"It is very good for a man to talk about what he does not understand; as long as he understands that he does not understand it."

-- G.K. Chesterton

So continues the summer opera commentary. Agrippina was another excellent production. The singers were all astounding, especially the two unexpected countertenors. Especially impressive to me were Christine Goerke (soprano) as Agrippina, Kristine Jepson (mezzo-soprano, I suppose no castrati were available) as Nero, and Christophe Dumaux (countertenor) as Otho. With all the countertenors and women-substituting-for-castrati the opera was the opposite of Simon Boccanegra, at least in voicing. The orchestra was also much different from Simon Boccanegra. It was almost entirely composed of strings, including an oversized-lute-looking-thing called a theorbo, two trumpets (I think), at least one recorder, and a harpsichord.

Handel is good in that his music sounds as hard as it is, but is still delightful to hear when well done. He treats the voice as if it were a string instrument, demanding very impressive, long runs and delicate trills everywhere. The listener is impressed and delighted regardless of his knowledge of music, kind of like vocal fireworks. The obvious level of difficulty is gratifying to the singer, because those runs are hard, and everyone knows the work you put into it. On the other hand, some music (Mozart comes to mind) is extremely hard to sing well, but is written in such a way that the difficulty is not as obvious; the listener doesn't often realize the effort it has taken to master a piece unless he knows music well, or sees the score, or has tried to sing the piece. Mozart is particularly hard on sopranos in that he never lets you settle into one range of the voice, octave (and more than one octave) jumps are common, and you sing a measure or two in the low D-G range only to jump up to a high G or A for a gratuitous trill, then back down to middle C in the space of a measure. But since Mozart is a genius the listener's first reaction is not, "Wow, that was a huge jump, that's impressive," but perhaps, "This is a fun piece."

But back to Agrippina. The singing was excellent, lots of vocal fireworks, but the opera was over three hours long. It was also colder than I expected and I was wishing midway through the first act I had worn heavier clothes. Also, I was also tired, and the production didn't start until 9:00, all of which made it difficult to follow all the tedious intrigue, plots and betrayals that comprised the opera. But unlike Simon Boccanegra, none of the intrigue or betrayal mattered too much; Agrippina is a comedy and all the plotting was merely an excuse for arias, some slapstick comedy and way too much groping. I've always found that one has to be in a certain frame of mind to really enjoy comedy, and that frame of mind is not aided by being cold and tired. So probably because of the external factors, the plot and characters seemed a bit flat to me. I found it hard to care much about any of them or keep straight who was lying to whom and why. Not that we're supposed to care too much. I would agree with Odious that the second act could have been left out, but there were some real musical gems there, including Ottone's lament on his miserable fortune, and Agrippina's amazing, "My thoughts torment me," aria at the end of the act (I don't have the libretto in front of me).

Another odd thing about the opera was the cheeriness of Handel's music (think Messiah) juxtaposed with the creepiness of the situations and characters. For example, during one aria Agrippina is trying to convince her husband that she has nothing in her heart for him but love and faithfulness (she has been scheming against him throughout the whole opera). Although she is lying through her teeth the music is perfectly serious, supporting her in her earnest deception. I guess I'm too used to Mozart or later composers who would give at least a hint of her deception in the music.

But all in all, a great performance. I might even see it again if the opportunity presents itself.