I thought this production was absolutely fabulous. I had my doubts going in - why is the Met staging a new production of Macbeth when the old one was not that old? It was from 2009, they are still doing productions from the 1970s so age could not have been the issue. I wondered why they were investing so much in a new production that didn't seem that dissimilar from the old production, that didn't bring something new. I was very wrong, and thoroughly enjoyed this presentation. Louisa Proske's directing brought new light to some aspects of the story that I had not previously thought about. I know how crazy her productions can be (she cofounded Heartbeat Opera, a company in NYC that produces REALLY out-of-the-box work), and I think this brought a modern lens to Verdi's work while remaining palatable for the Met's audience and hopefully profitable for the company. I appreciated some of the extra-libretto details that Proske added in, including Banquo reappearing in the place of the stuck pig, the pregnancies of the witches after the intermission, and the very final visual, where the witches tempt Fleance with the crown that has ruined everything onstage. Jon Bausor's set was very gray and concrete, but it got the job done. Costume designer Montana Levi Blanco lived mostly in the visual world of the original play, and I was hoping for some sort of artistic license to be added but there didn't seem to be any distinct lens Blanco worked with. That said, the costumes were beautiful and sumptuous, and a good contrast to the bleak world around them. Choreographer Jorrell Lawyer-Jefferson created movements for the witches that were very eerie. It's really difficult to make me feel viscerally uncomfortable in an opera, let alone over a movie theater screen, but Lawyer-Jefferson managed to do so. The traditional Georgian dancing used on the table at the banquet was also particularly visually effective. Action/fight director Ran Arthur Braun is truly the fight director of our time; the fight choreography was very enthralling.

As Banquo, Ryan Speedo Green reaffirmed his status as the Met's go-to bass-baritone. He didn't bring a ton to the role (but there is not a ton of the role to bring himself to), and I continue to look forward to his Wotan in the upcoming new Ring Cycle.

I felt similarly about Freddie De Tommaso as Macduff. An interesting character but not Verdi's most compelling in an opera full of compelling figures. He has an elegant voice but it is a bit scoopy for my tastes.

Lise Davidsen has gotten a lot of criticism for her portrayal of Lady Macbeth, which I partly understand. It's a role that is outside her wheelhouse. Where Davidsen shone were the high notes in the role, of which there are many. However, this is a role that has historically also been taken on by mezzo sopranos, notably Shirley Verrett (who regularly sang soprano rep) and Fiorenza Cossotto, and as such, the low notes should not be ignored. Davidsen's exit from her comfort zone was noticeable particularly in the first aria "Vieni, t'affretta... Or tutti sorgete," where her coloratura was underarticulated and unclear. In Lady Macbeth's Act II aria, "La luce langue," I was delighted to hear some of Davidsen's chest voice, and would've loved to hear more of it throughout. I do want to give her credit, though, because I think critics and armchair experts alike forget how difficult it is for a singer to step outside of their comfort zone and bear their voice for a harsh audience. She is clearly trying something new, and I don't think it was totally successful, but it was certainly not an unsuccessful afternoon for Davidsen. In a world where so many singers, especially at her level, are risk-averse, I applaud her.

Finally, Quinn Kelsey was the star of the presentation as Macbeth. This is an unforgiving role that sits very high and requires more stamina than perhaps any other Verdi baritone role, and he conquered it thoroughly. I was impressed by his willingness to sing with blood dripping from his mouth in the final aria.

this was born of a glass and a half of wine. I decided to go ahead and make a post here.

So...I am not an opera singer, but I know many opera singers. I majored in voice at one of the "best" schools for voice in the US and was among people who now have big careers, singing around the world and at the Met etc. I am more of a teacher myself, and I've done more choral/chamber/recital/liturgical music in my career.

OK so as many have noted, there is a weekly (daily) "opera is dying" conversation happening right now. There are a number of detailed and devastating public conversations happening about how brutal the industry is for artists, how hard it is to make a living, and how impossible it is to stay in the field, even if you love it. I can link these if you haven't seen them. And yeah, it's brutal out there! And unfortunately this is normal. these are important conversations that deserve attention, and like everyone else I don't really have a good solution. I personally know people suffering because of the current financial system and failure of institutions to care for artists, and I see the hardship. My heart has been heavy because of many of these stories. As a teacher I do have students who desire a professional career. I talk with my students about the financial reality. I am trying to prepare them for a versatile outlook and a flexible mindset, but I can't know where this is all going any better than you. And it feels like education itself is usually a good century or so behind the times. In my observation people kind of just figure it out, or don't, and for a long time artists have eked out a living somehow. Or haven't. Most of us make it work through some combination of income streams, inside or outside the field of music. I believe wholeheartedly in music, poetry, SINGING and the transformative effect this kind of training will have on the individual. I am thankful to be working in the field. And I have no qualms pursuing and teaching the art; it is worthy and pure in itself. I also think we can be creative about the future. If things have always been financially difficult, that doesn't mean they need to stay that way. I deeply value this art form, and injustice is not inevitable.

So here is why I'm here: I'm interested in a discussion. Here is my take. I think the industry itself needs to embrace our era more, and we can all participate. Opera is not currently “surviving” very well. But there was also a lot of great live vocal music happening before opera ever was invented, and singing has been a piece of liturgical, theatrical, and community traditions for all of human history. Opera is a very small time period within all that, and the various eras of operatic prosperity seem to belong to bygone days. That has been true for a while, but not so long that nobody can remember that other time. so we are reacting to that.

And maybe the art form can expand, develop, or change ? In the heyday of opera they weren’t trying to prop up the same 10 works from hundreds of years ago. (not to say we shouldn't do them! I'm a big fan of baroque and Mozart operas myself) And to be clear, I still enjoy opera a lot! But the way I see it, it's not like singing is over, and who knows what new horizons might open up for the art form! Classical singing, in my opinion, is way too awesome to just disappear. opera is only one way to sing.

I think sometimes it would help a LOT if opera lovers and opera professionals were more aware of the history, in general. When did opera start and how was it done back then? How much money did opera singers make at that time, and in the times after that, when opera was very popular?

I think it’s relevant to remember that Western opera started as chamber events in castles and palaces, exclusively for the rich, invitation-only, and funded by (sometimes stolen) royalty money. lavish productions with no expense spared. Plucking the best musicians on the continent for personal projects, court employment, and NOT PUBLIC events.

Then there were the opera stars like Farinelli. Made the kind of living in his time that people only dream of, equivalent to a rockstar. If you want to look at relative economic status, it's about our equivalent of double digit millions of dollars a year (disclaimer: it is hard to calculate this since everything is so different and value of money is not only about inflation). in the few hundred years after that opera became more public and WAS a form of society's popular music for some time, the stars made the modern-day equivalent of millions having their careers, and were able to act like it. Weird diva moves like traveling with an animal menagerie, or bargaining by refusing to wear shoes onstage...after retiring from staged opera in 1850 Jenny Lind was paid $1,000 per night for concerts, the equivalent of $43,197 a night today, and made somewhere between 10 and 14 Million in 2 years in our money. (FYI in 1850 the average annual income for someone who was a skilled laborer was less than $500 a year, which had the purchasing power of around 21,600 dollars today.) But one thing I'm still trying to determine (it's harder to find hard numbers on this), is how the ordinary working singer fared financially across history. From what I have seen, a lot of professional singers may not have been much better off than their counterparts today, but it is hard to determine. have we always had a relatively small number of stars making huge incomes while the majority cobbled together a living?

But as always in any era, we are living in a different time than the generations before us. And our generation tends to look back on some very particular periods of operatic history, at least in the US, spanning the mid 19th-late 20^th century. First let's talk about the 1800s, the time when every small town had an opera house. “What a shame they all closed down,” people say. But that era of an opera house in every town was only about 70 years long! And most of the time they weren't even doing opera at these opera houses! Smaller towns had no actual opera company, and touring groups did the legit operas and operettas in town when they happened at all, while the locals might use the space for their other various projects. Think about how long people have been alive and singing—and then think about 1850-1920 or so, the blip in time of an opera house in every town.

Then we look back on the post-war era of the 20^th century when widespread permanent/residential opera companies cropped up in major cities around the country. That's also a very short time period, funded by the biggest financial boom in the history of the world, an opprotunity for philanthropists and American expansion. The timeline lines up with opera support: the "Golden Age of Capitalism" (50s-70s) and then the tech boom. But this too is such a tiny blip in time on the scale of human history, so why are we expecting that to be a standard? If you look at the (brief!) history of opera in human history, you see that for a while now, things have not been in the heyday or golden age. And that’s ok. But acting like it should be, or needs to be, or trying to force it to be what it once was, will not help “keep it alive” IMHO. opera has already survived many incarnations, so why would we assume we have reached its final form?

There isn't exactly a great golden age model for opera that we can easily restore. Opera was ALWAYS expensive, special, and an immense undertaking. We have many residential opera companies now compared to the US historically—yes, MORE, and yes they are also struggling, but it's not like it was ever an easy feat to pull off an opera season. The easiest time to fund widespread opera happened to be the time before ours: it was a lucky meeting of circumstances, with popular music having included opera for a while (I'm thinking around late 1700s/early1800s through early 1900s) therefore securing a prominent place in public entertainment, followed by the biggest financial boom in history (second half of 20^th century). We are in a different era now, and we should expect a different experience of art, life, food, and everything else. I'm not opposed to trying to preserve an infrastructure that makes opera possible. But I think we need to be realistic about our time.

This is not even to mention that opera voices themselves and what is in fashion aesthetically has changed hugely, and here is an opinion many might not like, but I personally do prefer many of the voices of yesteryear for their clarity, precision, and balance. “Size” of voice is WAY overemphasized now in my opinion, and I think it also can drive the public away when “big” and “loud” are priorities over beautiful, flexible, and accurate. This is not always happening in our time, but it sometimes is. (I admit this comment was a bit of a tangent.)

But all that aside, music like everything goes through fashions. Opera is not the popular music of our time. If you didn’t already know that you’ve been deep in the weeds.

THAT SAID, nobody is going to stop making music. Keep making music! Keep singing. Strive for quality artistry. It still matters and it always will. It may or may not be opera with a capital O. that's ok. The future of classical singing does not need to look like the past.

Thanks for reading.

I've been listening to my Halloween playlist lately and I realized that there's a distinct lack of any classical voice on it! What would be some good songs (and particular recordings) that have a creepy or spooky vibe? I'll also accept menacing or villainous vibes!

Any and all suggestions are welcome! (Please comment even if you think your suggestion is obvious -- I'm primarily a jazz vocalist, only briefly did opera for a year in undergrad, so my knowledge of repertoire is quite lacking and it's very probable that there are iconic pieces out there that I'm totally unaware of!)

My mom wants opera tickets for her birthday and I’ve never been either so i was hoping to get some recommendations for the best show to go to for a first time experience!

We are going to the Toronto opera house and these are some of the shows they have going! Any help would be appreciated :) thank you!

Was part of a group of dozens of people that just got told to leave the theatre where we were about to watch the live screening at the only location in philadelphia that offered it. They said it was technical issue... did this happen to anyone else or is philly just the most unserious city?

I won't be able to see the encore either :(

I have noticed in a few operas a moment when a soloist walks in a circle while not singing between verses of the aria they are performing. They might walk around a piece of furniture, or around behind some other people. Is there a standard name for this bit of business? It is better than just standing there I suppose.

For example, Diana Damrau does it at 1:20 in this clip from The Magic Flute. And here is a similar moment from the movie Amadeus.

I’ve had this tune stuck in my head forever and I’m like 90% sure it’s from an aria but I can’t remember which one

What are your thoughts on dr. Malatesta's background and past? For instance, we know a bit about Figaro's history and have a clear idea of his character outside the main Rosina/Almaviva plot line. Malatesta, however, seems more like a mysterious strategist. Do you think the author could have projected himself into him? Furthermore, I am trying to explore a potential parallel with Gabriel von Eisenstein. To me, Malatesta almost feels like a darker, more shadowy counterpart to Eisenstein. Eisenstein has that recognizable naivety and a vibrant joy of life, whereas Malatesta is defined by secrecy.

Could we perhaps interpret Malatesta as an intermediate figure between the dark operatic force of Don Giovanni and the comedic intrigue of Eisenstein?