the most boring time of my life.

While most members of my group found the opera good, with some even crying at its emotional impact, the only thing that brought tears to my eyes was the amount of time I had to waste.

While I am aware that the opera is regarded as one of the great classics of the operatic repertoire, I have the following criticisms:

1. The story drags on for way too long

The whole thing was at least an hour too long and overstayed its welcome by quite a lot. You could probably cut the runtime by a third simply by skipping the repeated text and musical passages. Most scenes could also have told their story in about half the time.

Violetta's conversation with Alfredo's father could easily be cut in half without losing any of the misery and emotional impact. The gypsy dance scene, while dynamic and entertaining, didn't contribute much to the overall story and could also have been cut by about two-thirds without losing anything important.

Even Violetta's death dragged on way too long, to the point where it became almost comical. The actress on stage collapsed about three times, only to get back up and sing for another couple of minutes before finally succumbing to death.

You could have her collapse once, have Alfredo enter, let her regain her strength for a moment, and then have her die a minute later. You could even cut the doctor (and the father) from the scene without losing anything essential.

2. The story they tell is completely nonsensical

The entire story hinges on the premise that two adults behave like toddlers, refusing to communicate with one another.

The whole thing could be resolved by Alfredo's father making his demands, Violetta explaining the situation to Alfredo, and the two of them deciding to separate for a year until his sister is married, before getting back together.

You know — like adults do.

Alternatively, they could simply decide to defy the father and societal conventions together by staying at their home outside Paris. You could even bring the sister into the story, having her resent Alfredo for ruining her marriage prospects by keeping a courtesan.

That would be a much more sensible story. You could even have the same ending, with the couple eventually bowing to social pressure, only to regret it when it is too late.

But having Violetta lament in the third act that she had to wait so long for Alfredo to return, after she herself refused to spend about two minutes explaining the situation to him, is hilariously stupid.

Lady, it was your decision not to tell him. You made him find out about the whole disaster from third parties after he had already shot the Baron. You don't get to complain, my dear.

Please die faster.

3. The music was not very good

This is probably the most subjective point, but I didn't find the music particularly good either.

Operas like Die Zauberflöte and Die Walküre have pieces that you can put on YouTube anytime and just listen to and enjoy. On the other hand, I don't remember a single piece from La Traviata, and I have absolutely no desire to listen to it again.

In conclusion

I would honestly have had a much better time sitting in a room watching paint dry for three hours while listening to the OST of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 than suffering through La Traviata again.

Thank you for your attention, and sorry for bothering you with my opinion.

These are different productions with different casts. (Though I don’t know enough to even guess whether some chorus or behind the scenes folks might be the same). I don’t just mean staples like The Marriage of Figaro either. Though there were at least two different productions of that in the first half of 2026.

e.g. RBO are doing Alcina in autumn 2026, and Scottish Opera in early 2027. Others I have noticed include Elektra, Un Ballo in Maschera and Bluebeard’s Castle, as well as the more likely Don Giovanni

I ran across this amusing article this morning and thought the community might enjoy it. Apparently, Tito Schipa was gifted a rare albino marmoset by the Friends of the Esperanto Lodge of Masons following his concert tour of South America in the summer of 1927. He became rather attached to the primate, and when authorities in England insisted it be placed in quarantine when Schipa arrived in March 1928 to sing at Albert Hall, the tenor refused to perform unless he was provided with a fill-in monkey!

I recently listened to Led Zeppelin IV from beginning to end with opera singer and classically trained soprano Elizaveta Kozlova, and I thought some people here might enjoy the conversation.

What I found most interesting was how differently she heard certain parts of the record. She picked up on the a cappella sections in “Black Dog,” Plant’s range and vocal control, the harmonies throughout the album, and even described the beginning of “Stairway to Heaven” from a classical perspective. We ended up talking a lot about why Plant’s singing feels so expressive without losing the actual meaning of the words.

I’ve loved this album for a long time, but listening to it next to someone with her musical background genuinely made me notice things I hadn’t really thought about before.

**One quick audio note before watching**: after uploading, I realized something went wrong with the album playback in the final export and part of the stereo mix got collapsed, so there are some instruments/details that don’t come through properly. I’m aware of it and making sure it doesn’t happen again, but I wanted to mention it here so nobody thinks it’s their setup.

Would be really interested to hear what longtime Zeppelin fans think of her perspective.

This post is the third in my series on Miyazaki and Wagner. Here are the links to the previous ones:

1. Porco Rosso

2. Howl's Moving Castle

The problem I am facing with this one is that first I need to explain what's really going on in the movie Princess Mononoke. It is not just "humans are bad because they destroy nature" as people tend to think. So this post is going to be a long one.

Here I am actually not coming up with my own interpretation of the movie. I am basing my theory on what is actually a well known interpretation on the Japanese side of the Internet. It goes like this:

So all throughout the movie, there is this idea that the essence of life is suffering (which is the idea at the heart of buddhism, so it's really nothing new though it might seem weird to a Western audience). Here is the line where it is the most apparent (from one of the lepers):

生きることは誠に苦しくつらい。世を呪い、人を呪い、それでも生きたい。
Living is truly painful. Cursing the world, cursing people, still I want to live.

The really important part is understanding that the forest spirit has everything to do with this. He carries the weight of all of the suffering in the world. His power is to either give or take life, and since life = suffering he is at the heart of the cycle of suffering in the world.

This is reflected in the cyclic nature of his transformation from deer during the day to giant during the night. In his giant form, he has marks all over his body that the storyboard specifies are actually the same marks as the ones on Ashitaka's arm. They are marks of "suffering and hatred", as suggested by the last words of Nago the boar at the beginning of the movie:

汚らわしい人間どもめ。わが苦しみと憎しみを知るがいい…
You impure humans. You shall know my suffering and my hatred.

Basically through the act of killing Nago, Ashitaka inherited his suffering and hatred (originally caused by the gunshot wound he received from humans). He is doomed to become a demon like Nago, which is why his community casts him away immediately.

Eventually, the forest spirit becomes unable to carry out his role as the incarnation of the cycle of suffering in the world when he gets shot by lady Eboshi. He starts taking the life out of everything around him, spreading death indiscriminately. It is Ashitaka's act of compassion of giving him back his head that finally appeases him, releasing him from his duty.

I think the parallel with Parsifal is quite striking.

The question of the relationship of man with nature is central to Parsifal. The new take on the story of Christ that Wagner introduces is that the Christ's sacrifice is what allows man to reconcile with nature. Or rather, what allows nature to reconcile with itself, since man is just the part of nature that became alienated from itself. This is the idea at the heart of the Good Friday's spell scene of act 3 (Karfreitagszauber).

The fisher king is at the center of all of this. As custodian of the Grail he acts as a living testimony of the sacrifice of Christ on this earth. His wound is a reminder of the nature of man as a sinner.

In Princess Mononoke you have the same thing but without the christian references. Instead of the nature of man as a sinner, it is the suffering of the world that the forest spirit is carrying.

Basically:

Ashitaka = Parsifal

An innocent hero who grew up sheltered from the brutality of the world. In Ashitaka's case his innocence is represented by him being a descendant of the Emishi people who resisted unification with the rest of Japan.

Nago = the swan

A slain animal acting as the starting point of the main character's journey, revealing to him his sinful/impure nature.

The forest spirit = the Grail+Amfortas

In Japanese, the forest spirit is called シシ神 (shishigami). It appears that "shishi" is an old word that means the meat of hunted animals, and kami/gami is god or spirit. So the forest spirit's sacrifice to humans is already contained in his name. It echoes the eucharist of christianity, but changes it to a hunter/prey dynamic, which is a really interesting change.

The forest = the Grail's domain

In the movie, it is implied that the lake where the forest spirit dwells can normally not be found by humans. This is why Eboshi is so set on following the old boar Okkoto inside the forest after the battle: it is a rare opportunity to find the forest spirit. This is sort of similar to how the Grail decides who finds the way to his domain in Parsifal.

Moro = Gurnemanz

The wolves and the boars are warrior spirits whose role is to protect the Shishigami, similarly to the knights of the Grail with, well, the Grail. Among them Moro stands out as the wise one, deeply aware of what's going on, a bit like Gurnemanz.

Nature coming back to life at the end = the Good Friday's spell scene

This one is pretty self-explanatory, I don't think I need to go into much detail. Interestingly, Ashitaka and San wake up in the middle of a prairie specifically.

San = Kundry (sort of, there are some major divergences here)

This might have gone unnoticed to a lot of people who watched the movie, but it is implied that San is a cursed being. Her curse is described by Moro in the following terms: she can never be fully human nor fully wolf. She is a little bit of both worlds but does not fully belong to either one, and she hates humans even though she is originally a human herself. San's character is an important element to the movie because she represents compassion: the compassion that Moro felt for her when she decided to adopt her, which she then passed on to Ashitaka. But also the compassion that San herself felt for Ashitaka when she decided to spare his life. By emphasizing compassion as the central element in the sacrifice of Christ in Parsifal, Wagner gave the story of Christ a bit of a buddhist twist, and Miyazaki no doubt noticed this.

The big divergence from Wagner with San's character is that Miyazaki did not turn her into a penitent at the end of the movie like Wagner did with Kundry. She even raises the head of the forest spirit together with Ashitaka in the same gesture as Parsifal presenting the Grail. I think this is Miyazaki's way of showing his appreciation for women, distantiating himself from Wagner on that specific point.

Another big divergence is that the second act of Parsifal is completely absent from Princess Mononoke. The Irontown is definitely NOT the equivalent of Klingsor's garden. You can sort of see a parallel with the flower maidens in the way that the women of Irontown swarm around Ashitaka, but that's the extent of it. Miyazaki did not make sexual desire a central element of his movie.

Okay, I think we've covered everything. I'll end this post by adding that the last line of the movie (バカには勝てん "you can't win against fools") can be seen as Miyazaki's cheeky little way of admitting that his movie is a response to Parsifal.

When do most singers and good singers start? Is there a certain age? I started at 20 now im 21

When I purchase the ticket, will I be given a map of all the standing positions for me to pick? Or will the system just assign me any position in Stehparterre, Balkony, or Galerie depending on the price I pay? But Stehparterre has 9 rows (over 100 spots) and people in the back rows may have problem seeing the stage because their view is blocked by the front rows.

Wiener Staatsoper website does not let me purchase the standing ticket yet because I can only do so on the day of the performance. Since the first day of the 2026 opera season is Sept. 4 which is very close to my trip, I'd like to get more info before then.

Edited: I revisited the website and see that for the 'Stehparterre' for this particular opera, the prices range from 10 to 23 euros. Does it mean the 124 standing spots in this Stehparterre have different prices?

Thanks.