It's supposed to sound supernatural, like something from another planet. It's indicative of the ambiguity of Ariel's ontological states (gender, age, etc). It's not supposed to be something human.
What we need is a proper DVD release of this production. It's unfortunate that Bostridge had to pass on the telecast, but right now, there are no official recordings available at all, and that's just criminal. At least we should have the audio from EMI in a month or two. As for Sieden's Ariel, the main issue here is that the sound quality cannot do the singing justice. I caught a concert performance in Amsterdam, and the effect was rather like the musical equivalent of bullet time.
@Loismustdie26 I am now a 21yo, and just 5 years ago (or less), I would've agreed with you. But, fortunately- despite my initial failure to appreciate it, I kept listening and listening, and now LOVE this, as I do most modern music. And the best part is that my appreciation and love for older stylistic periods was increased, not diminished, by this change. I apologize for this infomercial of sorts- but please, please give this music a chance! I think it's beautiful, and I'm not the only one!
Regarding Hirst, the things I'd call shallow are the "spin" paintings and the "spot" paintings, which Germaine Greer called "triumphantly vacuous". And she was defending him. He's admirably straightup about being a moneyman. But profundity of the skull escapes me. The shark looks beautiful in the tank. But the idea of putting things in geometric boxes was done by Francis Bacon (which really induces horror) and in sculpture by the underrated Louise Bourgeois. What say you? Best, R
True, Hirst's works do tend to be quite simple, but I would argue, in the way that Rodin's Balzac is, they are simply elegant. All the fluff has been cut out, and it is simply what the artist wants to say, and nothing more. The profundity of the skull lies in its simplistic way it talks about death. Were he talking about the middle east, no a simple reading would not fit, yet something as pure as death requires nothing more.
@ctfamily40 I'm actually totally with you now. It's not the easiest thing to get into, but once you are, it's worth more than you could have ever put in.
Hey, they listened to you! Now would you please ask them to revive "Schwanda the Bagpiper"? It's a masterpiece, last heard at the Met in the 1930s. I'm not kidding.
Well she's supposed to be terrible, Ades wrote it so that she sounds awful, Ariel is under the control of Prospero and doesn't like it, this is expressed in the clash of musical notes. As she breaks free, she becomes much more tonal. Ades doesn't write to "sound good," Ades writes to express a point, he's the musical equivalent of Damien Hirst. While parts of Hirst's works can be beautiful that's not the point, the point is a message or meaning. In this case it's a subtext to a story line.
Respectfully, you can hardly call yelping on stage audibly appealing. Susan Graham singing Deh per Questo is audibly wonderful, this was at best indifference to aesthetics on Ades' part. I wouldn't have it any other way, but you'll have a hard time arguing that this is really beautiful sounding.
But perhaps more importantly, how is Damian Hirst shallow? His works may not be laced to the 9s with symbolism, but when you talk about something as simple, yet hard to understand as death, you can't weight the viewer with too much, it defeats the purpose. Death is the simplest of acts, and there is no single way of knowing "what it is" and Hirst addresses that with the simplistic and powerful images it deserves. How would you argue that it's not as deep as some of Ades work?
Hi Lois, I would have a hard time, so I'm not going to try convince you. But I'm not being perverse or laying claim to something I don't feel when I call it beautiful. And Ades is completely interested in the aesthetic, and spurns "conceptual" "music". Btw, this excerpt is in fact tonal, as tonal as Mahler. (Though atonal stuff can be good.) And if you don't think it's beautiful, you *should* have it a different way. I would. Again, not sweet. (I like Deh per Questo too.) But I like it.
I think it's supposed to sound beautiful. And for me, it does. It's certainly not sweet like Mozart. Ades does write to "sound good" above all. He always has. The new thing (since The Tempest) is that he's writing without false irony, trying to really MOVE the listener. Which is great. Glad you find some of Hirst beautiful, me too, but finally he's a bit shallow. I don't think Ades is.
Thomas Ades needs a course in simple acoustics and the human voice. The idea that you can distinguish any of Shakespeare's wonderful words with this kind of stratospheric vocal writing is just silly. Anyone with a basic understanding of vocal acoustics knows this. If you are going to write vocal parts that make understanding any words impossible, why bother with a libretto based on Shakespeare?
This literally screwed up my headphones, she was going so high! Amazing just amazing.
Please somebody, bring this out on DVD!! Adès continues to amaze me.
The most beautiful music und interpretation I heard in years :-) simply beautiful. Can`t get enough of it
It's supposed to sound supernatural, like something from another planet. It's indicative of the ambiguity of Ariel's ontological states (gender, age, etc). It's not supposed to be something human.
amazing amazing amazing
What we need is a proper DVD release of this production. It's unfortunate that Bostridge had to pass on the telecast, but right now, there are no official recordings available at all, and that's just criminal. At least we should have the audio from EMI in a month or two.
As for Sieden's Ariel, the main issue here is that the sound quality cannot do the singing justice. I caught a concert performance in Amsterdam, and the effect was rather like the musical equivalent of bullet time.
Sold! This is definitely going to be part of my winter opera diet. :) Thanks for letting me know!
My goodness... the queen of the night arias are a piece of cake compared to this one... LOVE IT :)
just: woooooow 👌👌👌👌👌
I would love to get my hands on a full taping of this broadcast. What a shame it's not commercially available!
The Met's released it on DVD with Simon Keenlyside and Audrey Luna. Ades conducts, and the production is by Robert Lepage.
You are certainly welcome. Personally, I think it's an excellent performance.
@Loismustdie26 I am now a 21yo, and just 5 years ago (or less), I would've agreed with you. But, fortunately- despite my initial failure to appreciate it, I kept listening and listening, and now LOVE this, as I do most modern music. And the best part is that my appreciation and love for older stylistic periods was increased, not diminished, by this change. I apologize for this infomercial of sorts- but please, please give this music a chance! I think it's beautiful, and I'm not the only one!
Regarding Hirst, the things I'd call shallow are the "spin" paintings and the "spot" paintings, which Germaine Greer called "triumphantly vacuous". And she was defending him. He's admirably straightup about being a moneyman. But profundity of the skull escapes me. The shark looks beautiful in the tank. But the idea of putting things in geometric boxes was done by Francis Bacon (which really induces horror) and in sculpture by the underrated Louise Bourgeois. What say you? Best, R
True, Hirst's works do tend to be quite simple, but I would argue, in the way that Rodin's Balzac is, they are simply elegant. All the fluff has been cut out, and it is simply what the artist wants to say, and nothing more. The profundity of the skull lies in its simplistic way it talks about death. Were he talking about the middle east, no a simple reading would not fit, yet something as pure as death requires nothing more.
@ctfamily40 I'm actually totally with you now. It's not the easiest thing to get into, but once you are, it's worth more than you could have ever put in.
Of course it would be hard to argue that this is beautiful, but it would be just as hard to argue that it's not beautiful. Beauty is subjective.
Cyndia Sieden! *__________*
Is this out on DVD? I'd sure love to get my hands on the complete opera.
MET: pls produce this opera right now kthxbai
Hey, they listened to you! Now would you please ask them to revive "Schwanda the Bagpiper"? It's a masterpiece, last heard at the Met in the 1930s. I'm not kidding.
Well she's supposed to be terrible, Ades wrote it so that she sounds awful, Ariel is under the control of Prospero and doesn't like it, this is expressed in the clash of musical notes. As she breaks free, she becomes much more tonal. Ades doesn't write to "sound good," Ades writes to express a point, he's the musical equivalent of Damien Hirst. While parts of Hirst's works can be beautiful that's not the point, the point is a message or meaning. In this case it's a subtext to a story line.
I think it sounds beautiful. And how this any different than when they scream in Wagner operas?
Respectfully, you can hardly call yelping on stage audibly appealing. Susan Graham singing Deh per Questo is audibly wonderful, this was at best indifference to aesthetics on Ades' part. I wouldn't have it any other way, but you'll have a hard time arguing that this is really beautiful sounding.
But perhaps more importantly, how is Damian Hirst shallow? His works may not be laced to the 9s with symbolism, but when you talk about something as simple, yet hard to understand as death, you can't weight the viewer with too much, it defeats the purpose. Death is the simplest of acts, and there is no single way of knowing "what it is" and Hirst addresses that with the simplistic and powerful images it deserves. How would you argue that it's not as deep as some of Ades work?
Hi Lois, I would have a hard time, so I'm not going to try convince you. But I'm not being perverse or laying claim to something I don't feel when I call it beautiful. And Ades is completely interested in the aesthetic, and spurns "conceptual" "music". Btw, this excerpt is in fact tonal, as tonal as Mahler. (Though atonal stuff can be good.) And if you don't think it's beautiful, you *should* have it a different way. I would. Again, not sweet. (I like Deh per Questo too.) But I like it.
I think it's supposed to sound beautiful. And for me, it does. It's certainly not sweet like Mozart. Ades does write to "sound good" above all. He always has. The new thing (since The Tempest) is that he's writing without false irony, trying to really MOVE the listener. Which is great. Glad you find some of Hirst beautiful, me too, but finally he's a bit shallow. I don't think Ades is.
an amazing aria, but those noises at the beginning are unbearables
Thomas Ades needs a course in simple acoustics and the human voice. The idea that you can distinguish any of Shakespeare's wonderful words with this kind of stratospheric vocal writing is just silly. Anyone with a basic understanding of vocal acoustics knows this. If you are going to write vocal parts that make understanding any words impossible, why bother with a libretto based on Shakespeare?
The libretto is rubbish anyway; murders the original. This was the best bit...
She's terrible