I post this because whenever I recommend to anyone the Queen of Night, I always recommend it in the Lucia Popp rendition. It's a matter of personal taste, but what I love about this is that it is somewhat slower than the other versions and as a result, it would seem to me somewhat more difficult to perform and sustain--those high notes in which the Queen's voice becomes the Magic Flute itself are rounded, full, and deep while remaining light and airy. I have read some rather severe criticism of this ritardando; and while it may or may not reflect Mozart's intent, it is certainly within the options for staging. It creates a real vocal showpiece from what is already a magnificent example of same. It really is an amazing example of a virtuoso composition sung by a virtuoso voice. All of which should not be taken to mean that I do not truly appreciate the version posted earlier by Diana Damrau, it's just nice to see what a difference tempo can make. I think we can take
A favorite of mine. I've always seen it as the perfect embodiment of the last lines of Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica."
ReplyDeleteA poem should not mean
But be.
Dear Fred,
ReplyDeleteI like the poem very much, but I can't say much for most of the commentary on it. The poem sufficiently glosses itself and most of the commentary is puffed up and going nowhere. Not the piece I cited. But others. One would think that WCW had invented imagist poetry.
shalom,
Steven
Steven,
ReplyDeleteAgreed--the commentary does get a bit overheated.
It seems almost as if there is a law that says the shorter the poem, the longer the commentary/analysis.