Lohengrin At La Scala

I hate Stinchelli, as a person and as a critic.

Carlos, I don't know how well you know him, but I am certain you would hate him too.

thallo wrote:

i hate Stinchelli, as a person and as a critic.

Carlos, I don't know how well you know him, but I am certain that even you would hate him.

Whether you hate him does not matter for the purposes of the discussion.

As for me, I hardly know him at all.

many of the things we write on the forum do not matter "for the purposes of the discussion"

thallo wrote:

many of the things we write on the forum do not matter "for the purposes of the discussion"

I agree, but at least normally they end up in the pile along with pertinent arguments. If your comment on a review is "I hate so-and-so and if you knew him you would hate him too," I believe no one can feel gratified. Much less by the fact of knowing how one defines oneself in terms of sexual preferences (see your post in "Vocal Technique"). These are comments that I honestly expect from another type of person, certainly not from you. But feel free to tell us about the sex life of whoever you want, naturally.

It's confirmation that you don't know Stinchelli.

Generally, the programs by Stinchelli and Suozzo are full of references to the singers' sex lives, their tastes, their manners. They talk a lot about technique, very little about music, and offend anyone they don't like in a way that I cannot help but define as "like a hysterical queer." And coming from me, that says it all...

The review of "Lohengrin" by Stinchelli is, in my opinion, judgeable in light of his personality. He has a nasty word for everyone and everything, constantly winks at the reader, speaks ill of everyone who doesn't see things as he does; furthermore, as the first thing in the review, he pulls out absurd comparisons, like Frau Blücher from Frankenstein Junior, just to be funny... his review really annoys me

I published a review, which, by the way, had no comments. You could have responded on the merits and avoided making yourself look like the person you claim he does. You would have provided a more useful service to all those who, perhaps having seen and heard Lohengrin, could have appreciated a different and, undoubtedly, competent opinion—namely, yours. I have neither seen nor heard Lohengrin, but honestly, I need neither Stinchelli nor you to decide whether Kaufmann sings well or not. Just as for evaluating the other cast members, the direction, the costumes, and Barenboim's conducting: I can do it myself. But perhaps others around here would have enjoyed hearing about things differently and in a different way than what Stinchelli wrote, from someone who followed the opera. A missed opportunity. A pity.

PS: I never said I knew Stinchelli, so I don't understand what "confirmation" you needed. In any case, I tend to evaluate things a person says or writes on a case-by-case basis, and I neither reject nor accept anything out of hand. I can disagree 99 times out of 100 with a person, but if that hundredth time I agree, I say so. Just as I can agree 99 times out of 100 with another, and if that hundredth time I disagree, in the same way, I say so. As I am doing now with you.

PPS: If anyone were interested, it would also be worth talking about Wagner and La Scala. I cannot do so until I have heard Lohengrin, and this discussion is becoming quite tedious...

I would speak about the first act which, in my opinion, is quite ugly; it seems musically insipid to me. Wagner only seems to find his way in the Prelude. Referring to the last performance at La Scala, how could this act be beautiful? Especially when the "director" also made it distressing?

I spent a bad evening ...

Palestine

Lohengrin

Wagner

Orchestra

Ear

Direction

Hitler, Stalin ... common people... music ...future

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

http://www.giornaledellamusica.it/rol/?id=4189

The enchantment of "In fernem Land" sung by Jonas Kaufmann and supported by an ethereal orchestra controlled in every particle by Daniel Barenboim would be enough to remember this "Lohengrin" which

inaugurates the La Scala season.

... doesn't hurt

Open content (youtube)

It doesn't have much to do with it, I know, but this discussion reminded me of a speech by Gianmario Borio in which he stigmatizes the celebratory principle of anniversaries:

The passing of anniversaries often represents an occasion to celebrate composers and performers. However, I believe that the programming of scientific and cultural activities has its own dynamics and cannot be conditioned by such deadlines. These symbolic dates end up determining an hagiographic approach and, in any case, a monographic organization, things that are not always in tune with the standards of scientific work.

http://www.cidim.it/cidim/content/315037?id=355909

Of course, I imagine that the standards of scientific work are not at the top of the interests of opera house superintendents!

Far from Wagner ...

Open content (youtube)

I love Lohengrin, but I haven't followed this production. Anyway, what I detest is the widespread fashion among directors to "modernize" the setting. I saw a piece of "Siegfried" and found it unwatchable just because the protagonist looked like a metalhead, complete with a biker-style chain. A genre I appreciate, but in other contexts. XD

It is not a fad, it is a "movement", we might say, traditionally called "Regietheater", director's theater, and it has been present on the stages for decades. There are interesting and well-done "modern" productions and uninteresting and poorly-done "modern" productions. I have not always noticed a desire on the part of artistic directors to make a difference, also because very often, alas, those who love and manage the opera house circus do not have great knowledge of directing and theater in general. To the audience of the major theaters, then, very different shows often arrive, presented in substantially the same way.

I am reporting that a reduced version of the Ring of the Nibelung, the “Ring Saga”, has been presented in Reggio Emilia

http://reporter.it/archives/16529

I haven't followed it directly, what do you think about cutting parts and reducing the orchestra for the entire Ring?

Look, thallo, I was actually discussing this today with a friend who works in the theater and he was explaining to me the reasons behind certain directorial choices... Not least the need to save money, perhaps, on building armor for all the extras. But that Siegfried was truly unwatchable, in my opinion, because as a metalhead he was WAY TOO believable

...I wondered what Bruce Dickinson was doing there. I don't know, I find it unsettling.

Pio wrote:

I report that a reduced version of the Ring of the Nibelung, the “Ring Saga”, has been presented in Reggio Emilia

http://reporter.it/archives/16529

I haven't followed it directly, what do you think about cutting parts and reducing the orchestra for the entire Ring?

They probably would have been better off proposing just a single episode

@Pio e Marta23,

reductions have a very long tradition. In Lombardy, the AsLiCo circuit where I have sung performs them every year, in such a way as to be able to bring operas into schools and small provincial theaters. If the reduction is done well, I see nothing wrong with it; it is a particular approach to a repertoire that is not always well-known (especially Wagnerian repertoire), and in times of crisis, I think it is a good way to break through the wall of new and middle generations.

@Zadra,

the issue of costs is very specific. Often modern productions are "dismissed" by saying they are less expensive than those from the old style and that today theaters use such productions to save money. This is not true. Or, rather, it is not precisely like that. The Teatro di Reggio Emilia has never built its own sets; it has always rented them, because the theaters that sew costumes or build scenery are few in Italy (practically only the opera houses). Today, renting a set from the '90s costs less than renting a technical costume or something conceived ad hoc. The same goes for scenery. Modern directing generally forces you to remake them or commission them; old-style productions make extensive use of painted scenery and trifles that you can easily rent. The difference always lies there and follows the concepts of "production" and "revival." Productions cost money; revivals cost less.

But trivializing modern directing by thinking it is just a commercial tactic is wrong. There are artistic reasons, which perhaps you do not share, but which drive the choices of directors, set designers, costume designers, and all those who, in various capacities, develop today's shows.

In fact, my friend was telling me that the choices are ALSO economic, but not always. He gave me the example of two productions he followed - one minimalist, inexpensive and completely effective, and one very modern, extremely expensive and horrendous.

As for artistic reasons, de gustibus, but it is not certain that everything labeled "art" is automatically valid.

define "valid"