and 'perspectives.'
> 
> Greg backs up his views with very _specific_ examples of Callas' seductive treatment of Carmen.
> 
> To gainsay such a self-evident analytic truth is the equivalent of saying that "one plus one 'kind of but not really' equals two."


I'm just saying that for all her thoughtfulness she doesn't come across as seductive to me. More likely to send men running for their lives. But that is personal opinion. We are dealing here with opinion not mathematics!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Actually yes I do. Had she not hooked up with someone with psychopathic tendencies she would have been just fine. But Carmen was never going to give in to someone like Jose. She is quite modern really and will not allow herself to be possessed by any man. She chooses death rather than subjugation. I find that rather admirable. What was she supposed to do? Give in to him and be miserable for the rest of her life?


She might have tried being faithful? But then we wouldn't have had an opera, of course! I find nothing admirable in Carmen, I'm afraid. She made her bed and had to lie on it!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Marschallin Blair wrote:
> 
> Wagner's young acolyte who eventually came of age- the brilliant classical philologist Friedrich Nietzsche- initially idolized Wagner for his epic and heroic sense of life, only to eventually abjure the Christian asceticism of the mature Wagner.
> 
> ...


Thank you for that, Woodduck. _;D_

_Stellar. _

Blair-o-gance, 'humbled'. . . at least temporarily.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I'm just saying that for all her thoughtfulness she doesn't come across as seductive to me. More likely to send men running for their lives. But that is personal opinion. We are dealing here with opinion not mathematics!


I'd say that were dealing with 'facts' and not 'semantics.'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I'd say that were dealing with 'facts' and not 'semantics.'




Sorry opinions are not facts!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Like David A, I feel great sympathy for José and little for Carmen- partly no doubt due to my feelings for a particular Don José who I've mentioned, and partly because the story seems to be told from José's point of view: he has an aria in which to pour his heart out, Carmen doesn't have an opportunity to pour out her innermost feelings, so we're left seeing her only from the outside- a protective carapace of defiance and aggressive independence which can seem pretty monstrous. But if this were a real life instance of domestic violence in which a jealous man stalked and killed an unfaithful ex-girlfriend, there is no way I'd have any sympathy at all with the perpetrator. Context clearly matters, and affects whose side we take. I think part of the reason why Carmen evokes such sympathy is because her ultra-individualistic outlook is one which has become usual now, whereas José's virtues of constancy (which he does take to unneccessary extremes) and love of home and family have come to seem old fashioned and risible, at least in the English speaking world. Schigolch makes the excellent point that José's emotional vulnerability and love of his mother need not make him unmanly, a fact which I fear is lost on anglophone listeners who, stuck in a culture which devalues family ties, are unfortunately inclined to mock José in particular, as they do the Latin male generally, as a mummy's boy.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> She might have tried being faithful? But then we wouldn't have had an opera, of course! I find nothing admirable in Carmen, I'm afraid. She made her bed and had to lie on it!


Like the good little woman she should have been, you mean. If she were a man i'm sure you would have found her attitude to love and life more forgiveable.

What right had Jose to expect her to be faithful? Had she indicated at any point in their relationship that she was likely to be a good little woman who settled down with one man? Not at all. She asserted her philosophy in the _Habanera_. If anything she is just uncompromisingly honest.

Women still have a long way to go before they are treated the same as men it would seem.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> She might have tried being faithful? But then we wouldn't have had an opera, of course! I find nothing admirable in Carmen, I'm afraid. She made her bed and had to lie on it!


OK, when I agreed with you, it was *before* you said 'She made her bed and had to lie on it'. Harsh, David, harsh!!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Like the good little woman she should have been, you mean. If she were a man i'm sure you would have found her attitude to love and life more forgiveable.
> 
> What right had Jose to expect her to be faithful? Had she indicated at any point in their relationship that she was likely to be a good little woman who settled down with one man? Not at all. She asserted her philosophy in the _Habanera_. If anything she is just uncompromisingly honest.
> 
> Women still have a long way to go before they are treated the same as men it would seem.


If she were a man I'd have punched his lights out! What she does is despicable! She seduces a guy with no intention of being faithful to him? Would you want to be treated like that? Come on! Perhaps she joined Don Giovanni in heaven?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> OK, when I agreed with you, it was *before* you said 'She made her bed and had to lie on it'. Harsh, David, harsh!!!


She actually made her bed a good many times I believe! But can I just remind everyone we are dealing with a fictional character here!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DavidA said:


> If she were a man I'd have punched his lights out! What she does is despicable!* She seduces a guy with no intention of being faithful to him? Would you want to be treated like that? *Come on! Perhaps she joined Don Giovanni in heaven?


I can't speak for Greg, but most men would be genuinely delighted!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Figleaf said:


> I can't speak for Greg, but most men would be genuinely delighted!


Well sorry, but being the beneficiary of a faithful wife over many years I don't see things that way!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> If she were a man I'd have punched his lights out! What she does is despicable! She seduces a guy with no intention of being faithful to him? Would you want to be treated like that? Come on! Perhaps she joined Don Giovanni in heaven?


Well no not really, but if you went into it as a bit of fun, as presumably all her other lovers did, and as Escamillo assuredly does (_Les amours de Carmen ne durent pas six mois_), then I've no doubt it could be quite exciting.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> What she does is despicable! She seduces a guy with no intention of being faithful to him? Would you want to be treated like that?


Only if she does it repeatedly. Well, at my age weekly -- not sure I'm up for daily.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Sorry opinions are not facts!


_Ex-ACT-ly._

Callas sings seductively.

You may not like her 'style' of seduction.

But it is unmistakably seductive.

Hamlet's pensive. Lear's remorseful. Carmen's seductive.

These are character 'archetypes' and not matters of opinion.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> If she were a man I'd have punched his lights out! What she does is despicable! She seduces a guy with no intention of being faithful to him? Would you want to be treated like that? Come on! Perhaps she joined Don Giovanni in heaven?


It takes two to tangle.

No one's putting a gun to Don Jose's head.

He's a big boy.

He needs to start acting like one.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Well sorry, but being the beneficiary of a faithful wife over many years I don't see things that way!


Your strident tone betrays you.

You sound like a man who is tempted.

_;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> She actually made her bed a good many times I believe! But can I just remind everyone we are dealing with a fictional character here!


So is Becky Sharp- but, again, as 'archetypes' you see these people everywhere in the real world.

'Art imitating life.'


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Like the good little woman she should have been, you mean. If she were a man i'm sure you would have found her attitude to love and life more forgiveable.
> 
> What right had Jose to expect her to be faithful? Had she indicated at any point in their relationship that she was likely to be a good little woman who settled down with one man? Not at all. She asserted her philosophy in the _Habanera_. If anything she is just uncompromisingly honest.
> Women still have a long way to go before they are treated the same as men it would seem.


Precisely.

Who's the one in bad faith?

- Not Carmen.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Ex-ACT-ly._
> 
> Callas sings seductively.
> 
> ...


Quite simply if I don't like her style of seduction it will not appear seductive to me!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Thank you for that, Woodduck. _;D_
> 
> _Stellar. _
> 
> Blair-o-gance, 'humbled'. . . at least temporarily.


Red Letter Day!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

If she looks like Penelope Cruz I don't care how she seduces me :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Precisely.
> 
> Who's the one in bad faith?
> 
> - Not Carmen.


I agree that Carmen is consistent in her unfaithfulness, as Escamillo himself says.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> It takes two to tangle.
> 
> No one's putting a gun to Don Jose's head.
> 
> ...


But psychotics are not 'big boys' - they are actually the opposite!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I agree that Carmen is consistent in her unfaithfulness, as Escamillo himself says.


How is she unfaithful when she never promised anything to _begin_ with?

You certainly have a peculiar view of contracts. . .

Carmen spells it out and breaks it down potato-head style in the _Habanera_ for a candid world to see.

- and the baby-with-whiskers Don Jose_ still _comes her way.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Your strident tone betrays you.
> 
> You sound like a man who is tempted.
> 
> _;D_


Ah the 'heads I win tails you lose' argument!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> Red Letter Day!


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. _;D_

_"The Scarlet 'B.'"_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Ah the 'heads I win tails you lose' argument!


Just because I flounce my skirt doesn't mean that you have to grab it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> But psychotics are not 'big boys' - they are actually the opposite!


Well, you got me on that one.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> How is she unfaithful when she never promised anything to _begin_ with?
> 
> You certainly have a peculiar view of contracts. . .
> 
> ...




Can I point you to the libretto!

Jose: if I agree, if I give myself to you, your promise, you will keep it? And if I love you, Carmen, you will love me?"
Carmen: "Yes!"
Of course we know she is a pathological liar, but Jose doesn't at that stage!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Itullian said:


> If she looks like Penelope Cruz I don't care how she seduces me :tiphat:


Gimme Marion Cotillard instead for Carmen and then I will fall over like dominoes.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Can I point you to the libretto!
> 
> Jose: if I agree, if I give myself to you, your promise, you will keep it? And if I love you, Carmen, you will love me?"
> Carmen: "Yes!"
> Of course we know she is a pathological liar, but Jose doesn't at that stage!


Yes, I agree- let's go to the libretto- earlier in the libretto, in fact- to the _Seguidilla_ and duet- where Carmen tells the baby-with-whiskers what he's getting into:

_CARMEN

By the ramparts of Seville,
at my friend Lillas Pastia's place,
I'm going to dance the seguidilla
and drink manzanilla.
I'm going to my friend Lillas Pastia's!
Yes, but all alone one gets bored,
and real pleasures are for two.
So, to keep me company,
I shall take my lover!
My lover... he's gone to the devil:
I showed him the door yesterday.
My poor heart, so consolable -
my heart is as free as air.

I have suitors by the dozen,
but they are not to my liking.
Here we are at the week end;
Who wants to love me? I'll love him.
Who wants my heart? It's for the taking!
You've come at the right moment!
I have hardly time to wait,
for with my new lover...
By the ramparts of Seville, etc.

JOSÉ

Stop! I told you not to talk to me! _

Why Jose?

_Why_ can't Carmen talk to you?

- That's right: Because you're weak and you can't resist _yourself_.

_;D_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I agree.
> 
> Let's go to the libretto- earlier in the libretto, in fact- to the _Seguidilla_ and duet- where Carmen tells the baby-with-whiskers what he's getting into:
> 
> ...




Just unfortunate for her that this baby had murderous tendencies when thwarted! Problem is he was serious and she wasn't!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Just unfortunate for her that this baby had murderous tendencies when thwarted! Problem is he was serious and she wasn't!


The problem was, she was totally _honest_ with who she was and he was totally_ deluded _with who he was.

- Is this coming into deep focus yet?

Here! Have this flower!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> The problem was, she was totally _honest_ with who she was and he was totally_ deluded _with who he was.
> 
> - Is this coming into deep focus yet?
> 
> Here! Have this flower!!




Offering flowers can be bad for your long term health, you know!

But Carmen afterwards says she will love him!

If she was being honest then it's because Carmen doesn't actually know the meaning of love. Her idea is of love is gaining power over men through female seduction. She demonstrates this by getting him to desert his regiment and risk a firing squad for her. He is then in her power. Then of course she discards him. Her idea of 'love'. This obsession with dominance eventually leads her to confront Jose in the last scene. What she cannot control she finds are his murderous instincts!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

On La Boheme tip, I really enjoyed watching this version:






They sing very well .


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Offering flowers can be bad for your long term health, you know!
> 
> But Carmen afterwards says she will love him!
> 
> If she was being honest then it's because Carmen doesn't actually know the meaning of love. Her idea is of love is gaining power over men through female seduction. She demonstrates this by getting him to desert his regiment and risk a firing squad for her. He is then in her power. Then of course she discards him. Her idea of 'love'. This obsession with dominance eventually leads her to confront Jose in the last scene. What she cannot control she finds are his murderous instincts!


She does. . . . . for a little while and according to fancy- just like she told him. . . <_caesura_>. . . '_beforehand_.'

Instead of blaming the victim he should blame himself.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> She does. . . . . for a little while and according to fancy- just like she told him. . . <_caesura_>. . . '_beforehand_.'
> 
> Instead of blaming the victim he should blame himself.


He does - after he has killed her!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> He does - after he has killed her!


What's your tacitly-argued _point_?: That a woman should be a demure vision of chauvinist obedience and propriety and never look or talk flirty or sexy?

Because to do so only 'encourages' any aggravated assault, battery, and rape that are 'really' her fault?

That's what it sounds like to me.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Itullian said:


> If she looks like Penelope Cruz I don't care how she seduces me :tiphat:


I prefer Micaela especially if she looks like Hyun Ju Park:






I must say there must be something wrong with Don Jose he becomes crazy as soon as he meets Carmen.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> What's your tacitly-argued _point_?: That a woman should be a demure vision of chauvinist obedience and propriety and never look or talk flirty or sexy?
> 
> Because to do so only 'encourages' any aggravated assault, battery, and rape that are 'really' her fault?
> 
> That's what it sounds like to me.


Sorry but there is no tacitly argued point. If you sense one you have completely missed the point I was making. I was talking about the characters Carmen and Jose.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> Has anyone else heard the 1911 Carmen? I'd be interested to know if others find Marguerite Merentié as dull as I do, or if it's just my anti-soprano prejudice flaring up again. Marston's liner notes very much talk up Merentié's performance (and they are planning to release some of her solo records) but they would, wouldn't they? They could hardly have used Affre's name to sell the set, though he was very much the star singer on it, because he is very unfashionable , having been quite unjustly overlooked and dismissed by (mostly) anglophone critics for the last sixty years at least.


Yes, I have heard that recording, and I have just revisited some passages, to confirm my memory about Mérentié. I have heard her also in the extra arias.

I don't find her dull. She had a true spinto voice, and provided good phrasing, nice legato. On the other hand, she was not the best vocal actress in the world, and this is always a big disadvantage singing Carmen. One has the feeling that she was trusting her instinct time and time again, and she got it wrong more than once. But all in all, I'm happy with her performance. I rather prefer her (and the recording overall, also) to the older German version with Emmy Destinn, that you mentioned in another post.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

schigolch said:


> Yes, I have heard that recording, and I have just revisited some passages, to confirm my memory about Mérentié. I have heard her also in the extra arias.
> 
> I don't find her dull. She had a true spinto voice, and provided good phrasing, nice legato. On the other hand, she was not the best vocal actress in the world, and this is always a big disadvantage singing Carmen. One has the feeling that she was trusting her instinct time and time again, and she got it wrong more than once. But all in all, I'm happy with her performance. I rather prefer her (and the recording overall, also) to the older German version with Emmy Destinn, that you mentioned in another post.


That's interesting. Perhaps I'm mostly deaf to the charms of the soprano voice, and need a decent singing actress to give interest to the role beyond the purely vocal. I found that the whole card scene near the beginning of Act 3 dragged really badly because of Mérentié and the unattractiveness of the Frasquita and Mercedes. I only listened to that part for about the third time ever for the purposes of this thread- usually I skip the parts of the recording that don't feature the singers I want to listen to, but when I listened to it all the way through, it was the parts featuring only Carmen or Carmen and her girlfriends that made me fidget with boredom. Perhaps Callas is the solution.

The Destinn clip is interesting. Carmen sounds odd in German, though Destinn's diction is certainly excellent. I may get a copy of the set if I can find it at a sensible price- there are so few complete opera recordings from that period, let alone featuring singers of Destinn's calibre, that I wouldn't want to pass up the chance to hear it.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Marschallin Blair wrote:
> 
> Wagner's young acolyte who eventually came of age- the brilliant classical philologist Friedrich Nietzsche- initially idolized Wagner for his epic and heroic sense of life, only to eventually abjure the Christian asceticism of the mature Wagner.
> 
> ...


I think the young Nietzsche was very much in awe of Wagner's polymathic, unifying genius- not unlike his deep seated admiration for Goethe, or even some facets of Napoleon (on a characterological and psychological level obviously, since Nietzsche was a hardcore anti-statist who said variously of the state that, "Everything it says is a lie. Everything it has it steals"- as well as calling it "the coldest of all cold monsters").

He certainly had a youthful fascination with Wagner the 'artist' if not Wagner the 'thinker.' Nietzsche never needed to emulate or envy Wagner (not that he would, as envy was completely alien to his temperament and breeding), and he really had his ticket punched before he even had it- as he was made a full professor at the University of Basel at twenty-three without even writing a dissertation (the faculty rationalized this by considering his_ Birth of Tragedy_ his "thesis").

The great Swiss Renaissance historian at Basel, Jakob Burkhardt, considered the young Nietzsche one of the finest minds in Europe. Nietzsche was very much his own man- _intellectually_.

I think with the young Nietzsche, Wagner merely brought out what was already nascent in his own thinking on tragedy and on life in general, since Nietzsche always had a fascination with the 'anti-rational' pre-Socratics, especially "the great Dark Philosopher" (his characterization, not mine) Heraclitus; and then of course with Aeschylus and Sophocles- all of whom he devoured in his young-to-late-teens and knew backwards and forwards.

It is hilarious though, that a man who put such a primacy on power and on making one's mark on the Stage of World History was particularly shy around women- with Cosima as a young man and then later with Lou Salome- whom he practically idolized and gauchely asked to marry him.

Wagner, Cosima, Salome- these are psychoanalytic speculations- at least as far as how they influenced- if indeed they did at all- his view of history, culture, religion, and tragedy.

It is of course fascinating for me to think about these things, but ultimately I judge an academic on the logical constellation of their ideas and not their psycho-biography.

I think Wagner was definately the 'Alpha' in the relationship between himself and the young Nietzsche- no question; but that Nietzsche was Wagner's intellectual superior outside of music.

Again, thanks for going back and posting the Magee book. I actually have the_ Tristan Chord_. I'll have to go out to the garage and see if I can find it. I want to read Magee's narrative for myself. You've piqued my curiosity.

One thing I always loved about Wagner, and I imagine Nietzsche did too, is that he took the Eastern _pessimism_ of Schopenhauer's "World as Will and Idea" thesis, and turned it on its head on _Tristan und Isolde_ and made it supremely _life-affirming_ and_ heroic-_ which, ironically, sounds very 'Nietzschean' to me- 'young Nietzschean' even.

_;D _


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

La Boheme: I don't have any recommendations for this. It's something I've tried to get into a few times, and failed. Possibly it's the recordings, or maybe I'm not ever going to appreciate this opera. One recording I've had at the back of the cupboard forever but only just got around to listening to is the 1928 La Scala recording conducted by Carlo Sabajno, with Aristodemo Giorgini as Rodolfo and Rosina Torri as Mimi. I sat through two acts of that earlier today and I've never been so unmoved in my life. Is it a bad recording? Singers and music alike sounded mediocre to my untutored ear. I also have a 1938 recording with Beniamino Gigli and Licia Albanese, which made little impression on me 20 years ago and hasn't been listened to since. Do I just dislike the opera? Those particular CDs were essentially random buys from the bad old pre-internet days when you were pretty much buying blind.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> He certainly had a youthful fascination with Wagner the 'artist' if not Wagner the 'thinker.' Nietzsche never needed to emulate or envy Wagner (not that he would, as envy was completely alien to his temperament and breeding), and he really had his ticket punched before he even had it- as he was made a full professor at the University of Basel at twenty-three without even writing a dissertation (the faculty rationalized this by considering his_ Birth of Tragedy_ his "thesis").


Well said, Marschallin.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> Well said, Marschallin.


Thanks, Darlin'.

_;D_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I think the young Nietzsche was very much in awe of Wagner's polymathic, unifying genius- not unlike his deep seated admiration for Goethe, or even some facets of Napoleon (on a characterological and psychological level obviously, since Nietzsche was a hardcore anti-statist who said variously of the state that, "Everything it says is a lie. Everything it has it steals"- as well as calling it "the coldest of all cold monsters").
> 
> He certainly had a youthful fascination with Wagner the 'artist' if not Wagner the 'thinker.' Nietzsche never needed to emulate or envy Wagner (not that he would, as envy was completely alien to his temperament and breeding), and he really had his ticket punched before he even had it- as he was made a full professor at the University of Basel at twenty-three without even writing a dissertation (the faculty rationalized this by considering his_ Birth of Tragedy_ his "thesis").
> 
> ...


This topic (getting away from _Carmen_) really deserves its own thread, but since we're discussing it...

After signing off last night I went directly to Magee's _The Tristan Chord_, where I suspected I would find the quote I needed to respond to your post. I'd just read Magee recently and found his chapter on Nietzsche and Wagner a revelation in every way, since I really had no sense of Nietzsche as a person. He was definitely not an _Uebermensch_ - nothing at all like Zarathustra! His father and only brother died when he was 5, and he was raised by his mother and sister, who were still around to look after him after he went insane. He met Wagner in his early twenties and impressed him enough to get "adopted," and they had an exciting intellectual friendship in which Wagner (31 years older, born the same year as N's father and apparently resembling him) clearly played a dominant, mentoring,"father" role. It appears that most of Nietzsche's early thinking was pretty much Wagner in disguise (even the "Apollonian-Dionysian" idea, which is usually credited to N) , which N acknowledged publicly. N was virtually absorbed by W for years, and spent much time at home with Richard and Cosima, with whom Magee believes he was probably in love. Evidently N was quite deferential and had difficulty being assertive (a common condition in W's presence!). W noted N's reticence with some annoyance, and N was even apologetic about it. But ultimately the "son" began to feel oppressed and to resent the "father's" dominance.

My impression is that Nietzsche was very much taken with Wagner the thinker, not merely the composer, whose music impressed him but which it took him some time to comprehend. N was a young man when they began their friendship, and W had long since formulated his ideas, and written extensively, about music, drama and culture, read widely in Greek drama, digested Schopenhauer, and composed all his operas up to and including _Meistersinger_. Evidently the two spent considerable time together, and N's first major opus, _The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music_, is a virtual digest of Wagnerian theory (though not without some originality). Because Wagner's own writings tend to be rather unreadable, most of us probably don't have a fair idea of his intellectual penetration and scope, but Nietzsche (like many others who knew W personally) was apparently in no doubt about it, calling W the greatest mind of the age, if I remember correctly. As for N's intellectual independence, it's difficult to guage in such an intimate relationship, but it appears not to have emerged clearly in N's writings until the relationship began to cool - which is not to say that the young N didn't have thoughts of his own which he may have broached with some caution to his domineering mentor! To have been a fly on the wall...

What surprised me in all this was how much the philosophical writings for which we know Nietzsche best (as opposed to the early, Wagner-influenced stuff about Greek drama and music), in their flaming, barbed, iconoclastic, take-no-prisoners content and style, don't seem consistent with his private personality. If Magee's account is correct, the later Nietzsche seems to be driven very much by the sort of rebellion against paternal authority that boys normally go through in their teens, but which for N had to wait until he found, as an adult, a father to rebel against. It's easy to see his work as a near-heroic effort at self-empowerment by a rather reserved academic who could only make his mark by presenting himself publicly as a cultural revolutionary and prophet - which is exactly what his papa Wagner had succeeded at being in reality, achieving an artistic greatness and a celebrity that Nietzsche could only envy. Nietzsche, in overthrowing rhetorically his culture's cherished idols, was still trying to emulate his own idol in the very act of denouncing him, the irony of which must have galled him! Magee points out that one of N's accusations is that W was an "actor," in his person, life and work - but that when we understand the amount of posturing that N's anti-Wagner stance contains, we see that this is projection and that the real actor is Nietzsche (his public vs. private remarks on _Carmen_ are but one of many examples of this). I do think that much of what Nietzsche has to say about Wagner contains elements of valid insight, as does his wider philosophical thought. But knowing something about the man and his relationship with the only truly significant person in his life sheds some fascinating light on his otherwise baffling contradictions, and most particularly on the extreme vehemence with which he attempts to repudiate that very person about whom, as man and artist, he never can stop confessing his indebtedness and gratitude.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

We have talked about singers but the orchestral score of Carmen is remarkable for its inventiveness and colour. Why its wasted on a routine conductor. Worth noting what Richard Strauss has to say about Carmen: "If you want to know how to orchestrate, don't study Wagner's scores, study the score of Carmen........ Every note and every rest is in its proper place."


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Don Jose Doesn't just kill Carmen over her unfaithful behaviour. Remember at the beginning of the Opera he is a Decent man and a good soldier practically an innocent who loves his Mother and erstwhile Fiancée. Carmen doesn't just break his heart she turns him into a deserter, a smuggler and thief. Everything he would otherwise despise in a man. 
Don Jose is humiliated totally, emotionally and physically. The insult to his manhood, Spanish Machismo, would gradually drive him to violence against the source of his humiliation, Carmen. 
I do have a little sympathy for Jose but none for Carmen. She knew exactly what she was doing and made no secret of it. Even if she didnt deserve a violent death.
Most men would have seen through her initial ploy straight away. But perhaps not the small town boy Jose. Used abused and fused!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I was listening to Karajan's Carmen with Price, Corelli, et al, last night. It had the benefit of one of John Culshaw's best recordings. Karajan is on thrilling form and the combination of Price's smokey-toned Carmen and Corelli's testosterone-driven Jose makes a highly combustible mix. There is also the pleasure of hearing one of the best ever Micaelas - Mirella Freni. 
Yes, I know that Corelli's French is appalling. According to Culshaw he was given a French linguistic tutor courtesy of RCA but his wife did not let the tutor near 'ma Franco' when she discovered the tutor was a woman! Then with the flower song still to be recorded Mrs Corelli demanded an extra £1000 for Corelli's 'time' he spent studying French with the tutor. This caused a huge transatlantic row as Mrs C was threatening to take 'ma franco' home minus the flower song if she didn't get her money. Eventually she did and Corelli performed the flower song!
For me the sheer thrill of Corelli's voice and the way he conveys Jose's ardent, desperate love for Carmen, as well as the danger lurking in his character, overrides linguistic considerations. 
So with Karajan on top form, bringing out the orchestral wonders of Bizet's score, the sheer excitement and vocal splendour of this recording makes it the one I most frequently listen to.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> La Boheme: I don't have any recommendations for this. It's something I've tried to get into a few times, and failed. Possibly it's the recordings, or maybe I'm not ever going to appreciate this opera. One recording I've had at the back of the cupboard forever but only just got around to listening to is the 1928 La Scala recording conducted by Carlo Sabajno, with Aristodemo Giorgini as Rodolfo and Rosina Torri as Mimi. I sat through two acts of that earlier today and I've never been so unmoved in my life. Is it a bad recording? Singers and music alike sounded mediocre to my untutored ear. I also have a 1938 recording with Beniamino Gigli and Licia Albanese, which made little impression on me 20 years ago and hasn't been listened to since. Do I just dislike the opera? Those particuln my CDs were essentially random buys from the bad old pre-internet days when you were pretty much buying blind.


Maybe you don't like the opera, for some reason, and that's about it. 

The recording is not bad at all, in my view. It was using mostly what, back in 1928, were rather second-rate singers (the Milanese baritone Badini was the more established, and he was a buffo specialist singing Marcello!), but the ensemble was nice, and they were performing well. There is a previous recording by Sabajno, from the 1910s, I haven't heard it.

In another recording from the same year, 1928, you have the opportunity to listen to one very celebrated specialist in Puccini, the Milanese soprano Rosetta Pampanini. She is quite an upgrade on Rosina Torri, and there is the extra bonus of the great bass Tancredi Pasero singing Colline.






However, in my view, the three recordings I mentioned before in this thread (Pavarotti/Freni, Tebaldi/Bergonzi, de los Angeles/Bjorling) are wonderful. Try one of these. If you are not moved, most likely "la Bohème" is just not your cup of tea.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

schigolch said:


> Maybe you don't like the opera, for some reason, and that's about it.
> 
> The recording is not bad at all, in my view. It was using mostly what, back in 1928, were rather second-rate singers (the Milanese baritone Badini was the more established, and he was a buffo specialist singing Marcello!), but the ensemble was nice, and they were performing well. There is a previous recording by Sabajno, from the 1910s, I haven't heard it.
> 
> ...


Thank you for those recommendations. Pampanini does sound quite good to me in that clip. For anyone who hasn't seen it, there's an interesting Boheme discography here:

http://www.operadis-opera-discography.org.uk/CLPUBOHE.HTM#1

It gives the date of the other Sabajno recording as 1917, and with the exception of Ernesto Badini, I hadn't heard of any of the singers. It's not that I dislike Badini that much, but I'd probably steer clear of any recording in which he was the most eminent singer. It seems to be unavailable in any case. I wonder whether the 1934 recording with Vallin and Villabella under Ruhlmann (also seemingly unavailable now) is complete, or just highlights- there are bits of it on Youtube. That would probably be a nice recording to have.I'm Pavarotti-phobic (relieved to see there are quite a few fellow sufferers on the forum )so I don't think I could take advantage of that particular recommendation, alas. If I feel the need to appreciate Boheme again- the need seems to come upon me about once every other decade- I'd probably dig out the Gigli set or maybe get the de los Angeles and Bjorling one. That's if the zombie apocalyse hasn't wiped us all out by then!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Badinerie said:


> Don Jose Doesn't just kill Carmen over her unfaithful behaviour. Remember at the beginning of the Opera he is a Decent man and a good soldier practically an innocent who loves his Mother and erstwhile Fiancée. Carmen doesn't just break his heart she turns him into a deserter, a smuggler and thief. Everything he would otherwise despise in a man.
> Don Jose is humiliated totally, emotionally and physically. The insult to his manhood, Spanish Machismo, would gradually drive him to violence against the source of his humiliation, Carmen.
> I do have a little sympathy for Jose but none for Carmen. She knew exactly what she was doing and made no secret of it. Even if she didnt deserve a violent death.
> Most men would have seen through her initial ploy straight away. But perhaps not the small town boy Jose. Used abused and fused!


In a sense, both Jose and Carmen would have got along just fine if they had never met. This is really a case of colliding worlds, almost a case of the nineteenth century colliding with the future.

Of course, the genius of the opera is that it can take different interpretations, ranging from the conventional nineteenth century notion that Carmen was the very she-devil and Jose a misunderstood saint, to more psychologically complex interpretations, such as we have been discussing.

When I say I can feel sorry for Carmen, even admire her determination to assert her freedom from all men even in the face of death, I'll admit this is a more modern interpretation. Carmen could never be the woman Jose wants her to be and the only way he can possess her is to kill her. This was at a time when women were viewed as the possession of men, mere chattels. That Carmen refused to be part of that tradition makes her very modern.


----------



## OperaMaven (May 5, 2014)

You get enough of don Jose's backstory in the "dialogue" version to know he's somebody you don't want to cross:



> Le lieutenant
> Vous êtes Navarrais?
> 
> José
> ...


In Merimee it's explicit: he killed the other guy and it was the army or death. This is no "innocent mama's boy", even if he presents such a nicey-nice facade.

Perhaps one should feel sorriest for Micaela - or relieved that she doesn't know what a dreadful fate she has escaped. Pathologically jealous, violent, quarrelsome men are entirely too likely to be wife-beaters, and no doubt he would have had Micaela believing she "deserved" it for any of a thousand stupid "reasons".


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

OperaMaven said:


> You get enough of don Jose's backstory in the "dialogue" version to know he's somebody you don't want to cross:
> 
> In Merimee it's explicit: he killed the other guy and it was the army or death. This is no "innocent mama's boy", even if he presents such a nicey-nice facade.


Interesting.
But if the dialogue is not in the opera it is not there.
In the opera Carmen Don Jose did not kill that guy just as in Verdis opera Don Carlo Don Carlo is a nice guy and not the psychopath he really was. I agree Don Jose is not likeable but Carmen is not really likeable either and the opera is also not so likeable.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Sloe said:


> Interesting.
> Don Jose is not likeable but Carmen is not really likeable either .


Thank god for the very likable music then!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Badinerie said:


> Thank god for the very likable music then!


Music has this effect. Like Rigoletto is far more likeable under the spell of Verdi's music than the original character in Hugo's play on which the opera is based. We get to like Don Giovanni far more under Mozart's music than if the womanising psychopath was speaking his lines.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Music has this effect. Like Rigoletto is far more likeable under the spell of Verdi's music than the original character in Hugo's play on which the opera is based. We get to like Don Giovanni far more under Mozart's music than if the womanising psychopath was speaking his lines.


But I still can´t understand why Gilda sacrifices herself for the duke despite that he sings happy arias.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

OperaMaven said:


> You get enough of don Jose's backstory in the "dialogue" version to know he's somebody you don't want to cross:
> 
> In Merimee it's explicit: he killed the other guy and it was the army or death. This is no "innocent mama's boy", even if he presents such a nicey-nice facade.
> 
> Perhaps one should feel sorriest for Micaela - or relieved that she doesn't know what a dreadful fate she has escaped. Pathologically jealous, violent, quarrelsome men are entirely too likely to be wife-beaters, and no doubt he would have had Micaela believing she "deserved" it for any of a thousand stupid "reasons".


This, though. doesn't necessarily make Jose a thug. It suggests he has a bad temper which he can't control, amply born out by later events in the opera. Spoiled mama's boys can also have bad tempers, particularly if said mama didn't do enough to curb that boy's temper when he was a child. His parents wanted him to be a priest. Temperamentally unsuited to that calling they chose the army instead. Whatever way you look at it, Carmen and her world are completely alien to him.

I must say all this discussion about the various ways Carmen and Jose can be played has made me realise anew just what a great opera *Carmen* is, Shakespearian in its breadth of characterisation.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I must say all this discussion about the various ways Carmen and Jose can be played has made me realise anew just what a great opera *Carmen* is, Shakespearian in its breadth of characterisation.


In that Greg we are in total and absolute agreement! It is in my mind one of the greatest operas ever written. What a shame that Bizet died before he could write any more!


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

After 158 posts I hope we can agree that whilst it may never become your favorite version the Callas Carmen is worth at least one listen just to hear possibly the best vocal actor ever interpret the role.

For me this has always been my favorite version. I purchased it in 1964/65 shortly after it's release.
I was quite young at the time but already working and I recall it cost me nearly a week's wages.
I remember in the booklets included with the release they stressed the Mérimée novella quite a lot. There were three booklets (or possibly chapters) titled something like: "Mérimée's Carmen";"Bizet's Carmen" and "Callas's Carmen" so I think the characterization of Carmen in this version is deliberately taken from Mérimée.
The contemporary criticism that it's "closer to Mérimée than to Bizet" is not totally wrong but, IMHO, is a good thing. Perhaps we should consider it the Regietheater of its time.

This is not, by far, may favorite opera but the story is very personal one.
Surely I can't be the only "nice guy" here who's fallen for a "bad" girl. In my case the progression was 
much like Don Jose's - abandon job and family, criminal activity, getting dumped - no stabbings though.
It always gets to me just near the end when Jose is trying desperately to get her back and all he has to offer is "But I, Carmen, I love you still; Carmen, alas! I adore you!" Been there! Totally meaningless to someone who no longer loves you.



GregMitchell said:


> I must say all this discussion about the various ways Carmen and Jose can be played has made me realise anew just what a great opera *Carmen* is, Shakespearian in its breadth of characterisation.


You can do this with a lot of operas and it's great fun. For example I can make any of the three principals in Traviata the 'villain'


----------



## OperaMaven (May 5, 2014)

Spoiled mama's boys with bad tempers can also become wife-beaters. IMHO Micaela had a narrow escape from a miserable future, even though she probably never realized it.

Nobody ever seems to wonder about what becomes of her without the man she was being so carefully groomed to marry - and that by both Jose and his doting mama. Maybe she entered a convent?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

DonAlfonso said:


> After 158 posts I hope we can agree that whilst it may never become your favorite version the Callas Carmen is worth at least one listen just to hear possibly the best vocal actor ever interpret the role.
> 
> For me this has always been my favorite version. I purchased it in 1964/65 shortly after it's release.
> I was quite young at the time but already working and I recall it cost me nearly a week's wages.
> ...


As a certain wise man once said:

_My son, pay attention to my wisdom,
turn your ear to my words of insight,
that you may maintain discretion
and your lips may preserve knowledge.
For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil;
but in the end she is bitter as gall,
sharp as a double-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps lead straight to the grave.
She gives no thought to the way of life;
her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it._

Maybe Jose should have read that bit in his prison cell before he started after Carmen!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Looking at Boheme, of those I have heard:

Tebaldi, Bergonzi with Serafin is beautifully sung but Tebaldi is a bit healthy for a consumptive! But marvellous singing.

Freni and Gedda with Schippers is wonderfully fresh and youthful

Freni and Pavorotti with Karajan is so achingly beautiful that it tends to spoil you for other things although some do not like HvK's slow tempi.

I also have a very well conducted version under Pappano. Alagna is no Pavorotti and Vaduva has not got a resplendent voice but that might be appropriate for a consumptive.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

DonAlfonso said:


> After 158 posts I hope we can agree that whilst it may never become your favorite version the Callas Carmen is worth at least one listen just to hear possibly the best vocal actor ever interpret the role.
> 
> For me this has always been my favorite version. I purchased it in 1964/65 shortly after it's release.
> I was quite young at the time but already working and I recall it cost me nearly a week's wages.
> ...


As did I, and I have still have it, including all 3 books!

As an interesting side note, my opera interest started with bel canto, progressed through Verdi and expanded into Wagner and many others. Over the years it has contracted some, i.e. I rarely listen to bel canto now, the only Verdi that I will regularly play is Falstaff, but Carmen is still high on my list.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

OperaMaven said:


> Spoiled mama's boys with bad tempers can also become wife-beaters. IMHO Micaela had a narrow escape from a miserable future, even though she probably never realized it.
> 
> Nobody ever seems to wonder about what becomes of her without the man she was being so carefully groomed to marry - and that by both Jose and his doting mama. Maybe she entered a convent?


Nah, I reckon some nice guy from the village finally plucked up the courage to tell her he loved her, once Jose was out of the way. She married him, they settled down in married bliss and had lots of kids. I bet she wore the trousers in the house too.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

As for *La Boheme*, I prefer Beecham with De Los Angeles and Bjoerling, to both the Tebaldi/Bergonzi/Serafin and Freni/Pavarotti/Karajan, which are usually considered the other front runners. I too have a soft spot for the Schippers with the young Freni and Gedda.

That said, but for the routine conducting of Votto, the Callas recording is not out of the running. Callas sounds like a completely different singer from the woman who sings Carmen, as she should. It is a surprisingly affecting portrayal, with an excellent cast that includes Di Stefano, Panerai and Anna Moffo as Musetta. Act III is possibly the most poignantly telling on disc.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> As for *La Boheme*, I prefer Beecham with De Los Angeles and Bjoerling, to both the Tebaldi/Bergonzi/Serafin and Freni/Pavarotti/Karajan, which are usually considered the other front runners. I too have a soft spot for the Schippers with the young Freni and Gedda.
> 
> That said, but for the routine conducting of Votto, the Callas recording is not out of the running. Callas sounds like a completely different singer from the woman who sings Carmen, as she should. It is a surprisingly affecting portrayal, with an excellent cast that includes Di Stefano, Panerai and Anna Moffo as Musetta. Act III is possibly the most poignantly telling on disc.


My aesthetic inclination leans precisely that way, with the exception of the Schippers/Freni. I have it. I've never particularly warmed to it. Perhaps my mind was out to lunch. I'll have to listen to it again.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> As for *La Boheme*, I prefer Beecham with De Los Angeles and Bjoerling, to both the Tebaldi/Bergonzi/Serafin and Freni/Pavarotti/Karajan, which are usually considered the other front runners. I too have a soft spot for the Schippers with the young Freni and Gedda.
> 
> That said, but for the routine conducting of Votto, the Callas recording is not out of the running. Callas sounds like a completely different singer from the woman who sings Carmen, as she should. It is a surprisingly affecting portrayal, with an excellent cast that includes Di Stefano, Panerai and Anna Moffo as Musetta. Act III is possibly the most poignantly telling on disc.


If I remember correctly there was a movie done of the early Freni recording which I saw in the theatres at the time, must be late 60's?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> My aesthetic inclination leans precisely that way, with the exception of the Schippers/Freni. I have it. I've never particularly warmed to it. Perhaps my mind was out to lunch. I'll have to listen to it again.




Perhaps it is back from lunch and having an afternoon nap


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Becca said:


> If I remember correctly there was a movie done of the early Freni recording which I saw in the theatres at the time, must be late 60's?


The movie has a slightly different cast, including Gianni Raimondi as Rodolfo, not Pavarotti.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> You can do this with a lot of operas and it's great fun. For example I can make any of the three principals in Traviata the 'villain'


I'm intrigued. How on earth do you make Violetta into a villain?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> Perhaps it is back from lunch and having an afternoon nap


Yeah, I'm 'on break' from my break.

It is Friday, after all.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> If I remember correctly there was a movie done of the early Freni recording which I saw in the theatres at the time, must be late 60's?


There is the Zefferelli version on film conducted by Karajan.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Schippers, Gedda, EMI
> 
> Very underrated Boheme.


I agree totally! I bought this recording some time during the first year I was interested in opera. Since then I've heard the famous Thomas Beecham recording with Bjoerling and de los Angeles, having always heard it was "the best" -- and the funny thing is that for all that cast's star status and vocal opulence I still prefer the Schippers.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> I agree totally! I bought this recording some time during the first year I was interested in opera. Since then I've heard the famous Thomas Beecham recording with Bjoerling and de los Angeles, having always heard it was "the best" -- and the funny thing is that for all that cast's star status and vocal opulence I still prefer the Schippers.


The Beecham version was made in haste and it shows in places. The last high note at the end of Act 1 is out of tune! Beecham, of course, knew Puccini, so it does have a certain authenticity.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> As for *La Boheme*, I prefer Beecham with De Los Angeles and Bjoerling, to both the Tebaldi/Bergonzi/Serafin and Freni/Pavarotti/Karajan, which are usually considered the other front runners.


Me too.
And despite being an enthusiastic admirer of Callas, I also prefer VDLA in Carmen. Much as I admire Callas' interpretation of both roles, I find myself much more convinced by the combination of Victoria's voice and Beecham's insights


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I'm intrigued. How on earth do you make Violetta into a villain?


That's easy. In Act 1 Violetta's returned from hospital and has already imagined her final act dying penniless and alone. She knows her beauty will not last much longer and her life as a courtesan (and her financial support) is ending. She latches onto a rich man's son to avoid her fate. She knows their union is considered scandalous and cannot reap immediate benefits but she is convinced that, in time, the father can be brought about. Hence her 'investment' in supporting Alfredo.
Once she meets Germont and becomes convinced that the original plan won't work she abandons Alfredo in a way that seems altruistic to impress Germont. Probably in the hope of some longer term benefit directly from him. In the meantime she returns to the baron and her old profession.
Act III the end. Violetta knows she's near death and is full of self pity. When Alfredo and Germont appear she can either tell them to f... off or play the con through to the end and at least leave them with guilty consciences - so she does just that.

Much more fun making the stalker Alredo the villain though.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DonAlfonso said:


> That's easy. In Act 1 Violetta's returned from hospital and has already imagined her final act dying penniless and alone. She knows her beauty will not last much longer and her life as a courtesan (and her financial support) is ending. She latches onto a rich man's son to avoid her fate. She knows their union is considered scandalous and cannot reap immediate benefits but she is convinced that, in time, the father can be brought about. Hence her 'investment' in supporting Alfredo.
> Once she meets Germont and becomes convinced that the original plan won't work she abandons Alfredo in a way that seems altruistic to impress Germont. Probably in the hope of some longer term benefit directly from him. In the meantime she returns to the baron and her old profession.
> Act III the end. Violetta knows she's near death and is full of self pity. When Alfredo and Germont appear she can either tell them to f... off or play the con through to the end and at least leave them with guilty consciences - so she does just that.
> 
> Much more fun making the stalker Alredo the villain though.


I think that's stretching things just a tad :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lest all the Carmen-love get out of hand and drip so much honey that we end up with a sticky mess all over the floor, I just want to say that I don't like the opera all that much and tend to feel as Ned Rorem does in an essay he wrote on it, in which he expresses great admiration for numerous details of the score and ends by saying "I like everything about _Carmen_ but it."

It really was Callas who got me to take the opera seriously back in the '60s, and without her I don't care greatly for it to this day. Like Rorem, I can point to this and that lovely detail, but I think it rides on its "heroine" - her character and her music - almost completely. The other characters are just not interesting in themselves; even Jose is only worth watching because of what Carmen puts him through, and his one aria is, forgive me, a bit sappy. Granted that opera is primarily music and stands or falls on that basis, and that _Carmen_ is full of engaging music - good tunes, marvelous orchestration, etc. - it's still the charismatic lady who makes it work, and if she's played in a way that's frivolous, vulgar or merely coquettish the whole thing feels superficial to me.

Not that any of this need matter to anyone. I suspect I'm just feeling contrary since I've been getting hammered on another thread for daring not to like Mahler as much as one is supposed to. The defenders of Bizet can't possibly be as formidable...

Can you?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Not that any of this need matter to anyone. I suspect I'm just feeling contrary since I've been getting hammered on another thread for daring not to like Mahler as much as one is supposed to. The defenders of Bizet can't possibly be as formidable...
> 
> Can you?


I believe that the Mahler & Bizet Anti-Defamation League have put out a contract on you :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Lest all the Carmen-love get out of hand and drip so much honey that we end up with a sticky mess all over the floor, I just want to say that I don't like the opera all that much and tend to feel as Ned Rorem does in an essay he wrote on it, in which he expresses great admiration for numerous details of the score and ends by saying "I like everything about _Carmen_ but it."
> 
> It really was Callas who got me to take the opera seriously back in the '60s, and without her I don't care greatly for it to this day. Like Rorem, I can point to this and that lovely detail, but I think it rides on its "heroine" - her character and her music - almost completely. The other characters are just not interesting in themselves; even Jose is only worth watching because of what Carmen puts him through, and his one aria is, forgive me, a bit sappy. Granted that opera is primarily music and stands or falls on that basis, and that _Carmen_ is full of engaging music, its still the charismatic lady who makes it work, and if she's played in a way that's frivolous, vulgar or merely coquettish the whole thing feels superficial to me.
> 
> ...


Well, you're right: you can't legislate taste. . . . . . . . . _or_ the lack of it.

You know too well though how Beauty Queens stand on matters of Aragonaisian beautiful free spirits.

You're lucky you have your 'Wagner-Get-Out-of-Jail-Free' card to protect you.

_;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> I believe that the Mahler & Bizet Anti-Defamation League have put out a contract on you :lol:


Contractulations. Duck season has begun.


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I think that's stretching things just a tad :lol:


I agree and it is just for fun.

However I do find looking at the characters from different perspectives illuminating at times. For example with Carmen, although not made explicit in the opera, all the information we have on Carmen's character in the novella comes from Don Jose's account of her. Isn't it possible that it may be a murderer's self-serving account? If so it still doesn't give us any more information about Carmen but may question our perception of Don Jose.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Lest all the Carmen-love get out of hand and drip so much honey that we end up with a sticky mess all over the floor, I just want to say that I don't like the opera all that much and tend to feel as Ned Rorem does in an essay he wrote on it, in which he expresses great admiration for numerous details of the score and ends by saying "I like everything about _Carmen_ but it."
> 
> It really was Callas who got me to take the opera seriously back in the '60s, and without her I don't care greatly for it to this day. Like Rorem, I can point to this and that lovely detail, but I think it rides on its "heroine" - her character and her music - almost completely. The other characters are just not interesting in themselves; even* Jose is only worth watching because of what Carmen puts him through, and his one aria is, forgive me, a bit sappy.* Granted that opera is primarily music and stands or falls on that basis, and that _Carmen_ is full of engaging music - good tunes, marvelous orchestration, etc. - it's still the charismatic lady who makes it work, and if she's played in a way that's frivolous, vulgar or merely coquettish the whole thing feels superficial to me.
> 
> ...


I played you the least sappy recorded performance of the Flower Song ever, and you hated it. Are you _never_ happy? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The trouble with some music is that you have to bring out the worst in it to bring out the best.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I played you the least sappy recorded performance of the Flower Song ever, and you hated it. Are you never happy? 

Of course I'm never happy! What fun is being happy?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Of course I'm never happy! What fun is being happy?


He's only happy when he's unhappy- the Ultimate Drama Queen.

Woodduck: code name?- 'Garbo.'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Lest all the Carmen-love get out of hand and drip so much honey that we end up with a sticky mess all over the floor, I just want to say that I don't like the opera all that much and tend to feel as Ned Rorem does in an essay he wrote on it, in which he expresses great admiration for numerous details of the score and ends by saying "I like everything about _Carmen_ but it."


Oh Woodduck, and to think you said I was a 'sourpuss' just because I criticised a recording of Carmen. Then you go and slate the opera itself! What does that make you?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Oh Woodduck, and to think you said I was a 'sourpuss' just because I criticised a recording of Carmen. Then you go and slate the opera itself! What does that make you?


It makes me an ironist.

If you find any sourness in my bit of fun, feel free to open a lemonade stand. I won't sue for a cut of the profits.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> It makes me an ironist.
> 
> If you find any sourness in my bit of fun, feel free to open a lemonade stand. I won't sue for a cut of the profits.


Oh I see! Do as say not as I do?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Lest all the Carmen-love get out of hand and drip so much honey that we end up with a sticky mess all over the floor, I just want to say that I don't like the opera all that much and tend to feel as Ned Rorem does in an essay he wrote on it, in which he expresses great admiration for numerous details of the score and ends by saying "I like everything about _Carmen_ but it."
> 
> Not that any of this need matter to anyone. I suspect I'm just feeling contrary since I've been getting hammered on another thread for daring not to like Mahler as much as one is supposed to. The defenders of Bizet can't possibly be as formidable...
> 
> Can you?


I'll stand alongside you - but for your view of Carmen alone, not for your view of Mahler


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I'll stand alongside you - but for your view of Carmen alone, not for your view of Mahler


Thanks Hermit. What are semi-friends for?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Lest all the Carmen-love get out of hand and drip so much honey that we end up with a sticky mess all over the floor, I just want to say that I don't like the opera all that much and tend to feel as Ned Rorem does in an essay he wrote on it, in which he expresses great admiration for numerous details of the score and ends by saying "I like everything about _Carmen_ but it."
> 
> It really was Callas who got me to take the opera seriously back in the '60s, and without her I don't care greatly for it to this day. Like Rorem, I can point to this and that lovely detail, but I think it rides on its "heroine" - her character and her music - almost completely. The other characters are just not interesting in themselves; even Jose is only worth watching because of what Carmen puts him through, and his one aria is, forgive me, a bit sappy. Granted that opera is primarily music and stands or falls on that basis, and that _Carmen_ is full of engaging music - good tunes, marvelous orchestration, etc. - it's still the charismatic lady who makes it work, and if she's played in a way that's frivolous, vulgar or merely coquettish the whole thing feels superficial to me.
> 
> ...


I'm with you on Carmen AND Mahler............
Don't like Carmen at all and like Mahler 1 and 5.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I'm with you on Carmen AND Mahler............
> Don't like Carmen at all and like Mahler 1 and 5.


You're a brave man. I approve.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I played you the least sappy recorded performance of the Flower Song ever, and you hated it. Are you never happy?
> 
> Of course I'm never happy! What fun is being happy?


The anatomy of melancholy I suppose?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I'm with you on Carmen AND Mahler............
> Don't like Carmen at all and like Mahler 1 and 5.


Can understand someone not liking Mahler but Carmen? Thought everyone liked that! I mean, what is there to dislike?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Can understand someone not liking Mahler but Carmen? Thought everyone liked that! I mean, what is there to dislike?


It sounds corny and patronizing to me.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> It sounds corny and patronizing to me.


I could imagine saying that about Mahler but not Carmen!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Itullian said:


> It sounds corny and patronizing to me.


When I only knew the opera from the handful of extracts that everybody knows, I thought it was corny as well. It doesn't help people as yet unfamiliar with the whole work that Carmen's very familiarity means that it is often parodied in popular culture. 'Toreador, don't spit upon the floor...' and I'm sure there was a movie ('The Magic Roundabout'?) in which a cartoon cow played by Emma Thompson sang the Habanera in a parody of a hooty contralto voice, unless that was a particularly vivid nightmare of mine. When you hear the whole thing, the catchy snippets make dramatic sense in their proper context, and don't sound corny to me.

Patronizing, though? I don't really understand the reason why you would think that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> It sounds corny and patronizing to me.


I can identify with this finding of "corniness" in _Carmen_. For me it may come from its postcard-pretty local color, perfectly embodied in the charming faux-Spanish tunefulness of its music, which gives a romantic picture of Andalusian Spain and summons to our imaginations something much more comfortable, we can presume, than the reality of everyday life in 19th-century Andalusia, with its extreme heat and dustiness, its general poverty, its Catholic religiosity, the Moorish influence on its culture, the brutality of the bull ring and the sense of Death stalking...

Productions can bring back some reality to Bizet's idealized Spain, and a Carmen like Callas can restore to the Romanis some guts and grit, but the music is still terminally pretty. Not that's there anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld says.

I think my lack of enthusiasm for Verdi's _Aida_ and Saint-Saens' _Samson et Dalila_ may also derive somewhat from this vaguely kitschy romantic re-creation of "local color." But of course these are pretty light entertainments, despite some passionate outbursts here and there. We're not being initiated into the mysteries of the Grail, which is supposed to be kept in Moorish Spain as well but whch fortunately spares us any attempts at local color (unless we construe the melismas of the flower maidens as a distant echo of flamenco. Hmmm.... Why not?)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I can identify with this finding of "corniness" in _Carmen_. For me it may come from its postcard-pretty local color, perfectly embodied in the charming faux-Spanish tunefulness of its music, which gives a romantic picture of Andalusian Spain and summons to our imaginations something much more comfortable, we can presume, than the reality of everyday life in 19th-century Andalusia, with its extreme heat and dustiness, its general poverty, its Catholic religiosity, the Moorish influence on its culture, the brutality of the bull ring and the sense of Death stalking...
> 
> Productions can bring back some reality to Bizet's idealized Spain, and a Carmen like Callas can restore to the Romanis some guts and grit, but the music is still terminally pretty. Not that's there anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld says.
> 
> I think my lack of enthusiasm for Verdi's _Aida_ and Saint-saens' _Samon et Dalila_ may also derive somewhat from this vaguely kitschy romantic re-creation of "local color." But of course these are pretty light entertainments, despite some passionate outbursts here and there. We're not being initiated into the mysteries of the Grail, which is supposed to be kept in Moorish Spain as well but whch fortunately spares us any attempts at local color (unless we construe the melismas of the flower maidens as a distant echo of flamenco. Hmmm.... Why not?)


I just can't understand your point. Such patronising terms for me ne of the great operatic masterpieces! I suppose Wagner's world of the Grail or the Ring is more real than Bizet's Spain? Opera is not supposed to inhabit a real world. A real world, for a start, is where people speak and not sing! Bizet rules OK!


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I can identify with this finding of "corniness" in _Carmen_. For me it may come from its postcard-pretty local color, perfectly embodied in the charming faux-Spanish tunefulness of its music, which gives a romantic picture of Andalusian Spain and summons to our imaginations something much more comfortable, we can presume, than the reality of everyday life in 19th-century Andalusia, with its extreme heat and dustiness, its general poverty,its Catholic religiosity, *the Moorish influence on its culture*, the brutality of the bull ring and the sense of Death stalking...


Seriously, you think this a bad thing?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm suffering from acute Carmenitis. Symptoms: When heard I scream in intense pain.

Cure: At minimum, a 10 year moratorium on all things Carmen.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> *I just can't understand your point. *Such patronising terms for me ne of the great operatic masterpieces! I suppose Wagner's world of the Grail or the Ring is more real than Bizet's Spain? Opera is not supposed to inhabit a real world. A real world, for a start, is where people speak and not sing! Bizet rules OK!


I left my point in the pencil sharpener as long as I could afford to without grinding it down to a stub. But I'll try to sharpen it a teeny bit more.

You are evidently under the impression that I think _C__armen_ is not good. Let me clarify: _Carmen_ is a great opera, but there are reasons I do not care greatly for it.

_Carmen_, _Aida_, and _Samson_ all exhibit sanitized, romanticized, or prettified versions of their _mises en scene_. I do not condemn them for it. They are perfectly fine as what they are. They are simply not entirely compelling to me, not because they are not good, but because I have divergent tastes and preferences.

_Parsifal_, which I mention, parenthetically, as having no local color, prettified or otherwise, is specifically not intended to be realistic and cannot ever be realistic, so that comparison - along with your assumption that I think Wagner's mythical allegories are "real" - can be disposed of right now. The other operas mentioned could easily have been treated more realistically in their musical settings, but their composers, in accordance with their times, their own nationalities, and the expectations of their audiences, did not choose to attempt a greater realism. That is perfectly acceptable. I do not criticize them for it. We will enjoy their works more or less, according to our tastes. My taste would incline toward a greater realism, the lack of which I find makes them feel a bit "corny" to me. That is one reason I enjoy Callas as Carmen; she brings some grit and seriousness to what otherwise seems a picture-postcard version of the story's time and place. Would Bizet have liked her approach? Who knows. But I do.

I am sorry that expressing feelings different from yours about _Carmen_ strikes you as "patronizing." My goodness, I just upset someone on a thread about Mahler with my alternative perspective on that great composer's work as well. It doesn't seem to make any difference that I acknowledge the greatness of these composers' music, and that I've made no false statements about them.

There is a difference between an aesthetic judgment and an objective statement intended to be factual. I try so hard not to confuse the two.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Seriously, you think this a bad thing?


Moorish influence is just one aspect of the reality of Andalusian culture I mentioned. It's part of the flavor of the place. It isn't good or bad. What's the question?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> When I only knew the opera from the handful of extracts that everybody knows, I thought it was corny as well. It doesn't help people as yet unfamiliar with the whole work that Carmen's very familiarity means that it is often parodied in popular culture. 'Toreador, don't spit upon the floor...' and I'm sure there was a movie ('The Magic Roundabout'?) in which a cartoon cow played by Emma Thompson sang the Habanera in a parody of a hooty contralto voice, unless that was a particularly vivid nightmare of mine. When you hear the whole thing, the catchy snippets make dramatic sense in their proper context, and don't sound corny to me.
> 
> Patronizing, though? I don't really understand the reason why you would think that.


Like when I hear the overture or habenara. Ughh I cant stand them. They make me roll my eyes. Jusr sounds stupid to me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Like when I hear the overture or habenara. Ughh I cant stand them. They make me roll my eyes. Jusr sounds stupid to me.


Yes. There's a cure. Take the C Davis and Gardiner performances of Les Troyens consecutively. You will feel much better in the morning.

Do you still have the same medical insurance carrier as last year? Any change in address?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

hpowders said:


> yes. *there's a cure. Take the c davis and gardiner performances of les troyens consecutively. You will feel much better in the morning.*
> do you still have the same medical insurance carrier as last year? Any change in address?


ok,ok i'll talk!!! I'll talk!!! :d


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I can identify with this finding of "corniness" in _Carmen_. For me it may come from its postcard-pretty local color, perfectly embodied in the charming faux-Spanish tunefulness of its music, which gives a romantic picture of Andalusian Spain and summons to our imaginations something much more comfortable, we can presume, than the reality of everyday life in 19th-century Andalusia, with its extreme heat and dustiness, its general poverty, its Catholic religiosity, the Moorish influence on its culture, the brutality of the bull ring and the sense of Death stalking...
> 
> Productions can bring back some reality to Bizet's idealized Spain, and a Carmen like Callas can restore to the Romanis some guts and grit, but the music is still terminally pretty. Not that's there anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld says.
> 
> I think my lack of enthusiasm for Verdi's _Aida_ and Saint-saens' _Samon et Dalila_ may also derive somewhat from this vaguely kitschy romantic re-creation of "local color." But of course these are pretty light entertainments, despite some passionate outbursts here and there. We're not being initiated into the mysteries of the Grail, which is supposed to be kept in Moorish Spain as well but whch fortunately spares us any attempts at local color (unless we construe the melismas of the flower maidens as a distant echo of flamenco. Hmmm.... Why not?)


Samson et Dalila is fantastic. You can't listen to the ballet music and tell me that's not funny (whether that was the desired effect or not, I couldn't say.) And if Samson maybe doesn't look like great music on the page, or sound like great music in a dull modern performance, that's because it needs great singers, or at any rate very good ones, to bring it to life. I don't know if you know the 1946 Samson with Helene Bouvier and Jose Luccioni which Schigolch introduced me to, but it's on Youtube and it's excellent. There's also a 1950s broadcast with Raoul Jobin which I believe is coming out on the Malibran label quite soon. And I'm sure you know Tamagno's very affecting recording of 'Arrêtez, o mes Frères' but here it is for the benefit of anyone else who's interested:






And Paul Franz, Tamagno's nearest Gallic equivalent in breadth and expressiveness of phrasing, if not quite in vocal opulence, as pleasing and secure as he always sounds:











Also, forgive my frankness, but it's your own fault if you are put off Carmen by the wimpishness of the character of José, when it's your own preference for a recording with a wimpish José which seems to be the root of the problem.  Forget the square Flower Song and get the 1911 recording with Agustarello Affre as a dynamite, sexy José. The recording isn't perfect but you won't be likely to see José as some weedy victim type again!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Samson et Dalila is fantastic. You can't listen to the ballet music and tell me that's not funny (whether that was the desired effect or not, I couldn't say.) And if Samson maybe doesn't look like great music on the page, or sound like great music in a dull modern performance, that's because it needs great singers, or at any rate very good ones, to bring it to life. I don't know if you know the 1946 Samson with Helene Bouvier and Jose Luccioni which Schigolch introduced me to, but it's on Youtube and it's excellent. There's also a 1950s broadcast with Raoul Jobin which I believe is coming out on the Malibran label quite soon. And I'm sure you know Tamagno's very affecting recording of 'Arrêtez, o mes Frères' but here it is for the benefit of anyone else who's interested:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for all your help in getting me over my problem. I want you to know that if you ever find yourself in an aesthetic jam and hope seems far away, you can count on Woodduck. I'm there for you.

Here's a little flamenco. I know it looks purely instrumental - ugh! - but if you watch carefully you'll see his lips moving.

:guitar:


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks for all your help in getting me over my problem. I want you to know that if you ever find yourself in an aesthetic jam and hope seems far away, you can count on Woodduck. I'm there for you.
> 
> Here's a little flamenco. I know it looks purely instrumental - ugh! - but if you watch carefully you'll see his lips moving.
> 
> :guitar:


Yummy, aesthetic jam! :lol:

Sorry for the scolding. :kiss:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Yummy, aesthetic jam! :lol:
> 
> Sorry for the scolding. :kiss:


No snacking till Fernando has finished his piece!


----------



## DonAlfonso (Oct 4, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Moorish influence is just one aspect of the reality of Andalusian culture I mentioned. It's part of the flavor of the place. It isn't good or bad. What's the question?


Forgive me but including Moorish influence in a list of "realities" which otherwise appear uniformly negative obviously confused me.

_"the reality of everyday life in 19th-century Andalusia, with its extreme heat and dustiness, its general poverty, its Catholic religiosity, the Moorish influence on its culture, the brutality of the bull ring and the sense of Death stalking..."_

Were general poverty, brutality and Death stalking also neither good or bad?

I agree that life in Spain in the 19th century was no picnic, particularly economic life. But this was due to the Napoleonic wars and south american independence movements rather then Morrish culture.

BTW I'd have questioned the Catholic thing as well but didn't want to re-ignite the 'troubles'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DonAlfonso said:


> Forgive me but including Moorish influence in a list of "realities" which otherwise appear uniformly negative obviously confused me.
> 
> _"the reality of everyday life in 19th-century Andalusia, with its extreme heat and dustiness, its general poverty, its Catholic religiosity, the Moorish influence on its culture, the brutality of the bull ring and the sense of Death stalking..."_
> 
> ...


Sorry. My sentence was probably too telescoped. All I meant to convey was that the reality of Andalusia, however "positive" or "negative" any element of it might be, is largely unfelt in the opera's picturesque view. But the Moorish influence in particular is strong in the native flamenco music, which can be quite wild and raw and finds only a rather mild echo in Bizet's Spanish coloration.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

It's French opera though innit. If you want Spanish, that's what zarzuela is for.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

OK, I'm coming out if the cave!

I pretty much agree with Woodduck about the aesthetic attraction of Carmen and I don't really understand why he has been jumped on here. Yes, Carmen is a very good opera, its great that so many people like it, there are some great performances of this opera (I have de los Angeles and Callas on my shelf and both are wonderful) but .... I don't like it that much.

What's wrong with that?

When I go to an art gallery, there are some great pictures on the wall that I don't much like, but I don't feel the weight of disapproval for not liking a particular painting (or even a particular artist) so why should I not be allowed to say that this particular piece on my shelf isn't one that I like very much?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Headphone Hermit said:


> OK, I'm coming out if the cave!
> 
> I pretty much agree with Woodduck about the aesthetic attraction of Carmen and I don't really understand why he has been jumped on here. Yes, Carmen is a very good opera, its great that so many people like it, there are some great performances of this opera (I have de los Angeles and Callas on my shelf and both are wonderful) but .... I don't like it that much.
> 
> ...


A point of agreement  only I cant stand it


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> OK, I'm coming out if the cave!
> 
> I pretty much agree with Woodduck about the aesthetic attraction of Carmen and I don't really understand why he has been jumped on here. Yes, Carmen is a very good opera, its great that so many people like it, there are some great performances of this opera (I have de los Angeles and Callas on my shelf and both are wonderful) but .... I don't like it that much.
> 
> ...


Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. There are some great operas I don't particularly like as well. I accept their greatness, but they don't really appeal to me. *Don Pasquale* is one of those. It's considered Donzietti's greatest comic opera, but I just don't like it. I find the "comedy" rather cruel, and it makes me feel very uncomfortable. Great or not, it's just not my cup of tea.

I rather felt the same about *Carmen* until recently. I'd liked it when I was young, but its popularity had rather vitiated against it, and I hardly ever listened to it. It was only when I listened to the Callas recording again recently that I came away with renewed appreciation for its qualities. A great performance can of course make you re-evaluate. Callas's conception of Carmen is very different, very modern really, but it works for me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. There are some great operas I don't particularly like as well. I accept their greatness, but they don't really appeal to me. *Don Pasquale* is one of those. It's considered Donzietti's greatest comic opera, but I just don't like it. I find the "comedy" rather cruel, and it makes me feel very uncomfortable. Great or not, it's just not my cup of tea.
> 
> I rather felt the same about *Carmen* until recently. I'd liked it when I was young, but its popularity had rather vitiated against it, and I hardly ever listened to it. It was only when I listened to the Callas recording again recently that I came away with renewed appreciation for its qualities. A great performance can of course make you re-evaluate. Callas's conception of Carmen is very different, very modern really, but it works for me.


I feel similar- though of course I've always loved _Carmen_ and still do- immensely.

What resonates with me is what you said about Callas' completely captivating characterization of Carmen- it is of such extraordinary genius that she just inadvertently throws a penumbra on the rest of the principals.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I rather felt the same about *Carmen* until recently. I'd liked it when I was young, but its popularity had rather vitiated against it, and I hardly ever listened to it. It was only when I listened to the Callas recording again recently that I came away with renewed appreciation for its qualities. A great performance can of course make you re-evaluate. Callas's conception of Carmen is very different, very modern really, but it works for me.


I understand.

On a similar vein, I continue to try out dishes with spinnach in them (from Mrs Hermit's order, not my own) as I recognise that it is very good and there *must* be a dish with this marvellous vegetable that I will enjoy .... but after over 50 years of trying, I still haven't found it

And (to anyone who might be tempted) .... *NO *- I don't want spinnach suggestions, thank you!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I am surprised how much audiences either love or hate Carmen. Bizet's Pearlfishers doesn't seem to garner as much attention even though it is just as beautiful to me.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I understand.
> 
> On a similar vein, I continue to try out dishes with spinnach in them (from Mrs Hermit's order, not my own) as I recognise that it is very good and there *must* be a dish with this marvellous vegetable that I will enjoy .... but after over 50 years of trying, I still haven't found it
> 
> And (to anyone who might be tempted) .... *NO *- I don't want spinnach suggestions, thank you!


There you are, you see. I love spinach!

Still, at least we can agree on Berlioz.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> OK, I'm coming out if the cave!
> 
> *I pretty much agree with Woodduck about the aesthetic attraction of Carmen and I don't really understand why he has been jumped on here.* Yes, Carmen is a very good opera, its great that so many people like it, there are some great performances of this opera (I have de los Angeles and Callas on my shelf and both are wonderful) but .... I don't like it that much.


Because rubbishing an opera in a thread dedicated to recordings of it is going to be interpreted by people who like that opera as a challenge- in spite of the fact that more information, recommendations, arguments etc. probably won't change anybody's mind. No hard feelings, I hope?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Because rubbishing an opera in a thread dedicated to recordings of it is going to be interpreted by people who like that opera as a challenge- in spite of the fact that more information, recommendations, arguments etc. probably won't change anybody's mind. No hard feelings, I hope?


In duck's defence, I would point out that his initial posts were all about the relative merits of the Callas recording. His subsequent dissing of the opera was more of an aside.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

To bring this thread to be balanced towards La Boheme, so let's celebrate a good 78 rpm aria because I just felt like it on this gloomy cloudy day in SLC.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I understand.
> 
> On a similar vein, I continue to try out dishes with spinnach in them (from Mrs Hermit's order, not my own) as I recognise that it is very good and there *must* be a dish with this marvellous vegetable that I will enjoy .... but after over 50 years of trying, I still haven't found it
> 
> And (to anyone who might be tempted) .... *NO *- I don't want spinnach suggestions, thank you!


You support of my right to dissent on _Carmen,_ Hermit, has so touched me that I wish I could support you in your loathing for spinach. Alas, my mother informs me that even as a small child I consumed the repugnant glop the color of duck**** with perfect contentment. Apparently no one thought of eating it raw in salads in those days, but then we did eat strangely back then, didn't we? You, being British, know about strange foods (now don't deny it! my English ex-brother-in-law has told me all about what his mother served him - but I digress) so it comes as a slight surprise that bitter green slime is not at least an object of nostalgia for you. But, as I have emphasized over and over on this forum, taste, even for the greatest of music or the most delectable of comestibles, is incontestible.

This talk of food has made me very hungry. I must go and soak some flax seed meal and sunflower seeds. I think I'll omit the spinach this morning.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I also have Karajan 2 among my recordings. This is an absolutely superb traversal of the score by the BPO, bringing out the wonders of Bizet's orchestration, as long as you care for Karajan's slow tempi in places, which I do. Agnes Baltsa is a right bitch of a Carmen, angry and earthy. Carreras a very fine Jose in a role that suites his voice. Jose van Dam is simply the best Escamillo on disc, a swaggering, preening, empty headed fool. Ricciarelli is a fair Michaela, though no match for Freni. Unlike Karajan 1 there is a French speaking chorus. The drawback is that the dialogue is spoken by actors who seem in a different acoustic and sometimes appear nothing like their singing counterparts. Just why van Dam, a French speaker himself, was replaced by the reedy actor is beyond me, given the obvious care that has gone into this set. It's musical values are immense even though it doesn't quite replace Karajan / Price in my estimation. Karajan had waited till he found his 'perfect Carmen' in Baltsa, but the collaboration was rudely interrupted when Karajan slung her out of a dress rehearsal of his 1986 revival, citing dissent for his production. Having seen some of HvK's productions she may have had a point!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Well, there goes _that_ dream. Kaufmann just canceled his Don Jose at the Met this Wednesday. He has the flu in Rome and cannot return to that only sold out house this season (and Saturday, which maybe he will still sing). My tickets are for Wednesday so I am out.
:-(


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> Because rubbishing an opera in a thread dedicated to recordings of it is going to be interpreted by people who like that opera as a challenge- in spite of the fact that more information, recommendations, arguments etc. probably won't change anybody's mind. No hard feelings, I hope?


None from me. I know that it isn't likely that I'll be offended by comments about why Woodduck doesn't like an opera that I'm not a great lover of, but ...!

I'm certainly not going to fall out with people I respect over the issue - one of my closest music friends detests all operas (and doesn't like Berlioz much, either) but there's plenty of Bach for us to chat about nicely


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I also have Karajan 2 among my recordings. This is an absolutely superb traversal of the score by the BPO, bringing out the wonders of Bizet's orchestration, as long as you care for Karajan's slow tempi in places, which I do. Agnes Baltsa is a right bitch of a Carmen, angry and earthy. Carreras a very fine Jose in a role that suites his voice. Jose van Dam is simply the best Escamillo on disc, a swaggering, preening, empty headed fool. Ricciarelli is a fair Michaela, though no match for Freni. Unlike Karajan 1 there is a French speaking chorus. The drawback is that the dialogue is spoken by actors who seem in a different acoustic and sometimes appear nothing like their singing counterparts. Just why van Dam, a French speaker himself, was replaced by the reedy actor is beyond me, given the obvious care that has gone into this set. It's musical values are immense even though it doesn't quite replace Karajan / Price in my estimation. Karajan had waited till he found his 'perfect Carmen' in Baltsa, but the collaboration was rudely interrupted when Karajan slung her out of a dress rehearsal of his 1986 revival, citing dissent for his production. Having seen some of HvK's productions she may have had a point!


I have that recording too, which I bought after seeing Baltsa and Carreras in their respective roles at Covent Garden, both absolutely stunning by the way. Apart from their contributions, I found the set profoundly disappointing. Karajan loves the score to death, a long slow one. It's not slow, it's marmoreal, and doesn't sound in the least bit French. The orchestra play beautifully of course, but it sounds more like Bruckner than Bizet. Van Dam is good of course, as he was for Solti and Abbado, but Ricciarelli almost disastrous as Micaela, and who on earth thought it a good idea to use actors for the spoken dialogue? They sound like they've wandered in from some radio play with no connection to the opera. I do occasionally pull this set out for the last act, when Karajan does at least get a move on a bit, Baltsa and Carreras whipping up a storm in their final duet. In the rest of the opera Baltsa's quicksilver, wildfire Carmen is not a million miles from Callas's. I just wish it was in a better all round performance.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I have that recording too, which I bought after seeing Baltsa and Carreras in their respective roles at Covent Garden, both absolutely stunning by the way. Apart from their contributions, I found the set profoundly disappointing. Karajan loves the score to death, a long slow one. It's not slow, it's marmoreal, and doesn't sound in the least bit French. The orchestra play beautifully of course, but it sounds more like Bruckner than Bizet. Van Dam is good of course, as he was for Solti and Abbado, but Ricciarelli almost disastrous as Micaela, and who on earth thought it a good idea to use actors for the spoken dialogue? They sound like they've wandered in from some radio play with no connection to the opera. I do occasionally pull this set out for the last act, when Karajan does at least get a move on a bit, Baltsa and Carreras whipping up a storm in their final duet. In the rest of the opera Baltsa's quicksilver, wildfire Carmen is not a million miles from Callas's. I just wish it was in a better all round performance.


Of course, where we differ is Karajan's way with the score. It's one way which I find illuminating as he gives the singers so much time. but each to his own preference.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As a postscript to the Carmen discussion, if you are not familiar with Carlos Saura's flamenco style film 'Carmen' done using the Resnick/Del Monaco/Schippers recording of the opera. Here is a totally different take on the Habanera...


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Becca said:


> As a postscript to the Carmen discussion, if you are not familiar with Carlos Saura's flamenco style film 'Carmen' done using the Resnick/Del Monaco/Schippers recording of the opera. Here is a totally different take on the Habanera...


And not to forget the rap version of Carmen... the hiphopera


----------



## Queen of the Nerds (Dec 22, 2014)

Hi.
When I saw this thread, I knew right away that I had to post, because Carmen is my FAVORITE OPERA EVER (*and in fact, my local opera theater is putting on Carmen later this year-SQUEE!!!!). *I recommend the Berganza/Domingo/Cotrubas/Milnes recording- it's an iTunes Classical Essential, and it's very good.
Now, for La Boheme (my second-favorite opera, which I DESPERATELY WANT TO SEE, JUST LIKE CARMEN), I recommend the Freni/Pavoratti/Harwood recording, also an iTunes essential, and from what I've heard of it (I'm out of iTunes money currently), it's extremely good.
That's my opinion.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Queen of the Nerds said:


> Hi.
> When I saw this thread, I knew right away that I had to post, because Carmen is my FAVORITE OPERA EVER (*and in fact, my local opera theater is putting on Carmen later this year-SQUEE!!!!). *I recommend the Berganza/Domingo/Cotrubas/Milnes recording- it's an iTunes Classical Essential, and it's very good.
> Now, for La Boheme (my second-favorite opera, which I DESPERATELY WANT TO SEE, JUST LIKE CARMEN),* I recommend the Freni/Pavoratti/Harwood recording, also an iTunes essential, and from what I've heard of it (I'm out of iTunes money currently), it's extremely good.*
> That's my opinion.


Is this the one? Haven't listened to it (Pavarotti allergy) but it seems to be complete.


----------

