One big positive is that Goodwin's non-traditional approach is generating a lot of discussion. People are actually thinking about what they are seeing and hearing and debating the merits. The memories of this concert will not soon fade away. People were engaged (and some even enraged!), which is a nice change from the passive experience that can often rob a concert of any passion or meaning.
Goodwin chose to present the Passion in a semi-staged format. This was a stroke of brilliance. The St. John Passion is brimming with dramatic elements both textually and musically, and the addition of the staging enhanced that greatly. It was much easier to keep track of the characters and their functions.
The work opened with the performers milling about on stage and in the audience. Goodwin himself was seated with the violins and chatting with them until he abruptly stood up and gave the downbeat. Unfortunately, this surprise caused a twitter to run through the audience, which is really not the right emotion for this work. Anybody who knows the St. John would have been a little unnerved at this point, as only of few of the chorale members were on stage. However, they all had made it to their positions by the time of their first emphatic "Herr!" This "call to worship" was quite effective.
The physical set up was quite different from what we are used to seeing. The orchestra was to the left, at an angle facing the conductor. The chorale was to the right, similarly canted toward center stage. In the middle was an empty area that allowed for action and interaction of the different characters. The most notable of these was the Evangelist, sung and acted superbly by Rufus Mueller. Mueller has done the St. John this way several times, and it was evident that he was clearly at ease with the format. He would sing from almost any part of the stage, and you were never sure where he was going to pop up next. This really helped keep people paying attention to the narrative.
Bach's passions have a very particular structure to them. There is the narrative of the story of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus that is sung by the Evangelist and the various characters of the story. One of these characters is the crowd, which is sung by the chorale (and here I am using the term to refer to the professional choral singers directed by the ever impressive Andrew Megill around which the Carmel Bach Festival focuses). The crowd can change personas, at times representing the disciples, the crowd of onlookers and even the Roman soldiers casting lots for Jesus' garments. Soloist David Newman handled the part of Jesus with aplomb.
Then we have the solo arias which are accompanied normally by a handful of instruments which function as commentary on the action. Lastly, there is the congregation. Of course, we do not have a congregation in a concert setting, so that function was taken by the Youth Chorus (ably prepared once again by John Koza). They sang the "chorales" (and here I mean what were in effect the hymn tunes that Bach's congregation would be familiar with). This is the part of Bach's structure that allows for participation by the spectators and involves them personally in the story.
This often is lost in a traditional performance, but Goodwin's inspired move to place the Youth Chorus in the balcony put the audience in the center of everything. This made us feel much more a part of the performance than passively watching a wall of singers on the stage. The surround sound effect was truly wonderful.
However, the execution of the staging was often problematic. First of all, Goodwin had everyone in casual street dress. I presume this is to get rid of a perceived wall of formality to allow the audience to feel more a part of the proceedings. Unfortunately, this did not work particularly well. Everything looked sloppy, and this was a major distraction. Goodwin himself was one of the sloppiest, with his shirt tails hanging out. Frankly, his appearance was a contributor to the mirth described at the opening of the piece. Costumes are important. True, tuxedos and evening gowns would not have worked for the staging. Nevertheless, there is a middle ground. Sloppy dress leads to sloppy performance, and there were many times that came through. It felt disrespectful. Perhaps a more uniform approach would have worked better. Something like dark pants with turtlenecks. Anything would have been better by the embarrassing array of shorts, capris, checkered shirts and the such like that we were subjected to.
Another problem was the staging of the chorale singers. They clearly had been given very little direction, and so their actions and intensity dramatic focus were haphazard and uneven. Don't get me wrong. These singers are true professionals and have an incredible sound. They could have easily made it work given some guidance. It was very disappointing to see them like this.
Goodwin does not seem to understand the acoustics of Sunset Center. The placement and movement of the soloists for dramatic effect resulted in them spending much time in acoustically unfavorable locations. The balance was not good. One major exception was tenor Matthew Anderson, a former member of the chorale. His voice rang out gloriously at all times, and was one of the high points of the concert.
The only one of the main soloists who was retained from prior seasons was soprano Kendra Colton. Interestingly enough, the format actually benefited her performance, as the movement around the stage softened her physical presence. Both of her arias were delightful. Unfortunately, the other two soloists did little more than to remind us how good Sanford Sylvan and Sally Anne Russell are. Baritone Alexander Dobson has a pleasant voice, but it does not have the ring, emotion or intensity that Carmel audiences have become accustomed to at the Festival. The same goes for countertenor Daniel Taylor. His performance was completely forgettable. This is not a criticism of using the countertenor voice for these arias. There are many outstanding countertenors in the world. Taylor and Dobson sang serviceably, just not inspiringly. In fact, any of the chorale members in those voice ranges could have done as well (if not better) as the featured soloists.
Balance was not particularly good between the instrumentalists and the singers as well. The opening chorus was marred by the modern oboe cutting through the texture and overwhelming the sound. Roger Cole is a wonderful player, but the instrument is very loud by its nature and in the leaner sound world of Baroque music it can be problematic. Again, much of the balance problem is likely secondary to the placement of the various performers on the stage.
Goodwin played an interesting emotional card by having two of the chorales performed completely unaccompanied. This is not particularly stylistic, as continuo would have been de rigeur for these pieces. However, the purity of the sound of the human voices without adornment or support was very effective, and was to me the most moving part of the afternoon.
Audience members had different reactions. Some walked out while some were extremely moved. The performers themselves indicated that they were emotionally affected by the presentation. This makes sense, as they would have to actively engage their emotions as part of the acting experience. I was not moved emotionally, though I did enjoy myself. All in all, a mixed bag, and not in my opinion worth the price of admission. It will be interesting to see where Goodwin goes from here.
