"Let's win one for the gipper!"

In my uptown Manhattan neighborhood, the Times is rarely delivered on "time," as it were -- or even at all -- on many occasions. We're little brown people who should be reading the Daily News or Post, as far as persons like, say, David Remnick or Manohla Dargis (Ronnie Reagan fan, Manohla?) are concerned. Some of us like to read all the wonderfully entertaining New York papers. ("Incoherence in 'The New York Times'" and "Incoherence in 'The New Yorker'" then "Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!" and "David Denby is Not Amused.")

Persons writing for America's newspaper of record have usually attended schools, like Yale University, often regarding themselves as our moral "superiors." Billions of men and women in places like Pakistan are beyond the pale, rarely seen in Long Island or at the Harvard Club. Sadly, these days, America's self-styled "newspaper of record" is often written (poorly) by half-educated persons who say "Whatever" a lot.

Whatever. I think that David Denby and Martha Nussbaum may be victims of the usurpations and violations that have been identified in these posts. "Cubanoids," please leave copyright-protected writings -- including my works -- alone. Have a "pastelito"? Why don't you rattle your jewelry, once for "yes," twice for "no"? Is there a new mall in Coral Gables? ("Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!" and "Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security!")

A case in point is the embarassing review of a recent "Lucia" at the MET Opera by one "Zachary Wolfe." Andres Openheimer? Lyzette Alvarez? There may be a "real" Zachary Wolfe who is irrelevant to this discussion. One of the "Cubanazos or Cubanazas" coping with English as a second language without learning a first language must have produced this review. Is this about payola at the Times? How do these people write for any publication? This is not The Miami Herald, "Andresito." ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")

Zachary Wolfe, "All Cried Out, Lucia Cedes Emotion to Men," in The New York Times, February 26, 2011, at p. C1.

This reviewer -- I am afraid that he or she cannot be called a critic -- comments:

" ... 'My own tears have abandoned me,' she ["Lucia di Lammermoor" as sung by Natalie Dessay] pathetically laments."

"Lucia" is sufficient for Opera lovers to identify the role. As we "boldly go" where no reporter has gone before -- heedless of split infinitives! -- lamenting, pathetically, the decline in education and popularity of illiteracy in America, we are forced to point out that Ms. Dessay is the Maria Callas of her generation.

Ms. Dessay is celebrated as a great singing actor -- especially in this role -- whose mad scene is the classic example of a bravura performance, a fact which is not mentioned in this so-called "review."

The difference between coloratura and belcanto is not discussed, nor are we told what is distinct about later verismo singing. Why is Donizetti different from Bellini, or early Verdi? Why do belcanto roles offer such splendid opportunities for fiorittura? Notice this self-contradiction in the first paragraphs of the review:

"In this revival of Mary Zimmerman's grayly atmospheric production, there is an empty space where Lucia ought to be." -- Do you have any idea what you are talking about? -- "Not that there's not a soprano onstage, [double negative!] and a redoubtable one, [what?] in Ms. Dessay, returning to the company after a two-year absence. Her cool voice has thinned a bit, but it still impresses in coloratura [coloratura phrasing? coloratura what?] and rises to the score's climactic moments. [There is usually one climax in an Opera.] The issue is not the voice so much as what that voice should serve: the character."

This is the kind of writing that gives bullshit a bad name. Notice the self-contradiction in the paragraph that immediately follows the foregoing analysis:

"Ms. Dessay and Ms. Zimmerman have clearly, carefully considered every motion [?] (the soprano's physical performance Thursday was essentially identical to the one she gave in 2007, when the production was new) and the result is a Lucia almost entirely blank."

I thought you said Ms. Dessay's voice had thinned recently and that she paid no attention to the dramatic interpretation of Lucia creating a "blank" on stage? Now you tell us that this performance was "identical" to the much-celebrated interpretation of the role in 2007 when Ms. Dessay's voice was universally regarded as flawless as opposed to "thin."

How was the MET orchestra's playing in the difficult passages? Conducting? We do not know because this reviewer has left us with a "blank."

Ms. Dessay's dramatic qualities were celebrated by Mr. Thomasini in this same newspaper (Anthony Thomasini does know Opera and can write very well), also by those of us who have only seen Ms. Dessay's interpretation of "Lucia" in video versions.

I agree with Mr. Thomasini about Ms. Dessay and was thrilled to see his interview of Leontyne Price on the CUNY channel.

In an interview with Charlie Rose a few years ago and several times since then, this magnificent thespian quality of Ms. Dessay's singing was analyzed extensively with the performer. Why insult this soprano for what happens to be one of her greatest strengths? ("'The Reader': A Movie Review" and "'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review.")

No effort is made to contrast this "Lucia" with Beverly Sills or Joan Sutherland and Renata Scotto -- all of whose legendary performances as "Lucia di Lammermoor" have been celebrated by New York audiences and are available in classic recordings. ("A Night at the Opera.")

There is no discussion of the novel by Sir Walter Scott that provides the basis for the libretto, Romanticism as it is set forth in this work, feminist interpretations of the role in recent years, comparisons to Ophelia or Juliet, Madame Butterfly and Lady MacBeth would have been welcome. There is zero analysis of the score, illiterate commentary and ungrammatical prose. Regardless of politics, this cannot be acceptable in The New York Times. (Encore, e Da Capo! "Nihilists in Disneyworld.")

Luciano Pavarotti and Carlo Bergonzi are the best tenors in recordings of this classic lyrical tenor role. I have heard many singers perform this work on stage and enjoyed several recordings -- including Domingo and Carreras, Gigli and Kraus -- I have yet to find one well-sung interpretation of this part that fails to move me.

I have been known to sing my own versions of the tenor's threnody in the shower to much applause from appreciative audience members admiring my ... singing.

Joseph Calleja is earning an excellent reputation among Opera audiences -- if I recall correctly this young man's name -- as a superb lyrical-spinto voice. An exiting voice to follow is the young Mr. Fabiano from New Jersey. I suggest to the recent winner of the MET voice competition that he make a move to Manhattan -- soon.

Insufficient attention is devoted to Mr. Calleja's efforts in this notice of a Lincoln Center performance. The orchestra and conductor receive scant attention. "Ardent" is not the best word for this tragic and pained role of "Edgardo." The finale to this Opera is not "hopelessly anticlimactic." This "tomb scene" is one of the most famous "climaxes" in all of Opera. No explanation of the allusion to King Lear in "Edgardo" as the tenor character's name? Why not?

New York is a unique city in America and the world where audiences are highly sophisticated about performances and reviews. Today most American cities enjoy a respectable level of classical music performances and contain populations that support such performances. Curiously, this spreading sophistication may even include Miami. Cubanoids have been known to attend concerts in a glittering new concert hall designed by Frank Gehry located in South Beach, often while leaving sand behind and wearing their bathing suits. Cigar, Mr. Rubio?

People know this "old" music and America's great jazz performances, popular music, and performers (including country music and rock-n-roll) because they are considered part of our national wealth and power as a civilization with a global presence.

These performances matter and should be treated with respect and some attention by persons competent to comment on these works. Whoever wrote this review for the Times is not such a competent reviewer. John Mellenkamp's recent concert at Radio City Music Hall was better reviewed, but still not what is expected in the big apple. We deserve better than this from a newspaper we love.

How about delivering the paper on Sundays to us "little people" in the barrio? Read The New York Times, every day, and feel free to get angry about disasters like this so-called review by "Zachary Wolfe." (It's "Simon Wolfe" in Daniel Martin which is an encrypted version of John Fowles' name, by the way, and -- if he were still alive -- I am sure that Mr. Fowles would agree that "Zachary Wolfe's" review is crap.)

Mazeltov.