# The one(s) that got away



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm curious to hear about that opera (or maybe more than one) that you might have eagerly started to listen to only to be severely turned off by the actual proceedings, to the point where you're not sure you want to give it another try in the foreseeable future.

mine is Prokofiev's The Fiery Angel. My interest was peaked when I read a comment here which deemed it very scary. The synopsis also held my interest. Alas, I survived only the first two acts. The price I paid was a dull headache. Mind, it didn't scare me, but the relentlessness of the music was too much to bear.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

When anyone starts talking rather than singing. To me it instantly breaks the flow. Perhaps a sentence here and there dramatically uttered is ok, especially if the preceding music is engaging, but anything more than that and I want to give up.


----------



## suteetat (Feb 25, 2013)

Tchaikovsky's Mazeppa! It started off beautifully but after awhile musically it just does not seemed to go anywhere and I get bored. I have the Jarvi's set with Gorchakova (whatever happened to her?),Leiferkus, Larin, Margison since it was first released but I don't think I managed to sit through the opera in its entirety yet. The first half of CD 1 got played sporadically enough though


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

deggial said:


> Prokofiev's The Fiery Angel


i do love that one and watch it now and then.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

That's an easy one for me. The second opera I ever attended was Samuel Barber's "Antony and Cleopatra". The only Barber music I knew at the time was "Adagio for Strings" and I was looking forward to a three hour version of that. I had no idea of the opera's reputation as the flop that inaugurated Lincoln Center. I remember it as being a difficult sit with both abstract music and an abstract production. I'd be curious to hear a bit of it again though, to see if it's any more appealing to my ears now.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Queen of Spades, with Mattila as the love interest. It was a new production, I figured, Tchaikovsky, Mattila, how could it go wrong, and it did. I think the opera itself is fatally flawed - and the Pushkin story it was based on was a really odd choice, far from the best of Pushkin imho.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

guythegreg said:


> Queen of Spades, with Mattila as the love interest. It was a new production, I figured, Tchaikovsky, Mattila, how could it go wrong, and it did. I think the opera itself is fatally flawed - and the Pushkin story it was based on was a really odd choice, far from the best of Pushkin imho.


I LOVE the Queen of Spades. It's brilliant... but I do think you want to see it rather than listen to first time. I always get terrible earworms from it and wander around humming "Tri karti, tri karti" after I see it.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> the opera itself is fatally flawed


but what exactly is wrong with it?



guythegreg said:


> the Pushkin story it was based on was a really odd choice


at the time, it was a bestseller, there choice was justified.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

I have fond memories of QofS at the Met from falling into some absurdly good seats for an absurbdly cheap price from a tour guide who had a few extras to unload. This was the 2008 version under Seiji Ozawa. The plot may tend toward the melodramatic, but no worse than many other 19th century works. Wiki tells me the story was selected by the management of the Imperial Theater and Tchaikovsky actually turned it down once before accepting the commission.

Speaking of earworms, _Ya vas lyublyu_ is probably my favorite baritone aria. That tune in itself goes a long way in redeeming any flaws. I also recall being struck by how modern the score sounded, even Philip-Glassy, as the suspense built towards the end.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

sharik said:


> i do love that one and watch it now and then.


cool, I'm not even saying it's bad. It's just grating for me. And how about one that didn't work for you?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

deggial said:


> how about one that didn't work for you?


Tosca.....


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> I LOVE the Queen of Spades. It's brilliant... but I do think you want to see it rather than listen to first time. I always get terrible earworms from it and wander around humming "Tri karti, tri karti" after I see it.


Actually, I DID see it before hearing it. I went in absolutely cold, with no prior listening or reading. "Tre karti" does resound in my ears still.


----------



## Gizmo (Mar 28, 2013)

I went to the my theater to see the Met's HD showing of 'The Tempest'. I left after the first act.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

Yes, mamascarlatti...I get the 3-card-trick on the brain, too!
It took me quite a bit of repeat-listening time to really enjoy the opera but I'm glad that I persisted with it, until I did.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

sharik said:


> but what exactly is wrong with it?


To me, it's never clear what Herman is up to. Did he start out in love with whatshername and then get drawn in by temptation? Was it ever an option for him to get together with her, or was he just using her? In the story, of course, he's just using her, but the opera doesn't make that clear. And even if it did it still wouldn't be a good opera, I don't think. Why would anybody watch an opera about such a total loser? I mean, maybe my translation was flawed, or something, but I couldn't figure out why anybody would read the story, leave alone the opera. Here's a guy with a fortune of his own who doesn't want to risk a penny but suddenly decides to threaten an old lady to get her to give him the secret to untold riches? This is really not an interesting guy.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Ni wait, Hermann is poor, no fortune of his own, he's a bit of an outsider for this. And I think at first he is genuinely in love with Lisa... but the gambling addiction starts growing on him and when he hears the story of the three cards he loses the plot completely and his love for Lisa is overcome by his obsessive desire to get the winning combination out the old countess. 

It's a very modern story - problem gambling destroys relationships... with a supernatural twist.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

I agree that Herman is not the most interesting character and kind of frustrating to watch. After Yeletsky's scene stealing aria, I'm more interested in _his_ backstory.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> but the gambling *addiction*


in a nutshell. It's not pretty and it's not interesting, but it's very tragic.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

sharik said:


> Tosca.....


oh, _that_ one... it put me off opera for 20 years so I can kinda see what you're saying.


----------



## Celloissimo (Mar 29, 2013)

The Death of Klinghoffer, for sure. I loved the beautiful and dramatic choruses of the Jews and Palestinians and then it moved on to the actual opera. That's where it all started to go downhill because as much as I love minimalism, it can have some very irritating and off-putting results when it comes to vocal music. The first line I heard was:

"You don't give a sh---, because you don't give a sh---! You don't give a sh---, because you don't give sh---, for you don't give a sh---! You don't give, you don't give, you don't give give give give give give give a sh---, sh---, sh---!!!"

Actual libretto. No joke. Don't we just *love* minimalism?!

I turned it off that minute and have never given thought to listening to it again.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Celloissimo said:


> I turned it off that minute and have never given thought to listening to it again.


Don't listen, but do watch this. My most admired opera film (I can't say it's my favourite because the subject matter is so harrowing that it does not bear frequent viewings).


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> it's never clear what Herman is up to. Did he start out in love with whatshername and then get drawn in by temptation? Was it ever an option for him to get together with her, or was he just using her? In the story, of course, he's just using her, but the opera doesn't make that clear


because it isn't supposed to be clear at all. Herman acts according to some devilish impulse or what we call, er, *destiny*... and let's not overlook the fact he is a *gambler*.

Tchaiky was also a Wagner-lite, that is 'all or nothing' kind of Tannhauser approach to things.



guythegreg said:


> Here's a guy with a fortune of his own who doesn't want to risk a penny but suddenly decides to threaten an old lady to get her to give him the secret to untold riches?


because he did not want to risk a part, he wanted to stake *all* for a sure win (don't forget he is a German by nationality).


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Cavaradossi said:


> Herman is not the most interesting character and kind of frustrating to watch. After Yeletsky's scene stealing aria


come on... you must have forgotten the final aria Herman sings _'what is our life? -a gamble!'_ and then _'what is the truth? -death alone!'_


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Don't listen, but do watch this.


hehehe, I love this! Stage directors everywhere feel vindicated  I kid, I kid. It's amusing to see an opera recommended for visuals instead of music.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Ni wait, Hermann is poor, no fortune of his own, he's a bit of an outsider for this. And I think at first he is genuinely in love with Lisa... but the gambling addiction starts growing on him and when he hears the story of the three cards he loses the plot completely and his love for Lisa is overcome by his obsessive desire to get the winning combination out the old countess.
> 
> It's a very modern story - problem gambling destroys relationships... with a supernatural twist.


Well, in the OPERA he's poor - in the story he has a fortune of his own, which for prudence' sake he doesn't want to touch, not even the income on it.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

> ... and let's not overlook the fact he is a gambler.


He actually is not a gambler. In Yeletsky's opening scene he makes it clear that although Herman WATCHES the gambling, he doesn't take part. That part didn't change between the story and the opera. And I'm not sure what being German has to do with Herman's personality failures ... I think it works just as well- perhaps I should say just as badly- if he's Russian, honestly. Or American, for that matter.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> He actually is not a gambler


he *is* a gambler alright, his not taking part only because unable to afford the lifestyle.



guythegreg said:


> I'm not sure what being German has to do with Herman's personality failures


read the literature. Russian Germans were somewhat despised by ethnic Russians for being stingy and meticulous. Herman wasn't a spendthrift by upbringing, and the environment where everyone squanders money is of temptation for him.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Yes he would gamble if he were able to pay his gambling debts (you could owe money to your tailor and butcher but not to your "equals".)


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

deggial said:


> hehehe, I love this! Stage directors everywhere feel vindicated  I kid, I kid. It's amusing to see an opera recommended for visuals instead of music.


I should have said don't listen ONLY.... The music works really well with the film. There is one 20 minute cut.

One of the amazing things about this is that it was filmed on a real cruise ship and sung live, as the rather hectic action was taking place.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Yes he would gamble if he were able to pay his gambling debts (you could owe money to your tailor and butcher but not to your "equals".)


Gosh I didn't understand this at all. Could you expand this a bit?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

That Death of Klinghoffer film was one of my first exposures to opera before I was really interested in classical, it really drew me in and made me forget I was watching something so artificial as singing terrorists. The fact that it doesn't follow a hero or a villain, it just presents people with different viewpoints and motivations and leaves it up to you to decide the morality of the whole thing certainly sets it apart from many older operas.



Celloissimo said:


> "You don't give a sh---, because you don't give a sh---! You don't give a sh---, because you don't give sh---, for you don't give a sh---! You don't give, you don't give, you don't give give give give give give give a sh---, sh---, sh---!!!"


This actually works very well I think, in displaying the inarticulate anger of a stressful situation. They don't lapse into a soliloquy or well formed aria about how hard done by they are, they simply splutter in rage.

Actually i'm not totally sold on minimalist operas. I've liked most of John Adams i've heard and some of Glass, like Satyagraha or Hydrogen Jukebox, but others like Einstein on the Beach or Akhnaten irritate me. Often there seems to be too big a disconnect between the singing and the music, they aren't singing with the music just over the top of it which makes the repetitive nature of that kind of music more annoying as it seems more like intrusive background noise.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

guythegreg said:


> Gosh I didn't understand this at all. Could you expand this a bit?


In "high society" of the time, if you gambled and lost, you had to have the readies to pay your gambling debts immediately or you would be ostracised.

However it was quite acceptable to owe money to people of a lower social standing - like tradesmen - for goods rendered.

SO Hermann HAS to have money in order to take part in the gambling. And he is poor, so has to stand on the sidelines.


----------



## RobertoDevereux (Feb 12, 2013)

I can't get into "Tristan" - tried several times, but I just can't finish it... And I'm a pretty committed "Wagnerite" - I once flew to New York to see the last run of Otto Schenk's production of the Ring. But Tristan has been tough...

RD

P.S. Love the Fiery Angel though!


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

sharik said:


> he *is* a gambler alright, his not taking part only because unable to afford the lifestyle.


My thinking is that if you don't actually gamble, then you're not a gambler. And honestly, now that I've come to understand the opera better (thanks partly to you) I think that's one of the most important parts: he wasn't a REAL gambler, and that's partly why it's satisfying to people that sympathize with real gamblers, or that gamble themselves, to see him get his comeuppance. Real gamblers take chances; he wasn't willing to do that.



> Russian Germans were somewhat despised by ethnic Russians for being stingy and meticulous.


Ah, I get it now. Herman the German is a caricature, like the Jew in the Merchant of Venice wanting his pound of flesh, or like the landlord with the long black mustaches saying, "You MUST pay the rent!" Bigotry is at the heart of the opera. Well, it all makes sense now. But now my mind is all sticky and dirty. Needs a good wash, perhaps with fabric softener ...


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> In "high society" of the time, if you gambled and lost, you had to have the readies to pay your gambling debts immediately or you would be ostracised.
> 
> However it was quite acceptable to owe money to people of a lower social standing - like tradesmen - for goods rendered.
> 
> SO Hermann HAS to have money in order to take part in the gambling. And he is poor, so has to stand on the sidelines.


Oh I see. Well, as I said to Sharik, I think if you don't actually gamble then you're not a gambler - and if you're only willing to gamble on a sure thing (or what you think is a sure thing) then at least to Tschaikovsky's audience, you're not a REAL gambler.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> he wasn't a REAL gamble


that's because he was a *total* gambler. he takes on the entire life as a gamble.



guythegreg said:


> Herman the German is a caricature


not quite so, his merely a *realistic* character onstage to make it more comprehensible for the audience of the time.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

sharik said:


> come on... you must have forgotten the final aria Herman sings _'what is our life? -a gamble!'_ and then _'what is the truth? -death alone!'_


Impressive, but yes I did forget about it. Where as this tune has been stuck in my brain since last Friday.

You can keep _'what is the truth? -death alone!'_, give me:

_I love you, love you beyond all measure,
I cannot conceive a day without you...
....Oh! I am tormented by this remoteness,
All my soul shares in your suffering,
Your sadness is mine. Your tears, I weep them too!_






It's funny, the Youtube commenters don't get Herman's attraction either, coming up against this aria:



> _I don´t understand Liza either. If a man, and especially as kindhearted, loving and passionate as Prince Yeletsky and as maddeningly beautiful, charming and aristocratic as Mr. Hvorostovsky, said these﻿ things to me, I would take him no matter the cost and do all in my power to keep him for the rest of my life._


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Cavaradossi said:


> It's funny, the Youtube commenters don't get Herman's attraction either, coming up against this aria:


It's quite simple. You fall in love with the unsuitable elusive mysterious one because the available solid guy seems unromantic and stolid. Sheesh guys, has no one been an idiot in their youth but me?


----------

