Musings on Vocal Training

Coaching session with Valerie Masterson

Last night while looking through my Facebook feed, I noticed an acquaintance had posted a status requesting recommendations for a voice teacher.  They wanted someone who could "help me hit a note."  Well, of course, I could go on a long winded diatribe about that not being how it works, but, I simply commented with a few of the people I would recommend and left it at that.

The second part of their status also asked "Anything I should look for in a coach?"  Which garnered this response from another of their Facebook friends:

"Oh, on the second point, avoid someone who specializes in opera. It's a kind of specific technique that tends to overly strain the vocal cords if you're not an opera singer."* 

This comment was then "liked" by someone claiming to be a vocal coach.  I saw red, and responded with this:  "If a teacher's method is straining the vocal cords, it is not that they are teaching opera, but that they are teaching bad technique."  Both my recommendations for coaches and the follow up comment received zero acknowledgement.

Now, nearly twenty four hours later, this has been on my mind.  Nagging at me. Making me twitchy.  

I have been studying voice since I was about fourteen years old.  My first vocal coach was a Seth Riggs associate with no background in opera or classical music. He is the only teacher or coach I have ever studied with who did not have a classical or operatic background.  I was the only student he had who was interested in singing more classically (and I mean classical musical theatre, Gilbert and Sullivan, and Adele's Laughing Song not full on opera) and within a year, he was at a loss with what to do with me.

Every voice teacher I have had since has been strongly grounded in opera and classical music.  In Los Angeles, I studied with former Metropolitan Opera baritone Richard Fredricks - who nearly ruined me emotionally, but certainly not vocally - and was invited to study voice at the Scuola Musicale di Milano in Milan, Italy.  This is the music school associated with the La Scala Opera House. 

 In 2007, I suffered a severe back injury which laid me up for well over a year.  My voice deteriorated from lack of use and from the physical limitations my injury caused.  When I was nearly physically "back to normal," I began studying with Claudia Friedlander, who I am convinced saved my voice.

Currently, I study with the wonderful Susan Eichhorn Young, and coach with Steven Stein-Grainger.  These two people are brilliant performers in their own right, and have very strong classical and operatic backgrounds.  They also have students working in Broadway shows, opera, and various styles as recording artists and concert performers.  They are not limited to only teaching opera singers because they have an operatic background.

I am NOT an opera singer.  I consider myself a strong cross over artist, able to effectively sing pretty much anything I want to within reason.  I am able to do this because my vocal teachers over the years have instilled excellent technique in me.  I have a strong foundation, and that foundation is operatically, and classically based.  When I sing a genre other than classical, no one ever says "She sounds like an opera singer trying to sing *insert whatever genre here.*"  I have NEVER had "strain" on my vocal folds because I was singing operatically - or singing any other genre with operatic training. 

If you research nearly any professional singer who has a good, solid technique, you will find somewhere in their past that they studied with someone who had an operatic/classical background.  Why?  Because that is where you will get your basics.  That is where/how you will build vocal strength and stamina.  That is where you will build vocal consistency.  

If you want to be a dancer, no matter what style you eventually want to specialize in, you will almost always start out studying ballet, and will often continue studying it alongside whatever other style you want to dance.  Why?  Because ballet gives you foundation and strength which plays into every other style of dance.  That is exactly what studying classical voice does for a singer.  If you want to be proficient as a vocalist, you MUST build your foundation.

There is a lot of misinformation and weird ideas about singing and technique out there and even other voice teachers get caught up in it.  Do your research on any teacher you are considering studying with, and understand that voice teachers are not "one size fits all."  Have the sense to listen to what your body is telling you, and to QUESTION your teacher if you feel something is out of place.  

Most importantly, do what you love!

*Edit - 
The original commenter claims studying with a teacher who specializes in opera will "overly strain the vocal cords if you're not an opera singer."  Think about that statement for a moment.  Really.  THINK about it.  No one is born an opera singer.  No one exits the womb singing Nessun Dorma like Pavoratti.  One must study and LEARN to be an opera singer.  By the commenter's logic, studying with a teacher specializing opera will overly strain the vocal cords of any new student who is coming in to study opera for the first time. If this were the case, there would be no healthy opera singers, because NO ONE is an opera singer when they begin.  Everyone's cords would be strained, and it would continue, because singing with the same technique regardless just reinforces the technique.  Strained vocal cords are a result of bad technique, NOT operatic training.

"And I know things now..."

Into the Woods is a show that holds a very special place for me.  At 15, I was cast in the Avon Players production as Rapunzel.  It was my first non-chorus role outside of school, and I was feeling very grown up as the youngest person in the cast.  Years later, I did back to back productions - a children's theatre version (adult, professional actors, but put on for a young audience, so, basically, just Act I with a few cuts), as the Baker's Wife, and a full production as the Witch.  A few more years past, and I found myself back as Rapunzel in a concert production.  This is a show which I will do anytime I am asked, and will take on any role.  The characters are complex, and the music is challenging and fun to sing.

Now, Disney and Rob Marshall are committing Into the Woods to film, and I could not be more appalled by the majority of the casting decisions.  Today's announcement of Youtube "personality" (seriously, that's how she's written up in the casting announcements "Youtube personality") and frequent Ellen guest Sophia Grace being cast as Little Red pushed me over the edge and prompted this blog.

If you are not familiar with Sophia Grace, here is her latest "official" video:

I'm not even going to comment on her singing ability, because in this instance, it's really irrelevant.  What IS relevant, is the fact that she is ten years old, and looks more like eight.  I'm seeing a lot of comments around the internet about her casting as Little Red being "adorable!"  "She's PERFECT!  Just exactly how Red should be!"  "So excited!!!  She deserves fame!!!!"  "She's spunky and cocky, just like Little Red!" "She is a total cutey and will do well in the movie." 

PEOPLE!  Have you ever SEEN Into the Woods?  Do you know the story AT ALL?!?!  Do you understand metaphor?  "Hello, Little Girl" is BLATANTLY sexual.  Don't believe me?  Here's the original Broadway version:

This isn't some little cutesy number.  This is pure LUST for an innocent on the part of the Wolf.  It's creepy enough when the girl in question is an appropriate age, but, stick a ten year old in the role, and it is pedophilia.

Also, let's look a bit more closely at that Wolf costume, shall we?

Please note, he is ANATOMICALLY CORRECT!  This was deliberate.  The idea was to heighten the audience's awareness - even if subconsciously - of what this really was, the seduction of an innocent.  It is not graphic, it is not in a state of arousal, it is just THERE.  I'm sure most audience members weren't even aware of it.  I wasn't until I watched a documentary where Stephen Sondheim discussed it.

Next up, we have Little Red's solo number, "I Know Things Now."  Guess what?  This song is also a METAPHOR!  It is not just a cutesy little number about learning her lesson not to talk to strangers.  It is about sexual awakening and loss of virginity.  It is all double meaning.  "...but he drew me close/and he swallowed me down/down a dark slimy path/where lie secrets that I never want to know...."  These are not lyrics that can be intelligently sung by a ten year old with little to no life experience.

Faerie Tales as we know them today are not what they were when they were written.  Faerie Tales were written to be life lessons, to warn children of the dangers of life, of not listening to their parents.  They were dark, and often scary.  What most people are familiar with today are Disney's retelling of these tales, which, of course, all include the "Happily Ever After" ending.  Not all of the original stories ended happily for the protagonist (the Little Mermaid is turned into sea foam as the Prince falls in love with and marries someone else), and villains often met darker, and more painful fates than simple death (in Snow White, the Dwarves make the Evil Queen a pair of iron shoes which are heated in a fire, and she is forced to dance in them until she dies).  We have forgotten where these stories come from and their meanings.

Stephen Sondheim went to the original Faerie Tales when he was putting together Into the Woods.  Red's tale is full of metaphors for growing up and sexual awakening.  Little Red was not a child in the original Faerie Tale, but an adolescent girl on the brink of becoming a young woman.  The red cape in itself is a symbol of menstruation.  The anthropomorphized Wolf is a metaphorical sexual predator.  That Hollywood is unable to see any of this and thinks a cute ten year old is capable of handling this material is disturbing.

I have been on the fence about seeing Into the Woods when it is released.  I loved the casting of James Corden as the Baker, Christine Baranski as Cinderella's Step Mother, and Tracy Ullman as Jack's Mother.  What I was uncomfortable with was Meryl Streep as the Witch, Johnny Depp as the Wolf (now just made CREEPY by the casting of Sophia Grace), and Emily "I know I'm not the best singer in the room, but I will TRY my best" Blunt as the Baker's Wife.  Even with those iffy casting choices, I was still leaning towards giving it a chance.  However, the announcement of Sophia Grace's casting has ensured I will not let any of my money go to support this film.  Once again, Hollywood has proven it does not respect the source material for musicals or the fans who have supported these shows over the years and are a built in audience for a film version.

Please, Hollywood, just STOP IT.

God Damn You Hyde, Take all Your Evil Deeds and Rot in Hell!

I know I am in the minority, but I really love Frank Wildhorn's Jekyll an Hyde.  Well, let me clarify that a bit - I love what it COULD be.  I discovered the Colm Wilkinson/Linda Eder concept album in my freshman year of high school.  It was my introduction to both Frank Wildhorn and Linda Eder.  As a potential show, it didn't *quite* work, but it had some really great stand alone songs - most of which have appeared in subsequent revisions/productions in whole or part, and some which went no farther.  My high school choir sang a medley of songs, and I was thrilled.

A few years later, I found the double disc concept album with Anthony Warlow, Linda Eder, Carolee Carmello,  and John Raitt.  This was my introduction to Anthony Warlow, who is truly on of the greatest musical theatre performers ever.  I listened to the score endlessly, memorizing it quickly, and imagining the possibilities for a full out production.  I saw this album as a what the show should be - beginning to end - with a few cuts (Letting Go, which had been kind of a fun pop track on the original album was now a very dull dirge that I hated, and Girls of the Night, while a nice enough track was superfluous and did nothing to advance the plot) and a few book scenes added. 

What came to Broadway in 1997 was, again reworked.  I was not in NYC at the time, and so didn't have the opportunity to see it.  The biggest offense committed - as far as I was concerned - was replacing Bring on the Men with Good and Evil.  I liked the addition of the quartet His Work and Nothing More.  I saw the tour in Los Angeles a few years later, relieved to see Bring on the Men reinstated.

I didn't think the show deserved as harsh a backlash as it got from the critics.  It was flawed.  It didn't quite meet the expectations I had built up for it in my head, but, it mostly worked.

To me, one of the biggest mistakes - in all incarnations after the original concept album - is in the writing of Jekyll's fiance, Emma (Lisa on the double disc album).  On the original concept album, she expressed desires for her life with Jekyll - "Henry, I adore you, always have done, always will do, but I too have dreams.  Maybe not as grand as yours, or hard to understand as yours, but none the less, my dreams."  I LOVED this about her.  Perhaps her dreams were nothing more than to marry and raise their children, but she was her own person.  On the double disc, she lost some of her individuality "Henry, I adore you, always have done, always will do, and your dreams are mine."  She became a more traditional musical theatre heroine - there to prop up her man. 

There was also a beautiful moment on the double disc between Emma and Simon Stryde which established a rivalry between Stryde and Jekyll for Emma's affections, and made it that much more tense when you found out Stryde was presiding over the Board of Govenor's meeting.  It also gave Emma a moment to assert herself as her own woman "But Simon, you knew, I had to be free.  What I choose to do is decided by ME."

All of this rambling brings me to the current Broadway revival of Jekyll and Hyde which closes tomorrow - five weeks early - at the Marquis Theatre.

Where do I even begin?  What had so much potential, what I had hoped might finally be getting the production it should have has become probably the most craptastic thing I have ever seen.  Too much hope (and hype) pinned on a "star" name and technical achievement to bring in an audience while ignoring storytelling, musicality, and the positives about the show.

Constantine Mouralis.  Broody Rock Star.

I knew going in I wasn't going to like Constantine Mouralis.  I find his voice much to thin and high for the role, and, let's face it, he can't act.  The moment I heard his voice over open the show - "In each of us, there are two natures..." - I just started laughing.  I couldn't take him seriously.  Then he began to sing.  Not only is his voice thin, but it is all in his nose, and he cannot enunciate.  He sounds like he as cotton in his mouth.  His Hyde is inexplicably Scottish.  If I didn't already know the lyrics (mostly, there were lyric changes made for this production) I'd have no idea what was being said. My mind screamed "Anthony Warlow is just down the street!  Someone get him in here NOW!"  I did like his performance of Alive! which worked as a more rocked out anthem. 

Let's not even get into the overblown, unnecessary  American Idol riffing throughout the show - and Constantine was not the only offender.  Musical theatre is - or should be - storytelling first and foremost.  There is NO shame in singing music as written and telling the story.  It is more effective than adding riffs and ornamentation that are nothing more than showing off.  (If you haven't already, be sure to read this article about Harry Conick Jr's experience as an American Idol mentor.)

The friend who joined me for this bit of theatrical masochism and I were both stifling giggles (and we weren't the only ones) and looking on in fascinated horror as each new song and scene was presented to us.  The order of events had changed a bit.

Facade is the first ensemble number.  When I saw the tour, it was staged as people walking around London and giving commentary.  Here, it was staged with London Elite preparing to face the world - starting in their underclothes and being dressed by their maids and valets, putting on their own facade while commenting on societal facades.  I actually liked the concept.  What I didn't like was the dead, flat sound presented by the ensemble.  I was unmoved.

The Board of Govenor's (which now precedes the engagement party scene, removing the moment to establish Stryde and Jekyll as rivals) had no passion.  There was no tension.  No outrage from the Board over Jekyll's proposal.  WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID STRYDE HAVE DREADLOCKS?!?!?!  The bombastic, sung response of "Nay, nay, nay, nay,  positively,absolutely, NAY!" from the double disc and original Broadway production was reduced to a single, disdainfully spoken "nay."  Dull.

The highlight of the cast for me - and, really, a deciding factor for seeing this production - was Richard White as Emma's father, Sir Danvers Carew.  Most will know him best as the voice of Gaston in Disney's Beauty and the Beast.  To me, he will always be the titular character of the Yeston/Kopit Phantom.  He is not given a lot in Jekyll and Hyde, but his voice is still as I remember it...and he's aged quite nicely.

Teal Wicks - Faces of Emma

I was surprised to see former Elphaba, Teal Wicks cast as Emma Carew - a role originated on Broadway by soprano Christiane Noll.  The keys for Emma were taken down, making her range more similar to Lucy's which took some dynamic away from their act two duet, In His Eyes. It also took out the floating soprano line in His Work and Nothing More.  She came across to me as uncharismatic, a bit too harsh, and popped in some of her own American Idol-esque riffs, which may have worked for Elphaba, but not for Emma. I felt no real chemistry between Emma and Jekyll. I was able to see from her performance why she was cast as Elphaba.  I was not able to see why she was cast as Emma.  I was disappointed.

Deborah Cox and fellow Girls of the Night.  There's a spider web metaphor happening here as the brothel/club the girls work at is called the Spider's Web.

Much hype has been made of Deborah Cox as Lucy Harris.  She is flawlessly beautiful.  Her voice is lovely.  Her stage presence is lackluster.  When Bring on the Men is one of the dullest moments of the production, there is a problem.  This may have had more to do with the director than the performer, but...wow.  WHAT a disappointment.  The staging for Bring on the Men was completely uninspired involving rope representing a spider web and no titillation or raunchiness.  The musical interlude in the song was moved from after "I suppose a rose by any other name/the perfume and the prick's the same" to after the next segment and before the last chorus.  Why?  Originally, the interlude was the moment for Lucy and the other girl's to entice their potential customers before starting in with "I like to have a man for breakfast each day..." further teasing the men.  The double entendres of this section were lost (..men are mad about my afternoon teas...they're quite informal, I just do it to please).  It just didn't work for me.  She delivered a lovely Someone Like You, garnering applause for a sustained money note, but, it was underwhelming.

I found Dana Costello as Nellie to be very engaging, and look forward to seeing more from her in the future.

Act two opened with Murder! Murder!  A number I have always enjoyed on previous recordings.  The melody was almost entirely changed.  Not as moving or effective, and there was just something missing.  An urgency.  A sense of panic.  I don't know...so much of the re-orchestrated music just felt utilitarian and unemotional.  I remember feeling excitement the first time I listened to the double disc concept album.  Musically, orchestrally, I expected to have similar feelings.  I didn't think they could mess up that bit of the show for me.  They did.

The projection panels utilized in the show for most of the scenery.  

Most of the shows designs utilized moving projection screens.  I could see the idea behind it.  Some of it worked.  Unfortunately, it was overused and over blown.  Again, I just wanted to scream "Just tell the STORY!"  Between the projections, orchestrations, "star" casting, and American Idol riffing, the storytelling was lost.  The good things about this show were lost.  It was entirely flash over substance.

Which brings me to this:

"This one is the nightmare that goes on..."

That's right.  The penultimate moment of the show.  Jekyll's confrontation with Hyde.  Oh. My. GOD!  This is the SO craptastic, artistically insulting.  It is no small thing to say I would take David Hasslehoff's scene chewing, hair whipping, cheese-tastic off pitch performance over this any day.  To this point, the Confrontation has always been performed live.  The actor whip-lashing between Jekyll and Hyde in a battle for supremacy.  In part, this was the reason there was an alternate actor for the role for matinee performances as it made the role very physically and emotionally draining.

Now, Jekyll's portion is performed live, while a pre-recorded vocal and image performs Hyde.  Between the psychedelic visual and annoyingly digitally altered Hyde vocal, it was beyond laughable. The way Hyde is sung could not possibly be sustained eight performances a week.  I doubt it could be sustained for two. Of course, much of it is digitally altered and can't actually be sung at all.  And oh, you "lucky" people who thought you avoided witnessing this amazing moment of craptasticness, I give you Constantine Mouralis' confrontation in ALL it's craptastic glory!

This "performance" is an insulting slap in the face to any performer who can actually  perform this.  It takes away from something that has the potential to be a brilliant and powerful acting moment and reduces it to laughable spectacle.  Some of my "favourite" moments here are Hyde's neck action around 1:10 the repeated "on" at around 1:34 the way Jekyll says "it's-a" around 2:45, and Jekyll's spin, signifying the end of the number at about 2:30.

The original Broadway production ran four years and 1,543 performances.  The current production could not sustain it's "strictly limited engagement" of thirteen weeks, ending five weeks early with 15 previews and 30 performances.  Pure spectacle and stunt casting will not provide you with a quality show.  Cast real talent - whether or not anyone has ever heard of them - and put your directorial focus on STORYTELLING.

I have always felt there is a good show somewhere in the hodgepodge of concept albums, Broadway and touring productions of Jekyll and Hyde.  Sadly, with this EPIC fail of a production, I think the final nail in the coffin has been set for Jekyll and Hyde, and we will not see another attempt at it outside of regional and community theatre.

I leave you with this, Deborah Cox's wholly inappropriate Opera Diva curtain call bow:

25 Years of Phandom

Phantom of the Opera has been part of my life since some time in 1991 or 1992, when I first heard the opening bars to the title theme played on the piano of my junior high choir piano...over 20 years ago.  That moment changed my life and gave me direction.  

On Saturday, January 26th, The Phantom of the Opera reached another milestone in it's record-breaking run at Broadway's Majestic Theatre, marking it's 25th consecutive year running, and I was beyond thrilled to be in the audience that evening.

Friday and Saturday nights were an amazing experience.  I met some amazing people and saw two truly brilliant performances of Phantom.  The current New York cast has some of the best voices I've heard in the Broadway production.  It is very close to being as good as my beloved Ahmanson theatre cast (let's be honest, for me, no cast will ever be that perfect).


Saturday's performance began at 6:30pm.  It was a black tie affair and mostly an invited audience.  Many former cast members from various productions were in attendance.  The house was packed, and there was definitely a charged energy in the air. The audience was composed of people who are very invested in this show, there were no "casual" audience members.  No tourists who were there simply because it was the show name they recognized.

The Majestic Stage Photo: Christi Esterle

The stage was not set for the auction that starts the show.  The chandelier, Raoul's wheel chair, and the Monkey music box were all in place on a bare stage under their dust covers.  The drapes that shroud the procenium were lifted up a bit so as not obscure the video screen that had been lowered, displaying the 25th Anniversary art work.

As the lights dimmed, the audience applauded, and a video began to play.  It was the same video that preceded the London 25th production at the Royal Albert Hall - clips from the Behind the Mask documentary.  The audience applauded each member of the creative team as they appeared on the screen.  After the video, the lights came up to half, and they began setting the stage for the auction.  It was interesting to see the pieces being flown in and set up.  You don't realize, when you walk into the theatre on a "normal" performance night just how much is on the stage to set that scene.  How many curtains are there...how many things are resting on the ground waiting to be flown into place during the overture like a quick costume change to set the scene for Hannibal.  There was applause for the stage hands as they fluffed the half scrim into place.

There were cheers as the chandelier sparked to life, beginning it's ascent to the ceiling of the theatre.  Applause broke out in a few places as the set pieces flew into place, creating the Hannibal rehearsal set.  As Carlotta, Michele McConnell has one of the clearest, brightest high notes I have heard in a Carlotta.  She is also quite funny.  I very much enjoy a humourous La Carlotta. Christian Sebek as Piangi nicely played up the Rome/Roma difficulty.  He does not hold out the G of "your army has come home" as I prefer, but his voice is lovely, and he has some excellent timing.  He really milked the climbing onto the elephant at the end of the Hannibal rehearsal.

There was a bit of entrance applause as Sierra Boggess took her place in the Hannibal ballet.  Interesting to note that Sierra performed en pointe rather than demi pointe.  Years ago, when I was determined to play Christine, I took five hours of ballet a week in order to be able to get up en pointe.  I was relieved when attending a performance of the tour, I realized Marie Danvers was on demi pointe.  Speaking with her at the stage door, she informed me that, due to insurance considerations, Christines were rarely allowed to dance en pointe even if they were capable.  Since discovering that piece of trivia, I have only ever seen Christines on demi pointe.  It was nice to see Christine en pointe.

Michele McConnel did a nice little bit of flirting with Andre during her Think of Me performance.  I truly enjoyed Tim Jerome and Jim Weitzer (a former Raoul) as Firmin and Andre.  They are the first pair of managers I have seen since Calvin Remsberg and Norman Large who appeal strongly to me...and I think I may even prefer Jim Weitzers' Andre to Norman Large, which is definitely saying something.

Sierra Boggess is truly beautiful as Christine.  I had seen video of her from her days with the Vegas production and, of course, saw her 25th Anniversary performance from London.  If you have read any of my previous blog posts, you know I am VERY particular about Christines, and I rarely like a Christine vocally.  I absolutely love Sierra's voice as Christine.  I think what it is for me is that she does not have a distracting vibrato as many other actresses in the role have - which is a preference of some casting folks.  Also, she has a much fuller lower register than other women I have heard in the role, with no noticeable register difference/shift.  She sounds like an adult with the training background Christine should have. The only "complaint" I have about her vocally is that I feel her Think of Me cadenza is too legato.  I prefer the first run to be a little clearer and more staccato.

The weak link in the cast for me is Kyle Barisich's Raoul.  I first saw/heard him perform at this years Broadway in Bryant Park, and he just...annoyed me.  His singing is very technical and attacking, and I don't get a lot of musicality from it.  He seems to just sing the notes on the page with little to no thought about interpretation.  I also feel his voice doesn't always sit very well in the range that the role is written.  

I have seen Hugh Panaro's Phantom in the past.  I have always liked what he does, but it hasn't necessarily stood out to me.  The last time I saw him was maybe a year ago, and I have to say, while he was good, what he did at the Friday and Saturday night performances was just brilliant, and showed quite a bit of growth from the past performances.  I still feel he comes on too strong in the Mirror, but, his high notes are Heavenly, and his line reading of "Turn around and face your fate" on Friday night was the best I've ever heard it.  I'm disappointed it was completely different on Saturday.  There was just something amazing in the nuance of Friday's delivery.  Hugh's Phantom is a very close second to Davis Gaines'.

Tim Jerome as Firmin is delightful.  He gives Firmin a rather dry sense of humour, and, at the beginning of Act I Notes, he is gleefully laughing while going through the newspapers on his desk and tossing them away.  I really felt this was a lovely touch.  There is something about him - and Jim Weitzer's Andre - that just really appeals to me.  There is a freshness to what they do and an obvious enjoyment they seem to have about doing it.

They have added a lyric change to Wandering Child which I found jarring - the Phantom's line has, to this point been "Too long you've wandered in winter/far from my FAR REACHING gaze..."  On Friday night, Hugh replaced "far reaching" with "fathering."  He seemed to trip over it a bit, like it was an oops, rather than intentional, but, upon speaking with other fans after the show, this apparently has been the lyric in London.  I'm not sure why they made the change here, and I find it very out of place, but, there you are.  

The Final Lair was beautifully done. I like that Hugh chose to almost despairingly whisper his "why, why?" to Christine as the boat leaves the stage, rather than shouting it as is often done. Sierra plays Christine very strongly here, which is an important thing to me.  Something I found interesting is that, rather than deliberately kneeling down in front of the Phantom in appeal for "Angel of Music/You deceived me/I gave my mind blindly," she appeared to trip and fall while trying to go to him.  " I don't remember noticing this on Friday night, but if it was a deliberate choice, I liked it. She also physically pushes the Phantom away from Raoul as he advances on them at "Do you end your days with me/or do you send him to his grave?"  Hugh's Phantom displays a sense of childish glee as he acknowledges Raoul's arrival at the lair's gate.  His "You have truly made my night!" is chilling.  Hugh becomes very childlike and lost after releasing Christine, and it really is heartrendingly beautiful.

I very much look forward to seeing a few more performances before cast changes in March.

Hal Prince and Cameron Mackintosh join the cast onstage.

Of course, Saturday's performance was a special occasion.  After the curtain call, the cast remained onstage to welcome director Hal Prince and  producer Cameron Mackintosh.  Both men spoke eloquently of how they came to be involved with the production and their experiences with it.  Cameron read a note from the shows choreographer Gillian Lynne who was unable to attend due to being in tech for Dear World in London, while Hal read a note from original Phantom Michael Crawford, who was also unable to attend.

Video of Sarah Brightman and Andrew Lloyd Webber

 Sadly, composer and creator Andrew Lloyd Webber was also unable to attend due to back surgery he was supposed to be having that day.  He appeared via video interview with his muse, original Christine, and former wife Sarah Brightman.  The video is available here.

Sarah Brightman

Following the video, Sarah Brightman put in an in person appearance and spoke about her involvement with Phantom and love for the show.  Luckily, she was styled much better than at the Royal Albert Hall performance.

Full Company

Hal Prince then brought out all the stage crew and behind the scenes members of the company to thunderous applause.  Seeing every single person who makes Phantom run night after night on the stage was really great.  There were approximately 150 people on stage - cast and crew - 39 of which have been with the production since the beginning.

John Owen Jones, Hugh Panarao, Sierra Boggess, Ramin Karimloo, and Peter Joback.  

The evening closed out with an encore performance of the title theme sung by Sierra Boggess, Hugh Panaro, and London Phantoms John Owen Jones, Ramin Karimloo, and Peter Joback - who was announced to be doing a limited run with the New York company.  Now, don't get me wrong, this performance was spectacular.  I am a fan of John Owen Jones and Ramin Karimloo (afraid I don't care for Joback), however, I was a bit offended that they did not use any former BROADWAY Phantoms. This was a celebration of Broadway's 25th Anniversary, and many former Phantoms -including my personal favourite, Davis Gaines - were in the audience that night and could easily have taken the place of the three London Phantoms.  Until Joback joins the cast in - I think - March, none of that trio has any affiliation with the Broadway company.  I do feel this was a bit of a slap in the face to former Broadway Phantoms and to the fans.  

Music of the Night

The finale ended with the full company singing a reprise of Music of the Night, the Chandelier getting the final "bow," and a blast of the confetti canon.

Chandelier "bow" Photo: Lisa Pacino

Myself and the fabulous Kim Stengel at O'Flaherty's

Aside from the show, the weekend's highlights for me were meeting up with some out of area phans whom I was acquainted with online, and spending a very late night into early Saturday morning at O'Flaherty's Irish pub where I met the fabulous Kim Stengel (Toronto, tour, and Broadway Carlotta).  She is my new favourite person,  truly.  Oh, and, she borrowed my lipstick for the Gala.

What completed Saturday evening for me was running into Davis Gaines as I was putting on my coat in the lobby after the show.  Davis was my first Phantom, and the first person I ever went to a stage door for.  He has always been incredibly kind and gracious to me.  He seemed genuinely pleased to run into me and, if he didn't remember who I was (I hadn't seen him in over ten years) he did an excellent job of acting like he did, greeting me with "Great to see you!" and a big hug.  I absolutely adore him.

At the Ahmanson Stage Door in 1993

 

And reunited at the Majestic in 2013

This was a weekend I will never forget.  Wonderful performances, new friends, and a renewed love for this show which has been such a part of my life.  Hearing the music for the first time gave me more solid direction than just wanting to be a "singer and an actress on the stage," my desire to audition for it brought me to New York for the very first time when I was 18, and my love for it has brought me into contact with some really wonderful people.  I hope it continues to run for many more years.  I look forward to more evenings as an audience member, and still hope to one day appear in a production myself.

Some relevant links for the evening:

Finale Encore Performances 
Some Post Show Interviews 
Behind the Scenes Tour with Kyle Barisich 
Broadway World Interview with Sierra Boggess 
CBS News: "Behind the Phantom of the Opera"

A "Smash"ing Rant.

I was ecstatic when I first heard about SMASH.  A TV show about Broadway that would actually be running on prime time TV?  Using REAL Broadway actors? Yes please!

Of course, I knew, this would be Broadway via Hollywood.  I knew it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but, hey...some things I can overlook. I mean, seriously, "Let's cast and start rehearsing for a show we only have a couple of songs for and only a very vague idea about the book."  This would NEVER happen. Other bloggers have already discussed this, and while it is annoying, in context of what this is, I can suspend my disbelief a bit.  Realistically, this is a show aimed at a primarily non-Broadway audience and we need to keep those who aren't "inside" interested.  Hopefully, the outcome is that it will interest someone who wasn't interested in it before to go see a show.

As an actress, however, I am really offended by the way Smash has perpetuated the "casting couch" myth.  Yes. MYTH.  I am not saying it never happens, but it really is pretty rare.  I have been auditioning for twenty years now (that's a freaky realization) and the only person who put out the "sleep with me if you want this" option was a record producer.  I was 18, desperate for my "break," and still had enough sense to turn him down.  And I didn't get the record deal.

What Smash presents us with is two actresses vying for the same role - a seasoned chorus girl ready to move into lead roles, and a wide-eyed new to the city girl from the Midwest.  Of these two girls, it's OBVIOUS - even to the most non-musical theatre person - that the chorus girl is the right choice to play Marylin Monroe.  Come on - she looks like Monroe without even trying and has the chops to back it up.  Midwest girl is talented, but looks kind of ridiculous trying to be Marylin Monroe and, frankly, just isn't quite "there" yet.

In the pilot episode, Mr Big Shot director invites naive Midwest girl to his apartment....at 10 o'clock at night...for a private audition.  I don't care HOW new you are to this, this SCREAMS red flag.  Midwest girl has a brief panic attack in director's bathroom, comes out in a man's dress shirt and, apparently, nothing else...does a Marilyn-esque "Happy Birthday," tells him "It's not going to happen," and leaves.  Good Midwest girl keeps her virtue.  And doesn't get the part.

Cut to episode two.  Now, I haven't actually seen it yet.  My DVR is being temperamental and didn't  record it, however, I immediately started looking online for what happened.  What happened is Miss Seasoned Chorus Girl DID sleep with Mr. Smarmy Director....and subsequently got the part.  Let's ignore the fact that she DESERVED the part in every way that matters.  The implication will always be that she got it because she schtupped the director.  THIS IS NOT OK.

I am disturbed that the creator of the series and writer of this episode - A WOMAN - felt  she had to go this way.  I don't understand why she felt this was the kind of drama/tension she needed/wanted to create.  I am offended as an actress.  What message is this sending to the girls with dreams of being in musical theatre? Yes, this is a crappy business and people get and lose parts for all kinds of ridiculous, non-talent related reasons.  Did we REALLY have to go the "sleeping with the director" route?

I really hope future episodes of Smash will downplay that this happened.  I really hope this does not become a large plot point - that Chorus Girl does not CONTINUE to sleep with Mr Smarmy Director and that Mr Smarmy Director does not use this as something to threaten Miss Seasoned Chorus Girl with losing the role.

Broadway and "The Dawg"

Last week, Betty Buckley called out American Idol and judge Randy Jackson on Twitter for the constant use of the term "Broadway" as a way of dismissing singers they don't care for .  I was thrilled someone so respected in the industry was finally speaking out against this and saying everything I have been saying since season one of American Idol.  Ms. Buckley's comments were taken seriously by Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe, who said he would "speak to Randy."

Apparently, Randy was spoken to, because he has responded.  Unfortunately, Mr. Jackson's response only reinforces his ignorance on the matter, and continues to anger me.  Mr. Jackson points out that this has been going on for all 11 seasons of American Idol.  Really?  So that makes it OK?  People have also been upset about it for 11 seasons.   Simon Cowell's constant use of "Broadway," "Musical Theatre," and "Cabaret" as an insult turned me off of Idol in the first season.  Betty Buckley is just the first well known person in the industry to be so vocal in speaking out about it.  Randy also played the "free speech" card.  Free speech has to do with your ability to speak out against the GOVERNMENT without fear of being prosecuted for it.  It does not cover making ignorant statements about performance.  Randy further went on to demonstrate he is still ignorant of both "Broadway singers" and how vibrato works.

Randy claims that  "A lot of people who sing broadway, do not have control of their vibrato, which does not easily lend itself to singing other styles of music."  Please clarify this statement, Mr Jackson.  Are you referring to people who come on AI and audition with Broadway?  Are you speaking of people who sing Broadway music for fun, who have little or no training, and no professional credits?  If this is the case, you may be right.  These people don't have the background and training to know how to control their vibrato.  In this case, it's fine and shouldn't even be taken into consideration or mentioned.  


IF, however, Mr Jackson, you are referring to trained professionals who have spent years studying voice, perfecting their craft, and who have worked or currently work on Broadway, you are completely WRONG.  There may be a few EXCEPTIONS to this RULE, but, by and large, someone with the background I have laid out here has FULL control of their vibrato and can utilize it in the manner most appropriate for whatever it is they are singing.

As an example: several years ago, I lost out on a role I worked VERY hard for.  Part of why I lost it was because I listened to my voice teacher and a very respected audition coach about how I should sing in my audition.  Almost every actress I have ever heard sing the role uses what, in my opinion, is too much vibrato.  Both of these people, however, told me to "straight tone" in my audition. While in my head I was screaming "YOU ARE SO WRONG!" I took their advice, adjusted what I was doing - adjusted how I used my vibrato - and sang that way in my audition.  The feedback from the casting director? "Personally, I prefer to hear more vibrato." 

Vibrato is ALWAYS present in the human voice to some degree.  How much, or how little vibrato is used (in a trained singer) is a CHOICE, and different people listening have their own preferences to what is "good."  Further, what is "good" changes depending on what is being sung.


I would also like know what Broadway shows Mr Jackson has seen where a singer has had "no control of their vibrato"?  I find it difficult to believe that someone with "no control" would be cast in a major production.  I have certainly heard plenty of singers in theatrical productions who I feel have too much vibrato, but never anyone who I felt had NO control of their vibrato - no control of their vibrato would mean no control of their breath support.


Is American Idol looking for "Broadway" singers?  No, they are looking for pop singers, and someone who comes in and does not have a "pop sound" does not fit the format of AI. Not having a pop sound is not just an issue of vibrato, either. They need to be told they aren't right for AI, not told they are "Broadway" - they may not be!  This use of "Broadway," "Musical Theatre," and "Cabaret" as an INSULT needs to STOP.

Little Boe's Peep

I realize I'm a bit late commenting on this bit of news.  Unfortunately, I have been working seven days a week at the "pay the bills job," and by the time I get home, I can't focus enough to write.  This article: Opera singer Boe bites the (tiny) hand that feeds him
however, has been on my mind since I read it, and I have been wanting to blog about it ever since.

I'm not really familiar with Mr. Boe's work - I've only ever heard/seen him perform as Jean Valjean in the 25th Anniversary Les Mis Concert, and, to be very honest, I didn't care for him.  My opinion of Mr. Boe as a performer, however is irrelevant in regards to this.

In a rather public forum, Mr. Boe has admitted to not really caring for the genre of music in which he has made his name as a performer.  He has, of course, been blasted for it by fans and other professionals in that genre.  This brings up the question - Does one HAVE to like the work they do in order to be proficient or to even excel at it?  Mr. Boe is known primarily as an opera singer, however, he admits to preferring (*gasp*) rock and pop music to opera.  He admits to not attending opera and even to (blasphemy!) falling asleep while watching opera.

If you had an accountant who admitted to you that, while that was the way he earned his living, and he had a gift for it, he didn't care for accounting, would you think less of him?  Would you blast him for not eating, sleeping, and breathing his profession even in his off hours?  Would you fire him and look for another accountant?  This is exactly the attitude being projected at Mr. Boe.

Award-winning opera director Sir Jonathan Miller, in defense of opera felt the need to take a dig at Mr. Boe by pointing out that "...he sings rather well but I know he comes from something other than opera. He was a car mechanic, I believe."  Really?  You mean he is less of a talent because he had a job other than singing prior to having a singing career?  Whatever Mr. Boe - or any other singer - did in order to support themselves, in order to pay for their training, in order to pursue their dream, should have no relevance or bearing on the how they are treated by the industry.  The TALENT, what they do in the audition or performance is the only thing that matters.  At least, it is the only thing that SHOULD matter.  This is the kind of snobbery and elitism about the opera world that I detest - and a large reason why I didn't pursue an operatic career, much to the dismay of past voice teachers.

My dream is, and always has been to perform on Broadway.  Yet, when I started taking my singing seriously and studying, most of my teachers were from a classical/operatic background.  I was asked again and again "Why do you want to waste your time on musical theatre? You're a lyric coloratura - you can sing Lakme!"  Well, quite honestly, like Mr. Boe, if I am not performing it, opera, in general, bores me - Nixon in China totally put me to sleep.  I love singing the arias.  I don't care for a lot of the more incidental things, in most cases, I don't care for opera as a whole (there are exceptions - operas and opera singers I will do whatever I have to in order to see them), and, most importantly, I don't like the elitist attitude that comes more often  from the producers, directors, and staff of opera companies than from the performers.  When not performing, I don't feel opera is "my world" any more than Mr. Boe, but when the opportunity presents itself to perform opera, I enjoy it.  I put myself into what I am singing heart and soul.  I am a dedicated performer, whether what I am performing appeals to my aesthetic or not.  Would you know from my performances that I don't particularly care for opera?  Would you know from Mr. Boe's performance?  No.  Our personal feelings are irrelevant as long as our performances do not suffer because of our personal feelings.