Category: Reviews

At eight o’clock sharp the audience was instantly greeted by a blitz of harmonious frequencies and tones emitted by the orchestra; as the all-too-familiar sounds of the infamous Mozartian overture perforated the theater, the audience was given a morsel of the amazing performance to come. Stunned with nearly every aspect of the opera, I can fairly say that Le Nozze de Figaro at the Metropolitan Opera House was one of the best performances I have ever had the pleasure of viewing.

A gift bequeathed from the 18^th century, Figaro exemplifies the commonality of the mankind. An opera written over two hundred years ago performed in a foreign language still attracted hundreds. The opera’s ardor, themes of jealousy and adultery, and even humor were effectively communicated to the audience, despite the apparent language and time barriers.

The true genius of the opera, however, lied in the vocals. Unaccustomed to the sheer power experienced by vocal opera, I was truly “wowed” by this performance. Several times throughout the opera I had to remind myself that the sounds I was hearing were actually being emitted from a human being. All of the performers communicated a gamut of tones and pitches I would never have dreamed. In particular, John Relyea playing as Figaro caught my attention. The distinguished bass of the performance, Relyea was able to emit a sound whose zeal could be felt almost instantaneously.

Only a meager review, however, would discuss an opera’s vocals without drawing attention to the orchestra. The score was unparalleled to any of which I’ve heard. Beautifully enhancing the vocals, the orchestra was able to create a dynamic relationship with the singers; both aspects complimented each other and were synchronized throughout the opera, most notably at the recurring crescendos during the dramatic scenes of the opera. After listening to the score a second time, it’s fascinating to see how the music mirrors the world it depicts; although the score may initially seem to be of elegance and beauty, a sharper ear can trace elements of discord and deception. The wedding march in Act III for example, initially gives the impression of formality and gracefulness. The trembling chords at the end of each phrase, however, communicate to the audience that something is astray. The opera may have been over three hours long, but because of the orchestra and vocals, I almost wished it had been longer.

Psychological perception is never based upon the sum of reactions to individual entities, but rather to the gestalt experienced by the observer. Thus, a true review of my viewing of Figaro would be incomplete without mentioning how the Metropolitan Opera House amazed me. From the lighted water fountain to the enormous glass panes that compose the entire front side, the opera house was truly a feast for the eyes. The set design for the opera was equally ravishing, with the creation of lifelike sceneries and lightning. There was fine attention brought to virtually every detail of the set, from the upholsteries to the marble walls. The lightning was superb, with both the night and sunshine being lifelike. I personally loved the subtitle display box, particularly because a given display was only visible to the person directly in front of it and not to the other people sitting next to him. Upon looking this up, I learned that the words on the subtitle display were actually composed of LED pixels, or tiny “lighted dots.” Each of these dots had a narrow tube in front of them, with one end of the tube faced at the lighted pixel, and the other end of the tube facing directly forward. Thus, a viewer can only see the LED pixels (and thus the entire display) by being directly in front of the display; anyone to the sides would not be able to see it due to the tubes blocking the light.

Le Nozze de Figaro was an amazing experience that has helped expose me to the world of opera.

Krishan Sharma

The Juilliard Jazz Orchestra’s performance on October 7^th was my first experience with live jazz. My first thought was how surprised I was at how many people came to hear such a young group of musicians play. After hearing both sets, I understood how talented the performers were, and their young age made it even more impressive.

Jazz has never been my favorite kind of music, as I have always preferred a set melody that I could follow.  However, the syncopation and somewhat random tunes have begun to grow on me. My favorite pieces that the orchestra played were the upbeat tunes of “Freckle Face”, “Clap Hands, Here Comes Charlie!”, and “Tickle Toe.” Each of these had surprising tempo changes and very quick beats that forced me to pay closer attention and made me want to get up and dance. Although the song “To You” had a much slower beat, it was still one of my favorites. I felt I could understand the emotion in each drawn out note of the saxophones and trombones, and almost felt like the “you” the song was directed at.

I found the tenor saxophonists and the trumpeters the most impressive. They each performed with a lot of visible passion and gusto and seemed extremely experienced. I also really enjoyed the performers in the rhythm section. Although they did not have too many solos and they mostly just blended in with the music, their consistency and concentration made them stand out. Their beats provided the backbone for each piece, and without them, the sentiment and fluidity of the music would be lost.

The aspect of watching jazz live that is the most memorable to me is being able to watch how quickly and skillfully each of the performers’ fingers moved. I can’t imagine being able to focus enough to move my fingers with such speed while having to blow in accordance with the rhythm and make sure not to miss my cue. I was also extremely impressed when I heard that the students had learned and perfected one of the pieces in less than 24 hours.

Even though I still don’t love jazz, this concert made me like it a lot more than I had. The skill and precision that I witnessed and heard made me appreciate the complexity of the music and I look forward to learning more about it.

The performance of The Marriage of Figaro at the Metropolitan Opera on the night of September 22^nd was fantastic. Being my first opera, I did not know what to expect or how interesting it would be. However, from the moment the conductor began his extravagant motions, I knew this would be an enjoyable opera, and I was not wrong.

The opera began with the overture and the conductor was clearly visible by his elaborate motions and gestures. I did not find this to be a problem, as I thought it added more emotion to the opera and showed the conductor’s love for opera. Once the curtain was raised, the opera began in Italian. I was at first a little concerned about this because I do not know Italian and I did not like the idea of having to look at the little screen in front of me to understand the opera. However, as the opera progressed, I grew accustomed to listening to the opera and then reading the translation on the screen. It was helpful that most of the lines were spoken twice, which gave me more time to listen and read.

The singing and music were amazing to say the least. All the performers had amazing voices and the music fit the situation at hand. I found it remarkable how the performers were able to synchronize with the orchestra almost perfectly. In addition to the wonderful singing and music, the story itself was interesting. Although highly unlikely to occur in real life, it was very entertaining to watch. My favorite part was when Figaro discovers that Marcellina, the woman who he is being forced to marry, is actually his mother. This was a very enjoying scene because of its irony.

The only thing that can be compared to the acting of the opera is the set itself. I was amazed when the curtain was first lifted and it looked as if the sun were in fact shining on stage. I wondered how they managed to make it look so realistic, and still do not know the answer. It was very interesting to watch the light change as the opera progressed. As the day progressed in the opera, the light gradually changed from daylight to nighttime. However, when the set began to move, I completely forgot about the lighting. Many people were in awe when the set first began to spin, as was I, for I had no idea this was going to happen. I was surprised that the performers were able to keep their balance, concentration, and continue singing as the stage was moving, for the stage was at an angle, making it very easy to slip.

Overall, The Marriage of Figaro was an amazing opera, especially since this was my first time attending an opera. The singing was great, the orchestra was amazing, and the set was remarkable. The plot kept almost everyone interested and hardly anyone was upset when they left the Metropolitan Opera that night.

The Garage (99 7th St) has nightly free jazz performances.

The “Justin Lees Trio” consisted of Rudy (drums), Justin, (double bass) and Michael (hollow-body guitar). The atmosphere of the venue was perfect- the music was right next to the bar and the dim lighting created a very mellow and comfortable atmosphere.

The music was upbeat, but not flashy or eccentric- just perfect for the mood of the crowd and bar. Though not an expert on jazz i fee confident enough to say the band played with a blues style, and perhaps even a sort of swing as well. The drummer mostly tapped the symbols, though he kept it splashy (for lack of a more fitting word). The guitar was done beautifully- the hollow-body guitar was a perfect choice provided a deep and bright blues tone. Most impressive was Justin on the double bass. I am not sure if this is typical or atypical of a jazz performance but he was the centerpiece to me. His hands moved so quick and the rhythms were so engaging. When he took the baseline for a walk he took you along with him through all the highs and lows. He had a few solos and they were masterful and the feeling with which he played was palpable.

Since this is a review and i am supposed to be a journalist i must offer one piece of criticism- the bass, while played beautifully, was too quiet, and while it may have been fine for the regular playing, a bit louder would have made a big difference for the solos.

I would definitely recommend this performance to a friend- the band was very listenable and even a novice like myself was immensely engaged. The lighthearted mood and low key atmosphere make it an ideal place to meet a friend, drink, dine, and listen to wonderful music.

I was pleasantly surprised after viewing The Marriage of Figaro at the Metropolitan Opera. Never having sat through a three and a half hour long Italian opera before, I was expecting a tedious and confusing show. However, I found that I did not need to speak Italian to appreciate the beauty and understand the strong emotions in the plot.

The music’s dramatic changes from cheerful, light melodies to suspenseful, dark refrains clearly depicted the ever-changing emotions of the characters. The audience felt Susanna’s frustration and Figaro’s anger solely from their tone and pitch. Each character’s voice, whether booming like the Count’s or airy like Cherubino’s, was strong and beautiful and translated their feelings well. I was also impressed by the conductor’s energy and devotion to the orchestra. All of his intense directions and passion were visible and emphasized how important the music was.

Another aspect of the opera that made a strong impression on me was the scenery and lighting. As the story moved from day to night, the lighting changed slowly and made the transition realistic. The only thing that could distract me from the captivating singers was the amount of detail in the set. Everything on stage was perfected to fit the scene. The upholstery and fabrics used, as well as the elaborate moldings, sculptures, and paintings, conveyed the Count’s wealth. When the stage completely rotated during a scene-change, I was in awe. The singers managed to stay perfectly still and maintain their high-pitched notes while the stage was in motion.

The plot was rich in humor, satire, mischief, love, and betrayal. The overall joviality and ridiculousness of the story successfully mocked the differences between upper and lower classes. The actors got the audience to laugh numerous times throughout and feel happy when everything finally worked out at the end. I was extremely impressed with the acting, singing, setting, and orchestra, and I look forward to seeing more operas in the future.

The Marriage of Figaro was a wonderful opera, especially for first-timers like myself. It was filled with humor, mystery and most importantly, beautiful music. The voices were all captivating and key in playing up the plot (which could have used all the help it could get). All the singers were on point with their tonality, whether they intended to show sarcasm, infatuation, flirtation or any of the other motifs of this opera. I would argue that the best singer in the opera was the Countess, portrayed by British soprano Emma Bell. She truly stole the show in her song about her husband’s infidelity and their lost passion.

Another aspect of the show that personally took my breath was the set. It was brilliantly designed to show the classical architecture and grandeur of the opera. The set was also key in the story; each set precisely reflected the characters’ standings in society. For example, Figaro’s and Susanna’s room was large, but it was also cluttered, perhaps to reflect the busy nature of their lives but also to show that the Count respects them enough to live in such a large area in his own home.

One of my main dislikes about this show was the ostentatious conductor. It was reflected in both his physical positioning as well as the music he conducted. He stood very high, so he was clearly visible during the show. He also conducted with unnecessarily powerful and flamboyant motions. His conduction of the music was also domineering; certain areas that should have focused on the singing or the actual actions onstage were overpowered by the volume and emphasis on the music.

Regardless, the opera was still brilliant. Although there were minor flaws (the rushed conclusion, the conductor, etc.) the pros definitely prevailed. This was a pleasant first encounter; it even inspired a greater appreciation for the opera. I would recommend this opera for first timers and heavy frequenters of the opera alike.

Upon entering the Metropolitan Opera the group I was with immediately got a ‘whiff’ of that air that the elite only get to breathe. We were awed by the posh landscape and wealthy ticket holders that were not us. Before entering the plaza with a fountain that preceded the Met’s entrance, we were in Manhattan. Once here however, a different setting engulfed us; we were amidst the ‘white collar’. Even our attendance to Broadway-when we went to see West Side Story- could not be compared to how out of place we felt at the premier of Le Nozza di Figaro. Enough about us, and more about me. I don’t know about the group I was with, but I truly felt socially ‘shorter’ there. Even past the opera doors where all the audience members independent of color, race, social class, etc. are belittled to merely spectators of this great art, I felt inferior. No one could tell, but within me I was in great awe. I was truly amazed at the performance. Everyone else around me-those who typically attend the opening night of Metropolitan Opera- seemed almost indifferent. I even heard booing once the entire cast came out for their curtain call.

In high school I acted, sang, and danced in all four annual performances within the four years of my being there. I was convinced that the art of theatre was a lost one, and that its value over time had been depreciated. I was right. I could not say that I was truly bothered by any of it. My own memories of being on stage and the amount of work it took made me appreciate and become inspired by the incredible talent before me. Whatever I was once did, was nearly 1/100^th of what these performers do every night. Whenever there was an intermission in the four acts of the opera, I overheard people talking. I give my respect to those who commended, but to those who complained about it because of time I endow my pity. After the midpoint intermission I was flabbergasted at how many people left, and even at one person who fell asleep. Perhaps its just me who would not want this audience if I were in the limelight or my sensitivity to performers, but this show was one that I would not forget. Although I preferred Figaro’s performance to Susanna’s I could not call any of it bland. Even Cherubino was able to tickle the funny bone of all of us at least once throughout the Opera! Even if this is the only reason you enjoyed it-because of Cherubino- it gives you at least one reason to not boo. What stood out the most to me was the conductor and his orchestra, which he lead beautifully. Dynamics and rhythm variations made enhanced the comedy, seriousness, and playfulness of the scenes. Overall, the music and actors made the show. I left only feeling inspired and wishing those around me could value what I just saw.

The Marriage of Figaro Review

From the moment the curtain was raised, I was enthralled by the show. The lighting on the set was the first thing that caught my eye. It was beautifully crafted and looked extremely genuine. For a few seconds, I found myself remembering what time it was again. It was a great way to pull the viewer in immediately.

One of the show’s major strengths was the actors/singers. I think it can be said that everyone on stage was not only an amazing singer, but also a good actor/actress, which really added to the whole presentation. I felt myself getting goose bumps during some of the parts where the voices of the artists really moved me. The countess and Susanna were such characters. Another strong aspect of the show was undeniably the set. The passing of time was shown beautifully through the way the light hit the rooms. The peak moment was definitely when near the end, the set actually rotated. It left the audience members awed. The fact that the actors were able to perform so perfectly even on an obviously tilted stage added to the awe.

All this being said, there were some aspects of the show that took away from the overall experience. Most of these lied in the actual plot and not in the way it was presented. For example, the whole show was almost three and a half hours long and most of this was because lines were repeated many times throughout the whole opera. On the other hand, I do understand that since the music comes first in the Opera, the lyrics and dialogue were not the topmost priority. Even still, it did make it a bit tedious at times. In addition, the ending of the opera was way too rushed and did not seem genuine. It did not seem possible that the Count would have such a sudden change of heart and be forever loyal to his wife.

It is obvious that every production and show will have some shortcomings and some amazing qualities. Figaro, while not being perfect was still extremely enjoyable and it really brought the audience back to when it was written. It would be even better if the audience would be able to participate in the production by making comments, as it would have been in those days. The music, needless to say, was phenomenal and the orchestra outdid themselves. The Marriage of Figaro was a successful opera on the whole.

An audience member with no knowledge of music can evaluate an opera only by the effect it produces within him. Performed at the Metropolitan Opera on Tuesday September 22, Le Nozze de Figaro made such a lay opinion easy to form. The music engendered the sensations of mirth, suspicion, melancholy, mischief, and humor in listeners at precisely the moment called for by the dialogue. As it was an Italian libretto written from a French play, with a score produced by a German composer in 1786, translated into English, German, and Spanish for Met viewers in 2009, the music’s correspondence with the story clearly transcends both language and time. Further, the music’s compelling beauty and the plot’s eternally familiar theme of adultery and mockery of the upper crust appeal to the innate passions of humans now as they did when first performed. Figaro still makes people laugh.

In addition to the execution of Mozart’s score, the set of Figaro contributed a great deal to the nuances of Tuesday’s performance. For a student arriving at Lincoln center – with a head congested with numbered carbons, feet resentful of Figaro for dress shoe blisters, and gut expecting over three hours of high-pitched, absurdly costumed women in moody settings – the first scene was a stunning surprise. As the curtains rose, morning spilled into the theater. Soft white artificial sunlight like the illumination of an eastward facing window in open country just after sunrise flooded the stage from the left. The light brown wood of the high shelves, ladders and knickknacks filling the back wall created an invitingly rustic and elegant morning as Susanna and Figaro, clad in light and cheerful tones, fussed over marriage veils and beds on opposite ends of the stage. The pale and simple background well represented the lighthearted joy and hope of the young couple, and the lighting emphasized the initial clarity of the characters’ minds. The dark red robe of the count, the playfully light blue outfit of the young Cherubino, and the muted muddy colors of the scheming adults complicate the scene visually in reflection of the intrusion of a tightly interwoven society into the plot, agendas hidden behind false politesse.

The setting of the second act – the bedroom of the countess – stands out in the opera as a sharp collection of Figaro’s themes and its portrayal of the preoccupations of the aristocracy. To the left, a vanity emphasizes fixation with appearances. Center in the back is a bed, symbolic of sexual desire and marriage; it is built into the back wall as it is into the background of the characters’ lives. The screen to the right, acting as a shield for a variety of hidden characters, conveys the incessant concealment of oneself and one’s motives. The light, having fallen some with the day’s progress contributes to the declining coherence among the jumble of persons and lies.

Finally, after the third act takes place in a sort of hall or study, the set morphs with the transition to the fourth and final act with the most impressive staging drama of the night. The entire set rotates until a courtyard area is revealed, with the whole surface of the prior act tilted at a striking angle. The madness of the day, with the various plots to catch betrayal and mistrust in partners comes to its climax here. The lighting has greatly diminished to evening darkness, and it is not until the countess appears in sparkling white at the end that light again reappears strongly on stage, as clarity and again emerge.

Even for those without musical knowledge, Le Nozze de Figaro, as performed and staged at the Met this Tuesday, was an impressive experience.

This was my first Opera and I was really impressed.  As the overture started I began wondering how the orchestra can play through the whole show. The opera singers at least get to take a break from singing when they are either changing or their character is not supposed to be on stage, but the orchestra plays more or less constantly. Then as the curtains parted I saw the tilted stage and the people on it and I thought that it was amazing that the opera singers could not only sing and act, but they can do it on a tilted stage and make it look effortless.The lighting was also incredible. I never imagined it was possible to show on stage the day going by, by varying the amount of light coming in through the windows. I thought that could be done only in movies.

Reading over the plot of the opera helped me a lot. I knew what to expect and I could follow along with what was happening, since the opera was not in English. The translation of the words on the back of the seat in front of mine helped a lot, but it was a little bit annoying looking down all the time and I felt that I might miss something in the time it took me to read the translation.

I didn’t enjoy the actual plot of the story a lot though. I thought that it was a little too fake. For example, in the beginning Susanna and Marcellina don’t really like each other, but then as soon as they find out that Figaro is Marcellina’s son, they all of a sudden get along. That was not very realistic and in real life, they would probably start to hate each other even more because they will be a part of the same family. Another thing I didn’t really like about the plot was all the “pretending to be somebody else” at the end, because it was very confusing.