Saturday, 27 June 2015

Cardillac, Vienna State Opera, 22 June 2015


Cardillac (Tomasz Konieczny)
Images: Wiener Staatsoper / Michael Pöhn

Cardillac – Tomasz Konieczny
Daughter – Angela Denoke
Officer – Herbert Lippert
Gold Dealer – Wolfgang Bankl
Cavalier – Matthias Klink
Lady – Olga Bezsmertna
Police Officer – Alexandru Moisiuc

Sven-Eric Bechtolf (director)
Rolf Glittenberg (set designs)
Marianne Glittenberg (costumes)
Jürgen Hoffmann (lighting)

 

Is there at present any more unfashionable composer than Hindemith? Tippett perhaps runs him close, but I can think of no one else. Little has changed in that respect since I lamented this situation upon the Paris Opéra’s 2008 revival of Cardillac by André Engel. It is all the more welcome, then, that Vienna should not only stage but keep in its repertoire this wonderful opera, here given, as seems generally now to be the case, in its original, three-act form rather than Hindemith’s 1952 four-act revision for Zurich. (We miss, then, the performance within a performance of numbers from Lully’s Phaëton and the greater, post-Mathis der Maler sympathy accorded to Cardillac as artist.)


Daughter (Angela Denoke) and
Officer (Herbert Lippert)

Sven-Eric Bechtolf’s staging is probably the best I have seen from him. I opened my Paris review – bear in mind this was still the Gérard Mortier era of blessed memory – by saying, ‘Perhaps only Paris could turn in so stylish a production of the terminally unfashionable Hindemith.’ Bechtolf does not do so badly either, his stylisation fitting and lightly questioning the work too. The crowd scenes in particular benefit from carefully clockwork choreography, as if responding to the large timepiece (surely a more general nod to ETA Hoffmann, author of the original short story, Das Fräulein von Scuderi), and the black-and-white, top-hatted designs. The crowd both acts as a mob and retains, perhaps intensifies, its weirdness: not inappropriate for a Neue Sachlichkeit treatment of a German Romantic story. Sexual congress is again both plausible and stylishly removed from the merely representational. The realm of the master goldsmith himself offers powerful visual contrast – gold as much the order of the day here as in a later Schoenbergian orgy – and yet retains quirky, choreographed connection, as the action passes between different worlds. The work of Rolf and Marianne Gilttenberg as designers is very well fitted as frame and incitement to the exaggerated and musically-conceived, or at the very least musically-consistent, movement that ensues.  


For Hindemith’s motoric, extremely anti-Romantic conceptions of Bach – think of the Kammermusik transformed into opera – rightly came to the forefront here of our musico-dramatic attention. There were times, especially during the first act – all three acts were given, wisely, without an interval – when I missed the final degree of dry precision from the orchestral playing, but in general, Michael Boder’s conducting impressed, especially his handling – and the orchestra’s execution – of climaxes. Moreover, a relative relaxation of anti-Romanticism arguably held its own rewards, in preparing the way for the Officer’s compassion and, perhaps, whetting the appetite for a hearing of that later Zurich version. The Vienna State Opera Chorus’s contribution was excellent throughout, a credit to its chorus master, Thomas Lang.


Lady (Olga Bezsmertna)
 
 
Tomasz Konieczny offered a properly complex portrayal of Cardillac, permitting us to be torn between horror at his murderous narcissism, unable to permit his masterpiece to be owned by another, and his strange, increasing dignity as a craftsman. Vocal and stage presence were communicated as one. Angela Denoke, also Cardillac’s daughter in that Paris revival, gave quite the best performance I have heard from her in some time: lyrical and ever-meaningful verbally. As ever, she acted the role with passion and commitment. Herbert Lippert’s Officer struggled a little too often with Hindemith’s demands, but shared that sense of dramatic commitment. Olga Bezsmertna’s Lady showed true star quality. A member of the Vienna ensemble, she had me wishing her role offered more for her to sing. Wolfgang Bankl, Matthias Klink, and Alexandru Moisiuc all convinced in their roles. More Hindemith, then, please – in Vienna, but elsewhere too.

 
 
 

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Birtwistle: The Corridor/The Cure, Royal Opera, 18 June 2015


 Linbury Studio Theatre, Royal Opera House

Woman (Eurydice)/Medea – Elizabeth Atherton
Man (Orpheus)/Jason, Aeson – Mark Padmore

Martin Duncan (director)
Alison Chitty (designs)
Paul Pyant (lighting)
Michael Popper (choreography)

London Sinfonietta
Geoffrey Paterson (conductor)
 

Outstanding in pretty much every way – just what an opera house should be doing, in this case in collaboration with Aldeburgh and the London Sinfonietta. Although The Corridor was premiered in 2009, with the same cast, this was my first encounter; and The Cure had been given its first performance but a few days earlier, again in Aldeburgh. The two chamber operas could clearly work separately, and I hope that they will, in conjunction with any number of other works; in tandem, however, there are all manner of connections one may make, whether as performer, director, or audience. Agency, not least female agency, is but the most obvious, although that is not to minimise its importance. Identical instrumentation (violin, viola, cello, harp, flute, clarinet) and, in this case, an identical cast, served to strengthen unity, but also to allow us to consider what is different.


The Corridor takes us, once again, to that foundational musical myth so beloved of Birtwistle, that of Orpheus. But a moment – his turning back, wondering why Eurydice is not by his side – and then a lifetime’s reaction. David Harsent and his composer have us ask whether Eurydice in fact ever really wanted to leave Hades. She was lagging behind and Orpheus wonders where she has gone, turning around involuntarily. Love and tragedy are expressed in their laments following the event, but did they ever have a chance, second time around? She interacts with the players in Martin Duncan’s straightforward, powerful staging, not unlike one of those increasingly popular stagings of Bach’s Passions. Birtwistle’s score steers a fascinating path between tight rhythmic cellular writing and something more capable of subdivision, even perhaps rubato (or at least homage to Monteverdian freedom?) Stravinsky versus Schoenberg, we still might say. Or rather, Stravinsky and Schoenberg.


Birtwistle’s love of antique wildness exhibits itself once again: a reinvented antique wildness, not born from our paltry knowledge of ancient music, but something far more powerful. But there is no sense that we have heard this all before, for we have not. Fourths and fifths seem to speak to us from the age of organum – and beyond. The harp – what writing he has always offered for that instrument! – is no stranger to calamity, to catastrophic caesura. Vocal lines, in impassioned performances by Mark Padmore and Elizabeth Atherton, speak again of the invention that comes with longstanding assurance. Everything draws in – and makes us rethink what we thought we knew.

 
The Cure was conceived explicitly as a companion piece. Here, in the words of the excellent conductor, Geoffrey Paterson, the six solo instrumentalists of a work that had come close to ‘secular oratorio, for much of its duration’ coalesce ‘into a mini orchestra whose endlessly varied colouristic possibilities are at the service of a viscerally operatic scenario’. As ostinato builds up climactically, but never predictably, we reach the (again surprising) climax of a tale adapted by Harsent from John Gower, who in turn had adapted it from Ovid. Medea and Jason having returned to Colchis with the Golden Fleece, Jason offers to give ten of his years, that his father, Aeson, might regain some youth. Medea uses her magic instead, but did Aeson, partially transformed, actually want to be rejuvenated?


Again, then, we are made to think, and rethink. Birtwistle’s ritualistic response to Harsent’s ritual spells screws up tension – both conventionally and unconventionally. Duncan’s staging, with Alison Chitty’s typically primæval yet modern designs, again draws us in to a work that seems to take its cue perhaps more from the Birtwistle of The Minotaur than the composer of The Mask of Orpheus. Circles, numbers, and their properties: verbally, musically, scenically, they have us recall Gawain, yet also remind us that this is a different myth, a different response. The performances from all concerned seemed to me beyond reproach. Padmore and Atherton had us forget they had even appeared on stage before; Padmore even had me wonder whether it was indeed he singing both Jason and Aeson, so differentiated were his responses. Atherton's wild dignity struck just the right note. in every respect. 
 
 
My immediate reaction was to want to hear both works again. Then, doubtless, like the works themselves with respect to earlier tellings of their myths, my responses would both deepen and change. These are both chamber operas we shall need to hear again and again.

 

Friday, 19 June 2015

Spitalfields Festival: Polyphony/CLS/Layton - Haydn, J.C. Bach, Mozart, and Handel, 16 June 2015


St Leonard’s Church, Shoreditch

Haydn – Symphony no.101 in D major, ‘The Clock’
J.C. Bach – Sinfonia concertante in E-flat major, WC 41
Mozart – Symphony no.4 in D major, KV 19
Handel – ‘Dettingen’ Te Deum, HWV 263

Ashley Riches (baritone)
Polyphony
City of London Sinfonia
Stephen Layton (conductor) 
 

This final Spitalfields Festival concert promised a taste of ‘Georgian London – Global Metropolis’, each of the works being written for eighteenth-century London (well, perhaps in the case of the Mozart symphony), although at different times. There was much to enjoy, even if, as a whole, the programme worked somewhat awkwardly. I could not help but wonder if Stephen Layton would have been better off programming another choral work, and losing one or two of the orchestral pieces, since his strengths undoubtedly lie in the former realm.


For that reason, the greatest work on the programme, Haydn’s Symphony no.101, fared least well. The first movement’s introduction had an air of mystery, albeit with decidedly low vibrato: that, despite an acoustic that ought to have alleviated the worst of ‘authenticke’ excess. That acoustic rendered the Presto exposition proper too much of a scramble, fine detail too often lost. There was little in the way of sonata form dynamism. Perhaps surprisingly, the slow movement fared better: characterful, with meaningfully darker passages well integrated. The minuet, alas, failed to smile, and its trio failed even slightly to relax. Still, the nature of the material and many of its implications were clear. The finale was certainly fast yet somehow remained ponderous; like so much of what we had heard previously, it lacked the life that great Haydn conductors such as Jochum, Klemperer, or Davis brought to this music. The City of London Sinfonia’s woodwind proved a euphonious joy throughout.


We do not hear much of Johann Christian Bach’s good-natured if somewhat interchangeable music. Layton presented an affectionate reading of this Sinfonia concertante, in which again the CLS wind proved excellent soloists indeed. The first movement was welcoming in spirit, even before the soloists entered. Shortcomings, such as they were, related more to the work itself. A siren following on from the final note offered amusement. It was a relief not to have the Larghetto taken absurdly fast, as is increasingly the norm in such music. Instead, it seemed imbued with the spirit of the outdoor serenade, even looking forward to Mozart. Much the same could be said of the closing Minuet, stylishly and warmly performed.


I am reasonably sure that this was the first time I had heard Mozart’s Fifth Symphony in concert. Layton and the CLS proved alert in the first movement, possessed of a winning, if small-scale, swagger. A sense of the exploratory was certainly apt. The slow movement might have exuded greater warmth – we felt distant indeed from Böhm and the Vienna Philharmonic – but spoke sensibly enough for itself. Youthful ebullience characterised the finale, although balances were less than ideal. It was difficult, moreover, to discern much affection for the composer and his work in Layton’s merely efficient direction.


No such reservations for Handel’s ‘Dettingen’ Te Deum. Ashley Riches and Polyphony made their mark magnificently, in vocal contributions as incisive as they were sonorous. Georgian militarism – John Brewer’s Sinews of Power – was announced loud and clear, trumpets and choir responding to and inciting one another. Handel’s borrowings amused rather than irritated. An excellent command of rhythm was proportionate with harmonic development. Expectations were aroused and fulfilled. This, at least, proved a thrilling, resoundingly musical conclusion not only to the concert but to the festival as a whole.





The Queen of Spades, English National Opera, 9 June 2015


Coliseum

(sung in English)

Hermann – Peter Hoare
Count Tomsky – Gregory Dahl
Prince Yeletsky – Nicholas Pallesen
The Countess – Dame Felicity Palmer
Lisa – Giselle Allen
Pauline – Catherine Young
Chekalinsky – Colin Judson
Surin – Wyn Pencarreg
Chaplitsky – Peter van Hulle
Narumov – Charles Johnston
Governess – Katie Bird

David Alden (director)
Gideon Davey (designs)
Wolfgang Goebbel (lighting)
Lorena Randi (choreography)

Chorus of the English National Opera (chorus master: Stephen Harris)
Orchestra of the English National Opera
Edward Gardner (conductor)
 

Oh dear! What a maddeningly inconsistent director David Alden is. Or is he maddeningly consistent, his productions suiting some works, or perhaps better, some swathes of the repertoire, better than others? His ENO Peter Grimes was a brilliant reassessment of a work that is weaker than partisans allow; it engaged with Britten’s opera at a level deeper than most have dared. This Queen of Spades barely engages with Tchaikovsky’s opera at all. I cannot help but conclude that high Romanticism – call it what one will – is really not Alden’s thing. He exhibits no sympathy for any of the characters, nor for their predicament. He seems to have no interest in the plot, not even to deconstruct it. All we have is a tiresome parade of clichés, as if designed to rouse the ire of operatic ‘conservatives’ and nothing more. Dark glasses, piles of chairs, flippantly unmotivated cross-dressing, a ragbag assemblage of costumes from different periods (the Kruschchev era (?) meets something older, though not of course Tchaikovsky’s brand of Mozartiana, and with no real sense of interplay), a hospital ward, extras who are not extras but are treated as such until they are not, party guests with animal masks: all these and more put in their mandatory appearances. Contemptuously tossed bank notes might make a point, but it is all but drowned under the frenetic, meaningless goings on. Is there a hint that the Countess is a gay icon, even a drag queen? Perhaps, but it is taken no further. And why does the clock never reach twelve, even when we are told that it does? This audience member was long past caring. My fear was that everything lay in Hermann’s – or rather Alden’s – tortured, or careless, mind. What a novel idea! If you despise the opera and everything surrounding it quite so much, if you really think it so clichéd that you have nothing to add beyond further cliché, might there not be a degree of integrity in leaving it to the care of another director?


The orchestra, however, sounded terrific, as it generally does now, especially under Edward Gardner. Precision, weight, delicacy: all were present. If only Gardner’s prowess as an orchestral trainer were matched by insight into the score. His conducting was often stiff, save when he accelerated too quickly. There were moments of repose, not least in the realm of Mozartian parody (which Gardner clearly esteems more highly than Alden), but there was little to indicate a longer line. Continuity was fractured less than on stage, but Tchaikovsky needs more than that. The chorus was on fine form too, its virtues – and its acting, however misplaced – every inch the equal of the orchestral performance.


ENO also offered a splendid cast. Peter Hoare proved an unusually thoughtful Hermann, his detailed attention to the text (that is, to words and music) exemplary throughout. Giselle Allen’s Lisa provided a near-ideal mixture of, or perhaps better confrontation between, coldness and warmth; her confidante, Pauline (Catherine Young) mirroring and to an extent extending such qualities on her smaller scale. What on earth Alden was thinking of in her case, I hardly dare consider. Felicity Palmer retains the most formidable star quality; her Grétry aria was as moving as anything we heard. For once, a degree of stillness! The richness of Nicolas Pallessen’s baritone proved a welcome luxury in the role of Prince Yeletsky. Despite the absurdities of the production at large, there was always a proper sense of interaction between all on stage; almost all excelled. What a pity, then, that the director seemed determined to undermine, even to negate, such manifest virtues.

Monday, 15 June 2015

Ein Landarzt/Phaedra - Guildhall School, 8 June 2015


Silk Street Theatre, Guildhall School of Music and Drama

Landarzt – Martin Hässler

Aphrodite – Laura Ruhi-Vidal
Phaedra – Ailsa Mainwaring
Artemis – Meili Li
Hippolytus – Lawrence Thackeray
Minotaur – Rick Zwart

Ashley Dean (director)
Cordelia Chisholm (set designs)
Mark Doubleday (lighting)
Victoria Newlyn (movement)
Dan Shorter (video)

Orchestra of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama
Timothy Redmond (conductor)


Once again, many thanks are owed to the Guildhall School for courageous programming, fully vindicated. A double-bill of Henze operas, neither of them straightforwardly designated as such by the composer, surely offered one of the most enticing offerings in London for quite some time. Henze’s early, short radio opera, Ein Landarzt, presents a number of problems, not least of which might be: how should one, or simply should one, stage a ‘radio opera’ at all? Premiered in 1951, it is, as Henze recounts in his autobiography, Bohemian Fifths, ‘a word-for-word setting of Kafka’s short story of the same title’. Martin Hässler’s performance proved deeply impressive, in attention to words, text, gesture, and their marriage. It doubtless helps to be German, but that is only the beginning. Indeed, as conservatoire presentations go, this must have been one of the most challenging (for the artist) I have heard. Yet there was no gainsaying Hässler’s achievement, in what might consider almost a whimsical (or not) male-voiced Erwartung, with more than the odd backward nod to Schubert.

 
Whether it really benefits from staging, I am not sure. Henze certainly had no problem with it being presented in that way; one such performance was staged by Madeleine Milhaud. However, the production here did not really seem to me to add up to much beyond the scenery; perhaps concert (or indeed radio) performance remains preferable. There were a few tentative moments from the orchestra – hardly surprising in such a score – but for the most part, the young players offered a committed performance, firmly directed towards its denouement by Timothy Redmond. In any case, Hässler’s marriage of language, musicality, and stage presence offered ample rewards. At the end, we remained properly unsure whether anything had ‘happened’ at all, or whether the doctor’s difficulties were of his own imagining.


The 'concert opera', Phaedra was first heard in London at the Barbican in 2010. It is a measure of this Guildhall performance that, not only did I find it not wanting by comparison with a British premiere from the Ensemble Modern and Michael Boder, I actually found myself considerably more involved. Perhaps that was at least in part a matter of better acquaintance. (I have certainly heard a great deal more Henze since then too, partly on account of my academic work.) But in 2010, I had wondered whether a slightly irritating cleverness in Christian Lehnert’s libretto might actually be offset by full staging. Probably, would be the answer, because now the question never presented itself. Nor did my suspicion of a little note-spinning on Henze’s part. I am, then, more than happy to offer a mea culpa.


Reenactment and ritual proved generative: not quite as in Birtwistle, for the composers are very different, but presenting interesting parallels, for all the title might (misleadingly?) edge us towards Britten or the French Baroque. Ashley Dean seemed very much to have saved his best for this opera. The ruined labyrinth of the first act (‘Morning’) asks more questions than it answers: less, as so often, proves more, even when dealing with complexity. A surprising transformation into a modern operating theatre proves just the thing for the ‘Evening’ of the second act. Hippolytus eventually arises from the efforts of the divine medical team, though no one will ever be quite sure what happened, the drama finally broken down – not unlike the images we have earlier seen on screen – into dance.


Just occasionally, there were a few slips and imprecisions on the orchestra’s part, although this was a fine performance by any – not just youthful – standards. Henze’s love of flickering colours and their transformation – again I thought, whatever he himself might have made of this comparison, of Strauss’s Daphne – shone through, as full of dramatic propulsion as harmony and rhythm. Redmond’s direction again proved sure, indeed more than that: vital. Lawrence Thackeray’s tenor led the way, navigating Henze’s often difficult lines and tessitura with greater ease than one perhaps has any right to expect. Meili Li’s countertenor Artemis brought due strangeness to the endeavour, blurring boundaries as that final dance blurs events and motives. Laura Ruhi-Vidal and Ailsa Mainwaring offered proper contrast, considerable range and differentiation of colour employed to sometimes searing dramatic effect. The sonorous bass of Rick Zwart’s Minotaur signalled that he would also have made a compelling Landarzt. (He and Hässler were alternating roles on different evenings.) My immediate reaction was that I really needed to see everything again, to piece more of the work together. I suspect that that is part of the point: we think we can, yet it remains fragmentary. A performance, however, needs to remain purposeful, compelling: this unquestionably did.



 

 

Wednesday, 10 June 2015

Intermezzo, Garsington Opera, 6 June 2015



Images: Mike Hoban
(sung in English)

Garsington Opera House

Robert Storch – Mark Stone
Christine – Mary Dunleavy
Anna – Ailish Tynan
Franzl – Louis Hynes
Baron Lummer – Sam Furness
Notary – Benjamin Bevan
Notary’s Wife – Sarah Sedgwick
Stroh – Oliver Johnston
Commercial Counsellor – James Cleverton
Legal Counsellor – Gerard Collett
Singer – Barnaby Rea
Fanny – Alice Devine
Marie – Elka Lee-Green
Therese – Charlotte Sutherland
Resi – Anna Sideris

Bruno Ravella (director)
Giles Cadle (designs)
Bruno Poet (lighting)

Garsington Opera Orchestra
Jac van Steen (conductor)

 

Hats off to Garsington for championing once again some criminally neglected Strauss. I overheard someone there opine, ‘Of course, you can understand why it isn’t done very often.’ Well, only if you take as given the increasingly untenable assumptions some ‘major’ opera houses trumpet concerning their audiences – and perhaps not even then. That Birmingham Opera can sell out Stockhausen immediately and that the Royal Opera House – by any standards, a different animal – can sell out operas by Benjamin and Birtwistle puts paid to lazy talk and should put paid to lazy programming, though does so far less often than should be the case. If one takes as one’s core lazy listeners, consequences will follow; if one leads, and especially if one acts upon widespread thirst for modernist repertoire, broadly conceived, other, better consequences will do so. Strauss, it might be countered, is a different matter again, and perhaps he is. But he is hardly unpopular, and if many people have not heard Intermezzo, despite a recent staging at Buxton, then grant them an opportunity such as Garsington has.



An excellent performance was given by the Garsington Orchestra – only once, early in the second act, did I sense a little tiredness – under the baton of Jac van Steen. The conductor’s deep knowledge and understanding of the score, of its post-Ariadne idiom, of its opportunities and challenges had been displayed in my interview with him; it was displayed just as clearly here. Everything was in its place, as it must be; Strauss at his most unsparing allows no room for error. The orchestral interludes put me a little in mind of the ‘closed forms’ of Busoni and Berg, whilst very much retaining their own character. It was perhaps most of all, though, Strauss’s economy, which yet never denies his love of musical proliferation, that shone through. Not a note is wasted; nor was it in performance.


The cast proved persuasive advocates too. Mary Dunleavy’s vocal security was matched to a subtle reading of Christine’s character that extracted her from the realm of patronising, even misogynistic caricature: no mere ‘shrew’ here, but a credible woman of strengths, weaknesses, above all agency. Mark Stone made a powerful impression as her husband, perhaps the closest of all Strauss came to a self-portrait. (The creator of the role wore a mask so as to make him resemble the composer all the more closely. As Norman del Mar observed, this was a ‘striking volte-face after Strauss’s anxieties over the Young Composer in Ariadne’.) One could have taken dictation, verbal as well as notational, from most of his crystal-clear performance: Lied writ large in the best sense. Sam Furnes’’s Baron Lummer offered a well-judged mixture of vocal allure and immaturity of character. Ailish Tynan’s perky Anna proved just the right sort of knowing, informed servant. In a fine company performance, other singers to stand out included Oliver Johnston’s finely sung – and acted – Stroh, Gerald Collett’s equally impressive Legal Counsellor, and Benjamin Bevan’s honourable Notary. Everyone, however, made a considerable contribution.


Bruno Ravella’s production takes the work seriously, on its own terms, and succeeds accordingly. Giles Cadle’s resourceful set moves us in and out of a Garmisch-style villa, modern (to Strauss), without being avant garde. There is always a strong sense of who everyone is, and why he or she is acting in the manner we observe. The card game is, as the conductor observed to me, wonderfully, knowingly realistic; such understanding could hardly be feigned. The crucial element of communication and its speed – the telephone, the telegram, Strauss’s pace of conversation delivery – offered an excellent example of musical performances and production acting as one.




One can speak of the plot being trivial, if one wishes. (I suppose one can speak about anything if one wishes, so that was an especially meaningless claim!) But some of that seems to be snobbery; would we think differently, were these gods, or indeed from another class, ‘higher’ or ‘lower’. In his original Preface, replaced when the score was published, Strauss not unreasonably claimed to break genuine new ground in the variety of everyday life he had brought to the stage; Hindemith and Schoenberg would follow suit in Neues vom Tage and Von heute auf morgen. Still more to the point, though, (high) bourgeois domesticity matters to those involved in it; it certainly matters to the little boy caught at the centre of marital dispute and potentially breakdown, as countless children, sleepless with worry at raised voices downstairs, will tell you. (Young Louis Hynes deserved great credit for his portrayal of that difficult role, here rendered more difficult still.) Now Intermezzo is not essentially ‘about’ that, although I think it is more concerned with it than, say, Elektra is; but a subtle yet perceptible shift in that direction from the production did no harm in opening up the work.


Only one gripe, really: it was a great pity that the opera was sung in English, and that Andrew Porter’s translation was the version used. Given surtitles, there really is no need; Strauss really does not sound right in translation, still more so as here, when odd words remained in German, the contrast jarring. Moreover, accents tended to slide – or at least to slide more noticeably to an English ear. But, as ever with Strauss, in the battle of Wort with Ton, there was little doubt which would emerge victorious. This was a far from insignificant victory over Strauss’s critics, Garsington’s latest estimable contribution to a hero’s after-life.

 

Sunday, 7 June 2015

Il trittico, Opera Holland Park, 5 June 2015


Michele – Stephen Gadd
Giorgetta – Anne Sophie Duprels
Luigi – Jeff Gwaltney
Frugola – Sarah Pring
Tinca – Aled Hall
Talpa – Simon Wilding
Soprano Amante – Johane Ansell
Tenor Amante – James Edwards

Sister Angelica – Anne Sophie Duprels
Princess Zia – Rosalind Plowright
Abbess – Fiona Mackay
Monitress – Laura Woods
Mistress of the Novices – Kathryn Walker
Sister Genovieffa – Johane Ansell
Sister Osmina – Kathryn Hannah
Sister Dolcina – Rosanne Havel
Nursing Sister – Chloë Treharne
Alms Sisters – Anna Patalong, Sarah Minns
Novices – Naomi Kilby, Ellie Edmonds
Lay Sisters – Rebecca Hardwick, Chloe Hinton
Child – Matteo Elezi

Gianni Schicchi – Richard Burkhard
Zita – Sarah Spring
Lauretta – Anna Patalong
Rinuccio – James Edwards
Gherardo – Aled Hall
Nella – Elin Pritchard
Betto – Simon Wilding
Simone – William Robert Allenby
Marco – Ian Beadle
La Ciesca – Chloe Hinton
Spinelloccio – Henry Grant Kerswell
Gherardino – Barnaby Stewart
Buoso – Peter Benton

Martin Lloyd-Evans, Oliver Platt (directors)
Neil Irish (designs)
Richard Howell (lighting)

City of London Sinfonia
Stuart Stratford (conductor)


Time was when many felt compelled to ‘make allowances’ for ‘smaller’ companies. Now, more often than not, the contrary seems to be the case, instead apologising for their elder and/or larger siblings: ‘But of course, it is far more difficult for House X, given the conservatism of its moneyed audience,’ as if House X might not actually attract a different, more intellectually curious audience by programming more interesting works. At any rate, there is now no more need, if ever indeed there were, to ‘make allowances’, and it is difficult really to consider a company with such extensive programming as Opera Holland Park to be in any meaningful sense ‘smaller’. This new production – reusing its 2012 Gianni Schicchi – of Puccini’s complete Trittico may well be the best thing I have yet seen and heard at Holland Park.


Yet again, any reservations I might pre-emptively have held in abstracto concerning a small-ish orchestra (the outstanding City of London Sinfonia, strings 6:5:4:3:2) vanished within a few bars; the acoustic may sound unpromising in an unpromising performance, but in one such as this, with truly excellent conducting throughout from Stuart Stratford, there was no problem whatsoever. Dynamic contrasts and continuities could hardly have been more powerfully – and sensitively – communicated. Climaxes were shaped with unfailing conviction, matched, one felt, with as true an understanding as Puccini’s own of the dramatic ebb and flow. Indeed, the importance of rhythm, and its inextricable alliance to increasingly adventurous harmony, was projected in Il tabarro as almost a symphonic poem of the Seine itself – were that not woefully to underplay the role played by Stratford’s splendid cast. The post-verismo (if in fact we are post-) darkness of the score, lit by shards one might relate to Stravinsky, Schoenberg, or Debussy, but which one would be quite wrong to consider in any sense derivative, told of a Paris both distinct from and yet related to La bohème, Puccini’s self-quotation playful acknowledgement rather than necessity, so deeply imbued with style and meaning was the musical account.


Different colours, different sound-worlds presented  themselves in Suor Angelica and Gianni Schicchi, the tragic noose tightening inexorably in the former, all the more powerfully for its radiant feminity (from which Poulenc surely learned so much in Dialogues des Carmélites. I initially hardly felt like hearing the latter, immediately following the tragic denouement of Suor Angelica. Performance put me right, the revels now begun of a scherzo as full of zest and the comedic complexities of commedia dell’arte as the Petrushka score that more than once came to mind. Nothing was permitted to outstay its welcome, ‘O mio babbino caro’ for once a genuine moment of well-natured self-parody rather than a would-be reversion, in which members of the audience may sit back and ‘enjoy’. Indeed, Dante’s great comedy itself seemed to loom over the enterprise as a whole – just as, in very different circumstances, it had over Calixto Bieito’s brilliant Berlin double-bill of Schicchi and Bluebeard’s Castle earlier this year.

 
The casts were also as fine as I can recall from OHP, perhaps even finer still. Even given a certain amount of duplication, the number of singers involved is large, so as often put a strain upon one of those ‘larger’ houses. Here, no one disappointed, and the whole, as the well-worn cliché has it, was considerably greater than the sum of its parts; indeed, there was a real sense of company, such as one is more likely nowadays to find in relatively ‘smaller’ circumstances. Anne Sophie Duprels convinced equally in the conflicted roles of Giorgetta and Suor Angelica, her musical and dramatic focus and shaping every inch the equal of Stratford’s. Stephen Gadd and Jeff Gwaltney had one believe just as strongly in them and their plight in Il tabarro; it may not be a lengthy opera, but these felt like fully drawn characters, and the ‘smaller’ parts offered much of great interest too. So did those in the other two operas. Other singers to stand out – although it hardly seems fair to do anything but repeat the cast list – were a vehement, Rosalind Plowright as La Zia Principessa, nobler than the convent hierarchy, but possessed of similar, ruthless, yet perhaps ultimately more conflicted coldness. Family lines exert their own pressure, as we should shortly be reminded in Gianni Schicchi. Richard Burkhard’s protean Schicchi, Sarah Pring’s slightly but not too outlandish Zita, and Anna Patalong’s beautifully sung Lauretta headed a cast of true depth in that final instalment.


As night fell, the qualities of the three productions declared themselves in different ways; that change in light – and temperature – proved especially telling during the course of Suor Angelica. Neil Irish’s arched backdrop for Il tabarro, commenting yet expanding upon the ruins of Holland House, moved to the foreground for the laundry – inevitable thoughts concerning convent repression there – in Suor Angelica and the bedroom for Gianni Schicchi, laundered clothes serving dual purpose in the two latter operas. There was, however, no attempt to force the three operas closer together than that; they told their own stories, and we made connections as we would. Martin Lloyd Evans (Il tabarro and original director of Gianni Schicchi) and Oliver Platt (Suor Angelica and revival director of Schicchi) respected the works, which in turn seemed to respect them for it. Movement and designs were in keeping with the dictates of the action, scenic and musical alike, keenly observed without drawing undue attention. The tragedy and comedy of human existence were the focus, from pit and stage alike.

Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Schubert piano sonatas (4) - Barenboim, 2 June 2015


Royal Festival Hall

Piano Sonata no.16 in A minor, D 845
Piano Sonata no.21 in B-flat major, D 960

Daniel Barenboim (piano)
 

Daniel Barenboim’s final Schubert recital went out on a relative high, although some of the frustrations of earlier performances remained. First up was the mysteriously neglected A minor Sonata, D 845. I cannot recall ever having heard it ‘live’ before, although I may be forgetting something. The first movement highlighted Barenboim’s new instrument’s capacity for great timbral contrast between registers, heard especially strongly in unisons which sounded as if they might have been played upon different manuals. For me, the contrast was simply too great; others, however, will feel differently, and taste clearly plays an important role here. The spirit of Lieder, however, was welcome indeed to my ears, a spirit on this occasion both sad and fierce. Once the movement had really got going – it took a little while – Barenboim’s dynamic sense of form won out. That was certainly present also in the Andante poco mosso, albeit in a gentler, perhaps indeed subtler fashion. Barenboim might have been said to offer a masterclass in ensuring that variations emerged consequentially one from another. Voicing helped greatly in that respect – arguably aided, or at least underlined, by the instrument itself. For instance, repeated notes in inner parts seemed to acquire the persistence of their cousins – or should that be nephews? – in Chopin’s ‘Raindrop’ Prelude. Thematic transformations, on the other hand, edged us tellingly close to Beethoven’s variation form. The surprises of the Scherzo seemed to cast a backward glance towards Haydn, although the sensibility remained impeccably Romantic, unease never vanquished. Its Trio offered an almost – I stress ‘almost’ – soporific glimpse of another realm; here, as in one performance in the previous recital, a Schubertian brook seemed to lull its tragic victim. The finale, taken without a break, proved something of a disappointment after such fine playing. There is a case for it to be unrelenting, but should it be unvariegated? That is more difficult to maintain. Despite considerable dynamic contrasts, Schubert’s modulations seemed to count for curiously little.


It would have been an odd Schubert series that did not conclude with the posthumous B-flat Sonata. Much of Barenboim’s performance I found highly persuasive. The opening of the first movement offered great clarity, married to a more highly ingratiating or at least ‘traditional’ touch – especially, as so often in these recitals, when playing softly. The left-hand E natural sounded full of expectation, auguring well for what ensued. Barenboim took the movement relatively swiftly, though not unreasonably so; in any case, he was far from unyielding. There was real contrast of moods too, some material surprisingly bright-eyed. Sadness was more apparent in the development, although that remained tendency rather than victory. The recapitulation brought vehemence, even pride. I cannot recall having heard it sound so close in spirit to (and yet still distinct from) Beethoven. Whatever I might have thought about that in the abstract, it worked. The brightness of the higher treble registers proved something of an irritant, though. The slow movement – and here it was certainly slow, though always in motion – was imbued with a highly developed sense of drama. (Barenboim is, after all, a great Wagnerian.) It proved fuller of contrast than often, and quite revealingly so. Again, the differences between instrumental registers were sometimes a little too stark for my taste, but Barenboim’s voicing of the bass line and sensitivity to its harmonic implications made up for that. The Scherzo again signalled the spirit of something close to Beethoven, albeit modified by an undercurrent of desperation. Its Trio sounded as much as morbid continuation as contrast. Barenboim’s view of the finale proved forthright yet variegated, again showing both kinship with and difference from Beethoven. Sometimes, however, I am afraid his pianism moved firmly into the heavy-handed category. Or was it the instrument again? It was not unduly disruptive, but recalled some of the problems as well as the highpoints of this series as a whole.

 

Schubert piano sonatas (3) - Barenboim, 31 May 2015


Royal Festival Hall

Piano Sonata no.7 in E-flat major, D 568
Piano Sonata no.14 in A minor, D 784
Piano Sonata no.17 in D major, D 850

Daniel Barenboim (piano)


The third recital in Daniel Barenboim’s Schubert series of four offered a similarly mixed picture to the first two, albeit with more of the virtues of the second than the shortcomings of the first. This Sunday afternoon recital began with the E-flat major Sonata, D 568. The first movement perhaps tilted more towards the Allegro than the moderato part of Allegro moderato. A tendency to pull the material around detracted from Barenboim’s general sense of purpose, but that need not be exaggerated. It is a fascinating movement, not least when one knows its original form in D-flat major; Schubert’s expansiveness deserves cherishing (for the most part), but the development should not seem as if it were a digression, as occasionally it did here. What Andante molto means is anyone’s guess, but Barenboim’s far from slow tempo convinced, generally telling but occasionally puzzling rubato notwithstanding. It was a ‘Romantic’ rather than a ‘Classical’ reading, but one with a keen ear for harmonic surprise and, for the most part, for proximity to song. The ‘Menuetto’ is really a scherzo; here Barenboim, not without reason, brought Schubert closer to Beethoven, although I could not help but wonder whether a greater touch still of directness might have helped. The finale, to my ears (and eyes), poised intriguingly between Mozart and Chopin tended more towards the latter.


The A minor Sonata, D 784, followed. Pianist and – I suspect – instrument gave a fine impression indeed of tragic bell tolling at the opening. This was a dark, even grim reading throughout; the sense of tragedy might have been leavened by post-Mozartian glimpses of another, better, perhaps unattainable world, but rarely, if at all, on this occasion. Indeed, throughout the series, I have been a little surprised by the lack, although not absence, of kinship with Mozart, given Barenboim’s status as one of our greatest Mozart players and conductors. Perhaps the strange ‘back to the nineteenth century’ aspect of his new instrument is a factor here. Ghostly octaves nevertheless seemed to peer into the future: Bruckner, perhaps even Mahler. Songfulness was the order of the day in the Andante; indeed, I fancied that I could hear a Schubertian brook welcoming its tragic (anti-)hero for his final bow. The finale fared better when the playing was hushed rather than vehement; once again, the instruments’ thinness of tone at forte and above had me longing for a Bösendorfer. There was, however, no gainsaying the clarity achieved.


The D major Sonata, D 850, offered much to admire, although not without distractions. At times, the first movement threatened to run away with itself; a regular pulse never quite emerged. Syncopations did their markedly non-Beethovenian work in the Con moto movement that follows; here, Barenboim’s subtlety of touch and keen sense of harmonic preparation and resolution proved revealing indeed. Those tendencies continued into the Scherzo, with a duly disconcerting sense of harmonic relaxation achieved in the Trio. Schubert’s relationship towards Mozart might have been more profoundly explored in the closing Rondo; although much of the composer’s writing here is more elaborate, Barenboim did not entirely escape a tendency towards fussiness. Mozartian simplicity may well be unattainable by this stage, but there is no harm and indeed much gain in sensing a longing for, perhaps even catching a glimpse of, that not-so-long-vanished Elysium.  Of all the pianists I should never have expected to veer close to ‘period’ mannerism… Still, one cannot accuse Barenboim of resting upon his laurels.

Friday, 29 May 2015

Schubert piano sonatas (2) - Barenboim, 29 May 2015


Royal Festival Hall

Piano Sonata in B major, D 575
Piano Sonata in G major, D 894
Piano Sonata in C minor, D 958

Daniel Barenboim (piano)
 

After a somewhat disappointing opening recital in this series of four, Daniel Barenboim made a stronger impression, if still somewhat short of his best, in the second. Perhaps the fuss over the not-so-new piano had subsided; perhaps he had become more used to it; at any rate, I noticed it less, and indeed, especially in the closing C minor sonata, heard more of its virtues. Schubert may not actually benefit so much as Beethoven from such back-to-back treatment, but there is certainly much we can learn from hearing many of his piano sonatas over a week.
 

The B major Sonata opened in forthright fashion. Chords often – and it is difficult to say how much of this was owed to performance and how much to the instrument – sounded Lisztian; perhaps the key led one’s ears in that direction too. Barenboim rendered Schubert’s dotted rhythms and harmonies generative, but the performance often lacked warmth, proving most compelling at its most withdrawn. Transitions in this first movement could prove stiff, but that is partly a matter of the work itself. Liszt again came to mind as a potential destination for the Andante; I was put in mind of the slow movement of the B minor Sonata. Barenboim communicated an ambivalent view of the Allegretto, far from carefree. Here, hesitations made better musical sense than they had two nights earlier; there was a good sense of the exploratory, especially with respect to tonality. The Trio seemed to fuse post-Mozartian drama with a rusticity that had its roots in Haydn. Schubert’s finale emerged almost as the proper scherzo, rhythm very much a Beethovenian driving force.


The opening chords of the G major Sonata showed a Schubert more recognisable as the composer of the songs, in many of which Barenboim has proved an outstanding pianist. His weighting enabled Schubert’s different voicing to show his difference from Beethoven in the G major Piano Concerto. The filigree and harmonies of the Impromptus were winningly suggested too. Wanderings or digressions – according to taste and/or æsthetic – were characterful and, for the most part, well integrated. The Andante was nicely poised, definitely ‘late’, casting an early neo-Classical gaze back to Mozart. I still, however, could not help but think what gains there would have been from the greater warmth of a Bösendorfer. The episodes erupted, but did they sometimes overshadow the prospect of a longer line? Is there indeed a longer line here? Whatever the answers to that, Barenboim’s playing at its most hushed imparted a due sense of wonder. In the third movement, he sounded a born Schubertian, lilt and harmonic motion perfectly judged. Occasional smudged chords mattered far less than they had on Wednesday, since the sense of the work was more strongly apparent. The Trio offered further beautiful pianissimo intimacies, although I sometimes wondered whether less rubato might have proved more. The finale continued in similar vein, sometimes a little fussy, but certainly having me rethink the work.


The opening of the C minor Sonata showed commonality yet also difference not only with Beethoven but also the Mozart of KV 457. Concision (relatively so, at least, for the composer) certainly seemed inherited from both, albeit in intriguing, generative dialectic with a tendency toward expansiveness. The Adagio received a notably – far from inappropriately so – Beethovenian reading, above all in the integrity with which Barenboim voiced the opening theme. Minor key passages proved especially dark-hued, characterising the movement as strongly as hoped-for consolation in A-flat major. Sometimes, Barenboim seemed a little unyielding, but there was undoubted purpose to his reading. An enigmatic Menuetto – no bad thing in itself – sounded a little too distended at times, but strength of purpose was resumed in the finale, a furious dance of death, which yet proved properly variegated. Here, the colours of the instrument’s bass register came into their own; at one point, I readily imagined growling cellos and basses. Liszt again seemed more of a guiding spirit than one often hears. Much, then, to ponder, if not always, at least in my case, quite to agree with.

 

Thursday, 28 May 2015

Schubert piano sonatas (1) - Barenboim, 27 May 2015


Royal Festival Hall

Piano Sonata in A minor, D 537
Piano Sonata in A major, D 664
Piano Sonata in A major, D 959     

Daniel Barenboim (piano)


The excitement concerning Daniel Barenboim new piano did not necessarily augur well. A great deal of nonsense had been spoken and written before this first of four Schubert recitals. ‘The first new piano since XXXX’ was a common theme: a claim so misleading as to merit no further discussion. Moreover, whilst there is certainly no need to scorn possible technological developments, the last thing we want is for piano recitals to become more like their organ counterparts, players and audiences more interested in the instrument than in what is being played and how. I was certainly taken aback by the tone of the instrument, but not, I am afraid, in a good way. It struck me – and it is, of course, not always easy or even possible to distinguish between instrument and performance – as having managed to combine some of the less attractive features of a not entirely modern Steinway with those of a mid-nineteenth-century Erard. Barenboim has apparently extolled the virtues of different registers having more truly different characters: perhaps again, one might think more of different organ registrations. For me, however, there was far more in the way of loss in the apparent inability of different ranges of the keyboard to cohere as a single instrument – and still more so, in their tonal stridency, especially when playing forte or louder. There was, I grant, considerable clarity, often strikingly so; but is that one’s greatest priority for Schubert? I felt a little as I had when hearing Pierre-Laurent Aimard playing The Art of Fugue; it may have been interesting conceptually, but I did not like it very much.  I should happily have sacrificed some of that clarity for the warmth of a Bösendorfer, for me a far more satisfactory instrument in this and much other repertoire than a Steinway. On the other hand(s), maybe Barenboim needed to become more accustomed to his instrument; or maybe I was just reacting negatively to the shock of the new (which, frankly, did not sound very new at all).


My reaction to Aimard’s concert, however, had been a reaction to the performance, not to the instrument. If Barenboim’s performances had been more compelling, less patchy, I am sure the matter of the instrument, whether for good or for ill, would have assumed lesser importance. The opening A minor Sonata is a very difficult work to bring off; Barenboim, greatly to my surprise, did not come close to doing so. The strange swings of mood, curtailments of phrases, the necessary efforts to bring the notes together into a coherent whole – perhaps not unlike the keys on the new or any instrument? – can, in the right hands, make one think, as so often with Schubert, of Webern. Not here: offhand, I cannot recall so charmless, almost literalist – albeit with strange interventions from time to time – performance from Barenboim. There was, one might argue, a laudable refusal to sentimentalise, to consign Schubert to the dubious clutches of the Biedermeier; but what was there beyond that? If I contrasted the performance with one I heard from him a few years ago of Mozart’s great sonata in the same key, admittedly a far superior work, then the drama, the poise, the beauty, the anger, all those and many other qualities were not only absent but had no evident replacements. It was, frankly, an ordeal, rendered all the more so by the harshness of the instrument.


The ‘little’ A major Sonata, D 664, fared better. Barenboim and his piano seemed better attuned to moments of hushed intimacy; and, to be fair, the passages in the higher treble, at whatever level of the dynamic range, showed capacity to captivate, to draw one in. There was much, however, that was so brusque as to sound merely perverse. Moreover, it was not really until the third movement that Barenboim’s greatest inheritance from Furtwängler, his generally striking ability to hear and to communicate the longest of musical lines, was evident. Weirdly, I felt as though I had been hearing a pianist more influenced by the likes of Nikolaus Harnoncourt. How I had longed for Sviotoslav Richter!


Parts of the late A major Sonata, D 959, impressed, although it was difficult to avoid the suspicion that Barenboim wished he were playing Beethoven. Heavenly lengths threatened to seem merely meandering. Technical difficulties were a little too numerous too. There were moments of high, if not necessarily appropriate, drama, and splendid contrast – the ending of the first movement, for instance – but the integrative mastery on display in his recent performance of Schubert’s ‘Great’ C major Symphony was, to my ears, strangely absent. Oddest of all was the slow movement, in which time seemed to stand still, but not in that magically ‘suspended’ way that often comes to mind in Schubert. Instead, lines led nowhere, and the music ground almost to a halt. The final two movements sounded relatively conventional, but some way short of inspired. It is certainly not a matter of Barenboim having no feeling for Schubert; I have heard him give wonderful performances, whether as conductor, collaborative pianist, or soloist. For whatever reason, however, tonight was not the night. An audience that had cheered him to the rafters before he had played a single note begged to differ, but I was far from the only dissenter. And this is a musician I admire greatly.

Sunday, 24 May 2015

Carmen, English National Opera, 20 May 2015


Coliseum

(sung in English)

Carmen – Justina Gringyte
Don José – Eric Cutler
Escamillo – Leigh Melrose
Micaëla – Eleanor Dennis
Zuniga – Graeme Danby
Moralès – George Humphreys
Frasquita – Rhian Lois
Mercédès – Claire Presland
Dancairo – Geoffrey Dolton
Remendado – Alan Rhys-Jenkins
Lillas Pastia – Toussaint Meghie
Girl – Sophia Elton

Calixto Bieito (director)
Joan Antonio Recchi (revival director)
Alfons Flores (set designs)
Mercè Paloma (costumes)
Bruno Poet (lighting)

Orchestra of the English National Opera
Chorus of the English National Opera (chorus master: Martin Fitzpatrick)
Sir Richard Armstrong (conductor)
 

When I saw this production open in 2012, I opened by writing, ‘A triumph for ENO! I suspected that Carmen would prove eminently suited to Calixto Bieito’s talents, and so it proved. Shorn of any ‘picturesque’ pandering – remember Francesco Zambello and her donkey? – what we saw here is perfectly attuned to Bizet’s resolutely unsentimental score.’ And so it still very much seems, under the able revival direction of Bieito’s then assistant, Joan Anton Rechi. The updating to the tawdry end of the vicious Franco regime continues to resonate; violence is in the air and more than in the air. At any point, it can and will claim its victims, many of whom we see on display here. We too live in a militarised society, although one that remains slightly more bashful about proclaiming itself to be such; we can draw parallels without their in any sense being forced upon us. We certainly know poverty, racism, misogyny, and the other forces we see depicted on stage; we also know, increasingly well, child abuse – and the figure of the small girl, both loved and abandoned by her mother, looks to an uncertain future most likely to be cyclical, or worse.


But above all, Bieito’s mastery of his craft as director and storyteller comes through. Characters who can sometimes seem romanticised, caricatured, even one-dimensional are more complex than we generally see. Carmen stands out less than is often the case; her vulnerability is as much social as personal, and all the more credible for that placing. Likewise Micaëla’s greater capacity for agency, her deviousness – no mere ‘angel’ on this occasion – make her a far more interesting character. Has she even invented the story about Don José’s mother? She certainly expresses triumph upon prizing him away from Carmen, harking back to the first scene in which she cannot prevent herself from kissing him – and clearly feels no shame in having done so. ‘Franco or his successors?’ I asked last time. ‘Is there that much of a difference, especially under the present regime?’ We may make substitutions across history, across the world, whilst at the same time remaining plausible specificity, indeed ruthless realism.


Ryan Wigglesworth conducted an excellent account last time; I am not sure that Sir Richard Armstrong was not finer still. Each act had its own colour, its own pace, but the ineluctable calling of Fate drove, in the best sense, the action forward. The ENO Orchestra was on top form, its woodwind solos full of character, fresh and subtle as a fine manzanilla. The strings dazzled in as impressive an orchestral performance as I have heard in the Coliseum all year. Likewise, the chorus, of which the director asks a great deal, was its typical excellent self. These were individuals but they were also a threatening and threatened mass.


Justina Gringyte was somewhat more aloof than Ruxandra Donose, but equally convincing as a character. Hauteur, relatively speaking, worked well here, and she could certainly turn on the charm when required. Her lines were clean, and her slightly accented English equally clear. Don José is a difficult role; in the beginning, Eric Cutler seemed a little too generalised, too lacking in charisma. However, he seemed, especially in the context of a strong company, to grow into the role. Leigh Melrose’s reprise of Escamillo offered an uncommonly subtle reading, in which the relationship between vulnerability and machismo – ever a ‘Spanish’ theme, even for a Frenchman such as Bizet – was intriguingly explored. Eleanor Dennis’s revisionist Micäela did not lack for sweetness of tone, especially during her third-act aria. Rhian Lois and Clare Presland offered vividly characterised readings of Frasquita and Mercédès. Special mention should be offered to Sophia Elton as that frightened, yet strong, little girl.


Those who have yet to see Bieito’s Carmen should hasten to the Coliseum; those who have done so before will need no encouragement from me. Let us hope, as I concluded in 2012, for more Bieito from ENO – and, indeed, for the Royal Opera to enlist his services too. The former enfant terrible is now widely recognised as one of the most thoughtful, provocative opera directors at work today; we need to see more of him in London. More from Armstrong would be no bad thing too.