(Photo: Diego Bendezu)

Acclaimed American tenor Michael Fabiano, of Italian descent, has performed in leading opera houses throughout the world, including extensively at the Metropolitan Opera, San Francisco Opera, Teatro Real of Madrid, Berlin Staatsoper, Teatro Liceu, Vienna Staatsoper, Lyric Opera of Chicago, Royal Opera House in London, Teatro alla Scala in Milan, Teatro San Carlo in Naples, and Paris Opera.

He was the recipient of the 2014 Beverly Sills Artist Award and the 2014 Richard Tucker Award, and the first singer to win both awards in the same year.

OperaWire spoke with Fabiano at the Royal Ballet and Opera in London, where he is performing as Manrico in Verdi’s “Il Trovatore.”

OperaWire:
How were rehearsals for “Il Trovatore,” and what do you make of the production?

Michael Fabiano:
I think this production is very well-thought-out. The director did a lot of good research about the era and background of the piece, which I very much appreciate, and which my castmates do too. Rather than one big storyline, the director has created a series of vignettes in a very interesting way, on an otherwise bleak stage made up of stairs. Because it’s so naked, it requires the artist to go deep inside to figure out: Well, what am I doing? What is my intention?

That makes for a more challenging rehearsal experience than usual because it requires more context, more thought, and more precision of intention in gesture and in movement, which yields a beautiful result in the end. In my case, the preparation process requires a lot of running up and down stairs. How about that?

To prepare, I’ve been to the gym every day, on the step-mill for 45 minutes a day, so that my heart rate will not shoot up right before a key moment of music when I’m climbing eight or more steps at a time. I very much respect this director’s vision, so I’m all in, musically and physically, and will bring my absolute best.

OW:
In OperaWire’s review of your Met performance of “Il Trovatore,” you were described as a “True Verdi Tenor.” Speaking recently with tenor Riccardo Massi, he said that:
“I think no one on earth wrote better for the voice than Verdi.” Is that something you would agree with?

MF:
I agree fully. One hundred percent. He’s miraculous. It’s medicine for the voice. He’s a centralizing composer for a large-voiced tenor. He brings you back to ground zero. So if I’ve done Verismo or some “Carmen” where I can get a little more dramatic in color, Verdi forces me back to getting a very focused sound, an arc of sound, and I’m very appreciative of that. “Trovatore,” for one, does that. “Un ballo in Maschera” for sure does that, and “Luisa Miller.” All those roles do that kind of thing.

OW:
What about the aria “Di Quella Pira.” It doesn’t seem like it would be medicine for the voice! I wouldn’t want to try and sing that.

MF:
I like it, it’s fun. I don’t think of that as a particularly difficult aria. I think there are harder moments in the score. For me, cabaletta, as long as your voice is like a trumpet, and you remain as a trumpet, and you don’t become a horn, or a cello, or don’t get kind of brown in sound; as long as you keep the gold or the silver in the sound, it’s more like lightning, it will always be easy. I think the risk that tenors run when they sing these kinds of cabalettas is that they get dramatic. But the reality is that it should be more bubbly, it should be more champagne-like than a Burgundy or a Bordeaux. It should be up, light, crisp. And that’s what makes those arias successful.

OW:
So, I managed to hear you sing Ruggero in “La Rondine” at the Barbican in London. How did you find singing it as a concert, rather than a fully staged version?

MF:
I enjoyed it. It was the second time I’ve sung this in concert. I don’t think it’s a tenor opera really. I think it’s a supporting role of one person. The whole opera is the soprano with a bunch of supporting people around her. The reason why I did it is because I have immense respect for Tony Pappano. I think of him as one of the greatest conductors and musicians of our time. To work with Tony on anything is a privilege. Oh my God, he is a sensational musician and very, very inspiring. His musical instincts about the voice and the way the music should move are, in my view, the closest to the mark that we can find among conductors right now. I like authoritative conductors. I like strong conductors with strong opinions and who drive the car because in rigor there is freedom. If there’s no structure that a conductor builds around a project, then it’s impossible to execute the project well, because all singers are then left to their own devices. Maybe one singer in a recital can be left to their own devices and do a great recital, but when you’re working amongst multiple colleagues with different views of how music should go, if a conductor does not provide structure, that’s deeply problematic. So it’s not free. There’s no actual freedom. With rigor is freedom.

OW:
Going back to what you said about being fit for the job, I often equate classical or opera singers as being a kind of athlete. Would you agree with that?

MF:
Absolutely. Singers need to be fit. Because our job is physical. It doesn’t mean singers need to look like muscle gods or models. Our job requires movement. We have to do active things. One has to be able to engender the role that they are. Again, to be really clear, I’m not arguing that singers need to be muscle gods or goddesses. The point is that we should have the stamina not to run out of breath when we’re required to be physical and sing.

I always compare it to being a baseball player. Unlike football or basketball players, baseball players don’t run the whole night. Baseball players, like cricket players, have to stand around a lot. But when you bat or you bowl, you’ve got to make very sudden, sharp moves where the heart rate pumps. And you’ve got to go, you’ve got to deliver. People are watching. Are you going to hit that ball? Is it going to go out of the stadium? What is it going to do? That’s what opera singers do. There are moments of dead time, down time, and not being on stage. But then when we’re on, we’re on. And it’s super on. It can’t be going from nothing to some. It’s got to be from nothing to all. Immediately.

OW:
Several artists have expressed a concern to me about the current state of opera. Not that it is dying, per se, but that there is some decline. What are your thoughts on this?

MF: My answer is simple. I think we’ve lost touch with what the public wants. The public wants simple stories, told simply. They want beautiful stories, told beautifully. They don’t want a bizarre interpretation of a title that serves only narrow interests. Our obligation as musicians is to the greater good, is to the biggest audience as possible, if we want opera to survive for the next 50 years.
What we do on stage shouldn’t be miniature, it shouldn’t be diminutive, and it shouldn’t be selfish.

There’s a problem we’ve gotten into. When some directors bring an obscure take on a title because it’s something they’ve conceived, while it’s notable that they can do it, when it doesn’t take into account the need to attract as many people as possible, that’s not serving our art. Are we serving the greatest number of people with what we put on the stage? That for me is the standard, that’s the burden, but that’s how we grow. Right now we need more Zeffirellis, more Viscontis, we need more Otto Schenks, we need more Robert Carsens. We need more Richard Jones, who for example, does incredible shows that are very well-thought-out and very detailed. Those are some of the great directors we have now who do great things, do things that matter, and have context and deep thought. We need more of that.

Also, I’m tired of the color gray. Have some color! People want to come to a show to see something beautiful. People who pay 150 quid, and 300 quid to sit in those stalls, are coming for an experience that they want to remember forever. It’s up to us to give them that “forever” experience. What does the whole stage look like? The lighting? The costumes? How is the singing? How is the orchestra? How is the chorus? All of those things need to be memorable. It’s the entire production that counts. If we’re not firing on 100% on all aspects, we’re not serving the public. I believe very strongly about this.

Now, there’s a big difference between Europe and the United Kingdom in terms of how art is funded compared to America. In America, we are responsible for the generosity of benefactors and donors, purely. There’s no such thing as government funding of the arts. In Europe, it is primarily government-funded, 90%. In the United Kingdom, it is somewhat government-funded. Different countries feel different responsibilities to the art form itself, and as a result, they feel they might have more cover to do more experimental things. But again, my argument is, if you are not thinking of those people who are coming to the opera for the first time or the third time, who are spending up to 400 pounds per person to sit in a seat if you’re not giving them an experience to remember, you’re not being a true fiduciary. You’re not honoring your commitment to those guests. That is the burden of the theater, to honor the guests. Have them see something special, something they’ll remember. Give them a reason to come back for more. That’s really important to me.

OW:
I think a lot of singers would share that view.

MF:
Well singers share this general feeling. You have to remember, individuals that spend lots of money to come to a theatre do it because it’s an outlet from their daily lives.
When a person buys a ticket, we have to look at that as an investment in the future of theater. Because if we get many of these £200 or dollar investments, we will have more seasons to give. So, we have to treat that investor with respect by giving them great performances. Not just great singing, but a great stage environment. Something that they will remember forever.

OW:
I think you’ve touched on an issue there, one which I have encountered before while discussing the matter with other singers. As a community, as a family of artists, I suspect your views are somewhat contrary to those people who feel that they need to express themselves differently and do something different, as a director, for example.

MF:
Then they should go do that in a different world. Then they should go do experimental opera. Or they should do something that is not bastardizing classic titles. That’s not to say that we can’t do a modern take on a title. I enjoy different takes on titles so long as they give the audience something to remember, and that the audience leaves feeling empowered and feeling something from that performance. I did this “Carmen” in Aix-en-Provence eight years ago and I’m doing it again in Brussels this year. It’s set more or less in a mental institution. When I first heard about it, I was like… what the hell? But as I staged it and put it on the stage, it turned out to be a truly exciting show. The public loved it every single night because the arc of each of the characters was so strong, so well built and so well constructed. Yes! It was an unconventional staging of a standard title, but it worked. That’s the key, if directors do an unconventional take on something that is standard, so long as we go from A to Z very clearly and if people feel what’s going on throughout the night, I think that’s great.

You know I did a “Don Carlo” with a director named Warlikowski in Paris and it was very modern, set in today’s period. And Don Carlo was this bisexual, suicidal priest. Well, Don Carlo WAS basically bisexual, and he was crazy and totally dyslexic. He had a physical deformity…he was all over the map. He didn’t even know who the hell he was half the time. And when I first heard about it, I was like, “Why are we playing this bizarre characterization?” But when you actually dug into it and you knew who it was, it was like,
”Wow! This is exactly who the guy is.”
It was an alternative arc to the story as to how we usually see Don Carlo, but it was a great arc, and it was a real arc. So, it was a worthy one.

We want to see things that are exciting, that’s what the public wants, and I think that it’s urgent that the needs of the public are satisfied.

OW:
I read that during your studying to be an opera singer, you weren’t convinced that you would go all the way with it in terms of making it a career?

MF:
I am a driven person. And I’m sorry if that’s scary to some people. But the reality is all singers performing at a top level are personally driven. They have their eye on the target. They study hard. They’re constantly tweaking their craft. I have a lot of respect for the people that I work with because so many of my colleagues are always studying, always looking to be better, always looking to improve. We are all harsh critics of self; that’s the way it is. It takes being self-critical in order to be good. I think as my first voice teacher said: “When one is born with a talent, they have a moral responsibility to their talent and if they don’t serve their talent, they’re not a good citizen.” And to me, that’s a really important point.

The big eye opener after over 20 years is: some people with enormous talent but no drive don’t win the prize; some people with less talent but incredible drive, do.

OW:
Well, your talent is inarguable. I would suggest, as others have also, you are somewhat gifted with a special voice.

MF:
Thank you, but I don’t always feel that, honestly. When I listen to myself, I hear the fallibility, I hear the flaws. I’m constantly working to ameliorate the flaws. But just ameliorating flaws is not sufficient. I have to amplify the good, too. If the good is good, the good can even be more good. The good can be great.

I think that it’s my responsibility as an artist to serve my craft. I think by serving my craft, the public is served. A to B, B to C. Serve the art, art serves the public. If I stop serving the art through studying, through trying to improve myself, the public is not served.