Parsifal: Memories of the World Premiere

On the 26th of July, we celebrated the 143rd anniversary of the world premiere of Wagner's inal music drama, Parsifal. Rather than calling it an opera, the composer referred to it as a Bühnenweihfestspiel, in English, a stage consecratoin festival play. For those who share my near cultish obsession with this masterpiece there is a wealth of material and fascinating accounts of its creation, premiere and all other manner of Parsifilian lore and facts, but for anyone who hasn't read it, I can't recommend highly enough Charles Dudley Warner's account of the world premiere of Parsifal.  He shared his thoughts, writing at length about it for The Atlantic, his account being published in January 1883.  A most insightful and revealing piece it is, in its way, nearly as moving as Wagner's final work itself.  Warner describes in great detail the intricacies of the the staging, (more than some may like) but does so with such heartfelt enthusiasm and awe, it pulled this reader back into another time and space (see what I did there?)  One gets a sense of where he is coming from (and where he is going to go) from the introduction:

It is the purpose of this paper to give the impression made by the performance of Parsifal at Baireuth, last summer, in view of certain strictures upon the motive of the drama, and without any attempt at musical criticism. In order to do this, I shall have to run over the leading features of the play, already given in the newspapers. Criticism enough, and of an unfavorable sort, there has been, though I heard none of it in Baireuth, nor ever any from those who had been present at the wonderful festival. Perhaps that was because I happened to meet only disciples of Wagner. I fancy that the professional critics, who did publish depreciating comments upon the new opera, and upon Wagner’s methods in general, felt more inclined to that course after they had escaped from the powerful immediate impression of the performance, from the atmosphere of Baireuth, and begun to reflect upon the responsibilities of the special critics to the world at large, and what in particular was their duty towards the whole Wagner movement, assumption, presumption, or whatever it is called, than they did while they were surrounded by the influences that Wagner had skillfully brought to bear to effect his purpose on them.

* * * * 

Of the ending of Act I Dudley wrote:

During the repast of which Amfortas has not partaken, he sinks from his momentary exaltation, the wound in his side opens afresh, and he cries out in agony. Hearing the cry, Parsifal clutches his heart, and seems to share his agony, but otherwise he stands motionless . . . the knights rise . . . slowly depart in the order in which they came. To the last Parsifal gazes in wonder; and when his guide comes to speak to him, he is so dazed that Gurnemanz, losing all patience at his unresponsive stupidity, pushes him out of the door, and spurns him for a fool. The curtains sweep together, and shut us out from the world that had come to seem to us more real than our own.

For a moment we sat in absolute silence, a stillness that had been unbroken during the whole performance. There was not a note of applause, not a sound. The impression was too profound for expression. We felt that we had been in the presence of a great spiritual reality. I have spoken of this as the impression of a scene. Of course it is understood that this would have been all an empty theatrical spectacle but for the music, which raised us to such heights of imagination and vision. For a moment or two, as I saw, the audience sat in silence; many of them were in tears. Then the doors were opened; the light streamed in. We all arose, with no bustle and hardly a word spoken, and went out into the pleasant sunshine.

I recall the first time I read this description, I could feel my heart swelling, recalling my own experiences with the opera, and imagining his.I loved this.

Warner went on with a moving description of the curtain at the end of the second act:

When the act ended, the audience, still under the spell of the music . . . sat, as before, silent for a moment. Then it rose en masse, and turned to the high box in the rear, where, concealed behind his friends, Wagner sat, and hailed him with a long tempest of applause.

Finally, there is the sharing of his overall experience with Parsifal:

I, for one, did not feel that I had assisted at an opera, but rather that I had witnessed some sacred drama, perhaps a modern miracle play. There were many things in the performance that separated it by a whole world from the opera, as it is usually understood. The drama had a noble theme; there was unity of purpose throughout, and unity in the orchestra, the singing, and the scenery. There were no digressions, no personal excursions of singers, exhibiting themselves and their voices, to destroy the illusion.

The orchestra was a part of the story, and not a mere accompaniment. The players never played, the singers never sang, to the audience. There was not a solo, duet, or any concerted piece 'for effect.' No performer came down to the foot-lights and appealed to the audience . . No applause was given, no encores were asked, no singer turned to the spectators. There was no connection or communication between the stage and the audience. Yet I doubt if singers in any opera ever made a more profound impression, or received more real applause. They were satisfied that they were producing the effect intended. And the composer must have been content when he saw the audience so take his design as to pay his creation the homage of rapt appreciation due to a great work of art.

I'm listening to today to a magnificent live performance from the place it all began: Bayreuth. It is under the leadership of Pablo  Heras-Casado - who has become a magnificent interpreter and for me approaches the level of Knappertsbusch and his legendary performances from the same house 70+ year ago. Today's cast is one of the best that can be assembled: Andreas Schager (Parsifal), Georg Zeppenfeld (Gurnemanz), Michael Volle (Amfortas), Ekaterina Gubanova (Kundry) and Jordan Shamajam (Klingsor), and Tobias Kehrer.  It's almost time for the second act so . . . 

Enthüllet den Gral! - Öffnet den Schrein!

Why Do We Keep Doing This?

Complain about corruption, inefficiency and downright evil all we want, the citizens of the United States seem to have a propensity for the idée fixe  that we NEED politicians who are corrupt, inefficient, and evil. We keep voting them into office, and then screaming about them, marching against them, crying and whining and doing little else - like electing leaders who want to destroy us. Do we love self-inflicted victimhood so much that we prefer complaints to solutions, bad men over good. Despite our arguments, we keep voting them in . . . or the "yes men/women" who are complicit in allowing them to proliferate.

I am sick unto death seeing superior, well-liked politicians, with vision - even far reaching "pie-in-the-sky" visions, like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, et al, constantly being slammed, dismissed as "too idealistic" - "not ready" - "just as bad as Whoozis," and to that growing list we can now add the name of Zohran Mamdani.

"He's a socialist" (sound familiar?) . . . "he's too young "how about "too old?") - "he's naive and doesn't stand a chance."  

We heard about Sanders and Warren being "too old" - incapable of leading the country. Does anyone with a modicum of common sense believe that either of those two seniors would have put the country into the fucking tailspin of a disaster we're seeing now?  A disaster many of us saw clearly a decade ago - though to give Trump and Co., credit, they've exceeded expectations on their criminality, abuse of power, self-interest and "screw the people" tactics. They don't even try to hide them anymore. Why would they? 

Yes, many of us despise the Trump regime, but there were - and there remains - enough who approve and fully support the authoritarian dictator-esque, Trump who issues forth executive orders by the dozens, without even a clue as to what he's signing. This, from the idiot who accused his predecessor of using an "autopen."  

I got into an argument with someone when I brought up the changes Mamdani wants to attempt in New York City, with (gasp) "radical socialist" ideas like free transportation, affordable rents, lower food costs for quality groceries making good nutrition - which actually promotes good health - available to the marginalized, raising taxes on the wealthy, and . . . ahhhh - there it is. That last one is the kicker innit? 

There are fears that any kind of financial restructuring that increases the taxes on the super wealthy of the U.S. is always a cause for concern.  "Businesses and the rich will elave NYC in an exodus the likes of which have never been seen before."  For wanting to help people?  Yup. We Americans love our oligarchs, we love to pool our meager resources from low salaries paid by the billionaire class to give them gifts like cars and planes and mansions. This isn't just seen in our politics, we see it daily in the bullshit bullshit industry of religion. Giant shiny (and usually hideous) structures holding thousands of poor people singing the praises of the likes of Joel Olsteen whose church members pay him over $40 million a year while many of them live in in near poverty - but Joel "deserves" it because . . . I have no idea why, because he doesn't. But good for him - living the AGD - American Grifter's Dream. Ditto Kenneth Copeland , or Todd Coontz  - one of the rare examples who got "caught" and is now serving a prison sentence. He must not have made enough money.

So today, when I brought up how encouraged I am for my home city and seeing Mandami's victory, the first thing I heard was, "he's a Jew hater. He supports Hamas."  I countered this was simply untrue, and backed it up. I realized this was a one issue only voter, and for this non-Jew "Jews" was that one issue. I continued, "you're wrong. He believes in equal rights and dignity for BOTH Israel and Palestine - he has spoken about the atrocities of Hamas and YES, he openly despises Netanyahu, as does every single Israeli I personally know. Regardless of any of this, if he wins - he will become "Mayor of New York City"  - a role which, as far as I know, has no actual bearing on foreign policy be it Israel's Ukraine's or Japan's."  

"He's a socialist idiot who will destroy New York."  

I could not go on. I was trying to remain calm while my "opponent" was growing hysterical and turning red. That was the end of that, but it left me wondering why are we so suspicious of people who seem to be really good people, who don't have any real scandal in their past, yet willingly turn the blind eye towards those who cheat on their companies, spouses, governments, constituents, and congregations. Do we feel we don't deserve "nice things" like affordable quality healthcare, or education, or liveable wages?  These are seen by too many Americans as "pipe dreams" when they should be realities . . . or at least the striving towards them should be. 

I don't think I'm naive, stupid, a "low IQ individual" - but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the way we're going IS the right way, and I am just too limited to comprehend how any of this benefits anyone . . .  other than those we see who benefit from it massively. Maybe I'm wrong to despise them and their policies and what I perceive as "corruption" with my entire soul. I don't think so, but maybe just don't know. What I do know is how very tired I am. 

BLASPHEMY: SPIELBERG'S WEST SIDE STORY IS BETTER!

A couple of years ago, I finally broke down, gave in, call it what you will, and watched Stephen Spielberg's 2021 treatment of the beloved musical West Side Story.  While I had a few issues with it (minor ones) I'm incurred the wrath of millions of people . . . okay, tens of people by saying "This is actually a better movie than the 1961 classic."  <insert mic drop here>  

Having said that, I will admit I completely pushed the original film out of my mind before watching it.  Completely.  Entirely.  I approached this new "version" as an entirely separate beast, which, others may dispute, indeed, several have argued with me on this, but that's exactly what it is. 

Tony Kushner's new script treatment gives the characters plausibility, depth and motivation for ther actions that move the familiar Romeo and Juliet story along to its tragic conclusion.

Visually, the film is stunning delivering both eye-popping color and amazingly muted tones transporting us to the era of the story.  Two examples:  The Dance which sets up the romance between Tony and Maria.  I couldn't help but think of the hyperrealism and color schemes in David Lynch's Wild at Heart as well as Twin Peaks. Then,there was the muted greenish hues of Maria and Tony on the Subway, which brought a bit of genuine gravity to the young lovers as they're about to move into the darkness of Tony's backstory.  Both scenes, along with America and much more - flowed with an organic kind of storytelling I found both hypnotic and wildly exciting.

Did I miss Jerome Robbins iconic choreography?  Nope.  The dance here (which seems to incorporate or approximate Robbins' to some degrees) was perfect for this story.  Again, it's a different movie . . . comparisons need not be made.  At least not by me.

The singing was, overall, far better than what was heard in the snippets and clips during the promotions and all of the film's trailers.  Ansel Elgor has a real voice and it blooms  - beautifully - at the top of his range. I was mildly disappointed by his throwing away of certain phrases, usually heard at the beginnings of his songs. This was, for a voice fanatic, a bit of an oversight that should have been caught by someone during the coaching of the role.  Did it ruin anything for me? Nah, and it's a quibble likely to be missed by the general public, and the kid, when it mattered, could pull off his songs winningly.

Rachel Zegler also fared better than the clips I heard beforehand, though at the top of the range she does pull some, albeit very mild, Christina Aguilera-type breathiness and an unnecessary (and unwritten) melisma or two. But, she's scrappy, lovely and tragic and that's what matters most here, isn't it? 

I found the characters of Riff, Anita, Bernardo, Chino all vivid and believable . . . and well performed.  I have to say, I was bowled over by original cast member, Rita Moreno now in the new role of Valentina.  It was a stroke of genius, and Moreno's performance which began with a wisp of heart warming nostalgia, grew into something emotionally shattering. 

There is so much more to comment on, but never enough time. I plan on rewatching this one in the future and I'm certain there will be even more  that I've thught about by then. But, the chief take away for me remains: I was one hundred percent surprised by just how moved I was by Spielberg's skill and efforts to retain, respect, and ultimately recreate a legend. Aside Just about everything about this movie feels right.  

From A-to-Z: Andrey Zhilikhovsky Has It All

Something happened during the Met's HD  of Il Barbiere di Siviglia I didn't expect. As thrilled as I was with our Rosina and "Lindoro" both given stunning performancs by  Aigul Akhmetshina, and debutant, Jack Swanson it was Andrey Zhilikhovsky who completely captivated me with his wily barber, Figaro. Yes, it is a beautiful voice, but it wasn't that alone - it was the total inhabiting of a Figaro the likes of which I've rarely seen (and there have been some truly great ones in the past).

Zhilikhovsky brought a from the streets/pulled up by the bootstraps"  edgey quality to Figaro that I've neither seen, nor frankly even thought of before. It added something that made Figaro even more likeable - if that's possible. Zhilikhovsky's Figaro was a savvy opportunist, tuned in to absolutely everything and everyone around him. I loved watching him his rubbery mask of a face (and a handsome face at that) as within the literal blink of an eye, he'd switch gears from near disbelief to joy, frustration, on-the-spot "fixes" or a self-admiration of his place as the central cog in a very big machine. It was one of those performances that linger on in memory long after the curtain drops. Much longer. 

The conducting, the cast, - everything about it made this about as sparkling and believable a Barbiere as I've seen in decades. Bravo a tutti! I was pleased to see so many glowing reports and reviews of the show and questions of "who is this guy?" I thought I'd share some info (perhaps redundantly to some) about our Man from Moldova. 

So, while basking in the glow of Barbiere, I kept thinking to myself that Zhilikhovsky looked and sounded mighty familiar, but couldn't quite place how, or where from. A little digging through my own files and . . . well, it's no bloody wonder: I've seen him in a number of streams, i.e.., London's Royal Opera La Boheme, where his Marcello was one of the two best things in the show (Ailyn Perez' Mimi being the other, with - for ME - superstar Juan Diego Florez, a bit bleaty and dry voiced as Rodolfo); and as the Grown Up Almaviva in Rome's sparkling Graham Vick  staging of La Nozze di Figaro.  There were also more than a few other things that he stood out in.  

Of those,, it was his Prince Andrei in Tcherniakov's electrifying staging of Prokofiev's War and Peace for the Bayerische Staatsoper a couple of years ago that had me raving about the man and his total commitment to the art. It is a little embarrassing to admit I'd forgotten about him since those performances, but . . . maybe it's the name (what's in a name?)  or something else  that blocked my memory. Who knows.  That said, I can, however, guarantee this: having just watched scenes from the Prokofiev, and along with his Figaro, I shan't be forgetting him again. That's a promise.

As any production of Prokofiev's masterpiece is in and of itself a major event, critics from around the globe descened on Munich and to a one uniformly praised the Bayerische production (even the NY Times wrote a rave review as part of a lengthy piece - of course  it was not by Herr Zach Woolfe surprise, surprise) all of them singling out Zhilikhovsky's Prince.

The highest praise . . . has to be reserved for the central singing performances of Moldovan Andrei Zhilikhovsky as Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, Ukrainian Olga Kulchynska as Natasha Rostova, and Armenian Arsen Soghomonyan as Count Pierre Besukhov, all never anything less than impressive.  (Opera Journal - London, March 2023)

The baton is raised, the flutes begin to sing of spring, a man stands up, takes off his scarf, his parka and also begins to sing of spring, and of his love for a girl. It is Prince Andrej Bolkonski, wonderfully sung and played by Andrei Zhilikovsky. He is in love with Natascha Rostowa, played by Olga Kulchynska,and together they are magnificent . . . Andrei is mortally wounded, Natascha witnesses his agony, and they are beautiful and tragic as they say goodbye in their final duet. (L'Ape Musicale - Italy, March 2023)

The baritone's life story reads like a novel of conquering self through tough times, and a spiritedness of never giving in.  Growing up in poverty, and having to hitchhike to and from his lessons for hours each week, Zhilikhovsky studied music early on, continuing to study in college with a concentration not in singing but rather but choral conducting. Whilst in college in Moldova the voice appeared and people took notice. Completing his conducting studies, he was quickly offered an opportunity to study in Russia at the Rimsky-Korsakov Conservatory in St. Petersburg and things exploded from there with a five year engagement at the Bolshoi and then all over the globe throughout Europe, the U.K., the U.S. . . . everywhere.

I get made fun of (and don't mind one bit) that I'm always plastering the internet with photos of operas and singers, but it is my way - along with hearing these singers - to remember the works and artists I fell in love with. I don't always have time to look for and dig up a recording - but an instant 2 second glance at a photo can - for me - conjure up the memory of an entire performance and why it was special. So, to that end I offer in this post a gallery of  Zhilikhovsky in a variety of roles both alone, with other singers and directors, in case anyone else wants to see 'em.  You know you do. 

I will be actively on the lookout now for lots more from Our Man From Moldova.

(Click on images to enlarge)