Comments on: Mozart loses in FGO’s charmless, slipshod “Figaro”

By: Samuel Segal

Samuel Segal — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:28:32 +0000

Now just a minute there “Karma Police.” The review did not say that the orchestra can’t keep it together. It commented negatively on Mr. Robertson, including a reference to “lack of coordination” between singers and orchestra. That was stated in the context of a listing of conducting issues by the reviewer. The orchestra itself has been quite good. It certainly seems in vogue to take shots at FGO, but let’s be honest. While the productions themselves apparently have led to differing opinions in review, nowhere in this season’s reviews has the orchestra been criticized as a negative factor. Regardless of the written debates, audience reaction to the operas I have attended has been uniformly enthusiastic.

By: Loydd

Loydd — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:02:22 +0000

Don’t mess with Mozart. It’s not for the technically challanged. A good sound is not enough! Please hire singers with skill and depth.

By: Karma Police

Karma Police — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:41:17 +0000

So the new orchestra full of students and a handful of professionals can’t keep it together, eh? Perhaps if instead of changing the entire orchestra, there was a change in the orchestra’s leader, you might have actually made some improvement. But yes, let FGO keep throwing $$$ at the things that don’t work. Bunch of hacks.

By: Stephen Lawless

Stephen Lawless — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:54:53 +0000

Traditionally we are supposed to suffer in silence, but bad reviewing [as opposed to a bad review] has occasionally forced me to abandon my customary silence and take up the cudgel. Lawrence Johnson’s review of my production of Mozart’s THE MARRIAGE OF FIGARO for Florida Grand Opera claims that “there was little sense of the character’s class, with the Count slapping Figaro and the Countess frolicking in bed with Cherubino.” I would be intrigued to know on what he bases this view as he seems to be ill-informed. The production tries [more than most in my experience] to clearly define the lines of demarcation between the classes.

Figaro, for example, dons servants’ livery in the first scene, as indeed did Mozart -against his will- when he was a salaried musician to Archbishop Colloredo in Salzburg. The game that Figaro has to play is to get one over on his master while still appearing subservient. Most of the time he plays it brilliantly but occasionally oversteps the mark for which he is punished. Eighteenth century novels [Sterne,Fielding etc.] are full of instances of servants being hit — indeed if they hadn’t been what need would there be for revolution? From Goldoni’s Arlecchino to Mozart’s Leporello, servants are treated outrageously [and indeed Mozart, when he was finally dismissed from Colloredo’s service for insubordination, was booted down the stairs!] I think a case could be made for claiming that the master/servant relationship is the basis for the vast majority of progressive 18th.century literature and it’s that that we have tried to portray on stage in the first 3 acts. The genuinely subversive point of the piece is that when social pretensions are put aside [as in Act 4] underneath the servants’ livery or the Counts’ finery, we are all made the same and subject to the same urges, again, something the production tries to clarify.

If Mr. Johnson was genuinely interested in class he might have cared to mention the “revolution in action,” as Napoleon called the Beaumarchais play upon which Mozart and his librettist Da Ponte based their opera. In Act 3, the winds of change sweep round the great hall of Benoit Dugardyn’s sets and armed peasants enter during the wedding march to ensure its success. The revolution in action indeed.

If I can add one final note about the cast: I last saw a production of FIGARO in Vienna about eighteen months ago featuring several stellar names and it didn’t come close to the cast assembled in Miami. For a company with FGO’s resources to be able to field two casts of this calibre is, in my opinion, remarkable and a cause for celebration rather than the disparagement that seems to have been heaped on the company and its outgoing musical director for too long.

Stephen Lawless, Stage Director

By: Jung

Jung — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:27:41 +0000

I did see both casts. Twice. What strikes one when Ms. Caballero arrives is, “ah, here is a singer’s, not a student’s, voice.” The two arias of the Contessa are very difficult, exposed singing. They require expert technique. There are few singers who can approach these notes with the clean attack, that Ms. Caballero does. She is also able to deliver the control over the high notes, delivering pianos, which Ms. Kaduce was not, apparently, able to do. The standing ovations that Ms. Caballero received cannot go un-noticed.

By: R. Blakely

R. Blakely — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:03:35 +0000

After reading A. Coulter’s response, I had to wonder if some political machinations were at work here, or maybe just plain jealousy, maybe sour grapes on behalf of Ms. Kaduce’s supporters. I personally thought Ms. Caballero has never looked more beautiful or more radiant. I welcomed the fact that she actually gave the Countess a personality, that she had such a varied palate of expression and emotion that made us see all the facets of the Countess’ personality. She gave us both a vocally and dramatically multi-dimensional character. Maybe Coulter disagreed with her particular interpretation, but Coulter’s venomous posting clearly demonstrated that their intent was just to be mean and nasty. Maybe the reason Ms. Caballero is not singing with the FGO next season is because she wasn’t available, maybe, for example, because she’s singing at the Met! Coulter, I think the joke may be on you because you have no idea how much the FGO loves Ms. Caballero. Let’s try to keep our criticisms constructive. Resorting to comments about who is prettier is so very…well…high school! And immature. Writing smack about Ms. Caballero is not going to make any of the singers you support sing any better! To the readers of this blog, don’t believe everything you read…don’t believe Coulter, don’t even believe me…just go see Ms. Caballero and see for yourself what a beautiful Countess she really is!

By: A.Coulter

A.Coulter — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 02:52:04 +0000

I also attended the March 25th performance, and had the exact opposite reaction as the poster above. Elizabeth Caballero was utterly dumpy and unattractive as the (usually) elegant Contessa, and stumbled stylistically throughout the role, with acting more suited to a tacky soap opera rather than the stage. It thankfully seems that FGO has dumped her next season for more qualified (and easier on the eyes and ears!)artists. I very much enjoyed the Susanna of the beautiful Ms. Farcas, no wonder the Count was more interested in her than his wife!

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:52:52 +0000

Should FGO “throw their millions at mediocrity” or we have no opera at all?

The question should be: Are we getting sufficient quality for the money being spent or could the same dollars produce substantially better opera? The answer is no and yes.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:45:44 +0000

Larry, even though I read your review, we attended the March 25th performance of Le nozze di Figaro. Thankfully we had the 2nd cast, which you didn’t reviewed, but they didn’t pull it off either. I guess I’m just used to more! The last time I heard this work live was in Chicago with Cecilia Bartoli as Susanna, the most notable, and a cast of greats with the Chicago Symphony… semi-staged, but still superior to this, unfortunately! Those were the days! Keep up the good work Larry!

By: Lisa Talon

Lisa Talon — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:25:58 +0000

Yes, FGO needs to make some changes. But would it be better if they DIDN’T throw their millions of dollars at mediocrity? Then people like you wouldn’t have the chance to bitch about how bad the opera is.