Opera Production

[Master Jacques]

I actually genuinely would like to know if there is any data about audience reactions. I wish more opera houses would seek them, e.g. with questionnaires or email follow-up. Otherwise it is just a matter of hearsay or the opinions of critics who may not represent the wider view. Perhaps the controversial productions, like the Bieito ENO one with the toilets, put more bums on seats (in more than one sense) and that's why the directors are given licence.

I must say that the idea of yet more "data" or "questionnaires" makes my operatic soul shrivel. Fortunately companies prefer to sense what the audience thinks of a production by the warmth of response at the end. Lord save us from "focus groups", let alone any attempts to mould productions according to what audiences might like. Audiences don't know what they might like until they see it. That's how the performing arts change our lives.

The "Bieto ENO one with the toilets" was a good case in point: a splendidly apposite production which perfectly caught the bizarre flavour of tragi-comedy which Verdi achieved in A Masked Ball, and was surprisingly adored by audiences (if not the "sophisticated" critics.)

I should have said "spoken theatre" and my point was that some of these directors may have no great musical sensibility and may therefore not be alive to the musical significance as opposed to the purely verbal meaning of libretto and stage action. That was certainly true of the Tito production I mentioned and there have been others where the impression has been given that the director has formed his/her understanding of the opera primarily from a reading of the text - rather like a stage play.

"Prima le parole, doppa la musica". Nothing wrong with that. It's the oldest debate in the genre, and opera only exists because of the tension between the two. The truth is, that if you put people with "musical sensibility" in charge, you generally get very anodyne results: many will recall Karajan's Salzburg stagings, for example, with catatonic horror!

I have some sympathy for Sir Velo's view, at least where the conventions of the period are important to the plot, as in Le Nozze di Figaro. There really doesn't seem much point in updating the period to one where feudal privileges such as droit de seigneur no longer apply (and that was why I couldn't see the point of McVicar's relocating that opera to the France of the 1830s).

The idea that droit de seigneur didn't still hold considerable sway in 1830's rural France is curious. The Revolution was more of a temporary hiatus in French social life and customs, before "normal service" was resumed. Indeed, do you believe that at least the modern equivalent of droit de seigneur doesn't still hold sway, in the pop-dominated celeb. 'culture' of modern Britain? I wish I had your optimism! Rich men were still using their power to coerce servants into having sex with them, last time I looked at the BBC Website.

And - as a final note - the whole point in Figaro is that the 'progressive' Count is supposed to have abolished it. The custom is a symbol of his hypocrisy, rather than specially important for itself.

[Flosshilde]

I've no idea. I actually genuinely would like to know if there is any data about audience reactions. I wish more opera houses would seek them, e.g. with questionnaires or email follow-up.

I suspect that those who disliked a production strongly would be more inclined to respond, thus skewing the results.

[Flosshilde]

Personally, I want to see productions depicting, as closely as possible, the period in which the opera was written. Why? Well, clearly, the work was composed at a particular period in time and as the artists' response to the prevailing social and cultural conditions (e.g. Un Ballo in maschera;

Interesting that you should mention Ballo - which period & setting would you prefer - the 18th century Swedish court that Verdi originally had as a setting, or 19th century Boston where he set it aftyer pressure from the censors?

[aeolium]

I must say that the idea of yet more "data" or "questionnaires" makes my operatic soul shrivel. Fortunately companies prefer to sense what the audience thinks of a production by the warmth of response at the end. Lord save us from "focus groups", let alone any attempts to mould productions according to what audiences might like. Audiences don't know what they might like until they see it. That's how the performing arts change our lives.

But whether audiences respond warmly or boo makes no difference to opera companies - in fact a controversial production that makes the headlines is almost better than one that isn't. And whether or not "audiences don't know what they might like until they see it", surely they know after they have seen it. As it stands, opera productions are dominated by Regietheater, whether or not this is what audiences want.

The "Bieto ENO one with the toilets" was a good case in point: a splendidly apposite production which perfectly caught the bizarre flavour of tragi-comedy which Verdi achieved in A Masked Ball, and was surprisingly adored by audiences (if not the "sophisticated" critics.)

How do you know it was adored by audiences? What's the source of your information?

"Prima le parole, doppa la musica". Nothing wrong with that. It's the oldest debate in the genre, and opera only exists because of the tension between the two. The truth is, that if you put people with "musical sensibility" in charge, you generally get very anodyne results: many will recall Karajan's Salzburg stagings, for example, with catatonic horror!

I don't agree with that quote - no-one would go to see opera (at least the vast majority of opera) for the text or the action if it were not for the music, yet plenty of people would enjoy a concert performance, radio broadcast or CDs. And there are good opera directors with musical sensibility - like David Pountney, for instance. No-one is suggesting that conductors should double up as opera directors.

The idea that droit de seigneur didn't still hold considerable sway in 1830's rural France is curious.

Really? What's your evidence?

And - as a final note - the whole point in Figaro is that the 'progressive' Count is supposed to have abolished it. The custom is a symbol of his hypocrisy, rather than specially important for itself.

But it is still relevant to the plot, as are the ceremonies that surround it. And that was Sir Velo's point, that it was a response by artists (in this case Beaumarchais, da Ponte, Mozart) to the prevailing social and cultural conditions of the 1780s.

[Flosshilde]

La Traviata would be another troublesome work in selecting the appropriate setting - Verdi & Piave wanted a contemporary setting; the authorities at La Fenice (where the first performances were given) insisted of a setting in the 17th century.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Some critics advocate modern productions of baroque, classical and romantic operas, just as long as the music is performed on original instruments in a HIPP manner. A little inconsistent, perhaps?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Some critics advocate modern productions of baroque, classical and romantic operas, just as long as the music is performed on original instruments in a HIPP manner. A little inconsistent, perhaps?

No, this is a not uncommon misunderstanding. Music is an Art of sound - the instrumental sounds they imagine are essential to their conception; Mozart's Clarinets have a different sound from those of Elgar or, for that matter, Vivaldi - as his Basset Horns also sound significantly different from the timbre of his Clarinets. Play his Music on members of the modern Clarinet family, and you move away from those individual timbres.

Drama works with words and human interactions: it does not require specific physical types, or voice ranges, or exact, positionings of the actors on stage - it does not need the pronunciation of the language of the writer's time in the way that Handel's Music benefits from sensitive employment of the instruments and conventions of Handel's contemporaries. Drama's focus is on the way people behave and the words they use to communicate this behaviour. Music is about sound contrasts and combinations.

[doversoul1]

Within my very limited opera experience (I am still very new to the genre and my interest so far is limited to Baroque works), I find it very hard to feel involved when what I am seeing and hearing do not correspond with each other. So I was very pleased to find this passage in Handel by Christopher Hogwood (Thames & Hudson, 2007 Revised edition)


… modernistic stage productions, with approximately contemporary sets, costumes, props and behaviour. If this indicates a management assumption that baroque-style staging is boring, then the public have scarcely had any opportunity to prove it otherwise. […]

…staged productions are predominantly located in an aesthetic world totally alien to their conception and first performances, with the result that the moral tone and characterisation of Handel’s dramatic ideas suffer. […] arias intended to be concentrated and solo expressions of a character’s emotions can be upstaged by the activities of ballet dancers, with chorus members’ antics in the foreground and assorted gimmicks ‘to keep the audience interested’(p.:281)

However, I assume one of the major attractions of most baroque operas’ original productions was the spectacles on the stage, which is unrealistic in many ways to try to reproduce for modern staging. For this and a few other reasons, most of the time, I prefer just listening to the music. A good concert performance is the best option, as far as I am concerned. I don’t think I want the ‘relevance to modern world’ spelt out.

[aeolium]

Drama works with words and human interactions: it does not require specific physical types, or voice ranges, or exact, positionings of the actors on stage - it does not need the pronunciation of the language of the writer's time in the way that Handel's Music benefits from sensitive employment of the instruments and conventions of Handel's contemporaries. Drama's focus is on the way people behave and the words they use to communicate this behaviour. Music is about sound contrasts and combinations.

But the words, ideas and assumptions that are present in an opera libretto are just as circumscribed by their age as are the musical ideas to which they are linked in an opera. Isn't it being just as dismissive of that thought-world to introduce wholly alien ideas and stagings that would be unimaginable by the authors, in just the same way as the use of then unimaginable instruments with wholly different character is now increasingly thought to be inappropriate? Too often it seems that the director is simply using the work as a vehicle for the elaboration of his own ideas about the world rather than serving the ideas of the work's authors, in the way that the conductor (ideally) serves the musical ideas.

[Flosshilde]

There are also, I think, very few baroque opera houses - certainly none that would have the audience capacity required to fund the expence of a baroque staging.

Hogwood's comments on the distractions of the chorus etc in modern staging is rather wide of the mark, considering the stage transformations, machinery, & dancers in baroque operas.


(not to mention the difficulties in locating castrati)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But the words, ideas and assumptions that are present in an opera libretto are just as circumscribed by their age as are the musical ideas to which they are linked in an opera. Isn't it being just as dismissive of that thought-world to introduce wholly alien ideas and stagings that would be unimaginable by the authors, in just the same way as the use of then unimaginable instruments with wholly different character is now increasingly thought to be inappropriate? Too often it seems that the director is simply using the work as a vehicle for the elaboration of his own ideas about the world rather than serving the ideas of the work's authors, in the way that the conductor (ideally) serves the musical ideas.

I think my problem with your point, aeolie is that I haven't experienced any opera productions that I've found as badly suited to the work as you have. I'm basing my arguments on productions that have used "ideas and stagings that would be unimaginable by the authors" that I find have really worked in the theatre, enhancing the whole experience - you are talking about productions that distract from the work; providing a conceptual dissonance between what Composer and Librettist intended and the ego of the director. I can't really comment on this because I haven't experienced it first-hand.

[MrGongGong]

But the words, ideas and assumptions that are present in an opera libretto are just as circumscribed by their age as are the musical ideas to which they are linked in an opera. Isn't it being just as dismissive of that thought-world to introduce wholly alien ideas and stagings that would be unimaginable by the authors, in just the same way as the use of then unimaginable instruments with wholly different character is now increasingly thought to be inappropriate? Too often it seems that the director is simply using the work as a vehicle for the elaboration of his own ideas about the world rather than serving the ideas of the work's authors, in the way that the conductor (ideally) serves the musical ideas.

You have to decide exactly what you mean by "musical ideas" ?

If you are making a production that is about ideas then why should one be constrained by the assumed ideas of the time?

The composers of music don't know everything about the music they compose and often others can extract things which the composer wasn't aware of.

If music is to avoid being a museum (and there are good and bad museums) it seems highly appropriate to re-contextualise work.

Male swans ?

[Master Jacques]

Aeolium writes:
"Opera productions are dominated by Regietheater, whether or not this is what audiences want."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that stage direction is important in our day and age, I agree. Stage direction has taken an increasingly important role in theatre generally since the time of W.S.Gilbert, and it is not going away any time soon. The clue is in "theater" not "regie". Although of course we can find conceptual theatre at all points back to the Elizabethans (Knight of the Burning Pestle) and beyond. And audiences keep coming back.

You may personally have loathed it, but I do know that the ENO Bieito production of Masked Ball was loved by audiences. And I know because the performers were clear about the response they received - that is the touchstone, not focus group comments from a vociferous, grumpy minority. And as another poster said, its the angry few with time on their hands who are more likely to respond to "questionnaires" and the like. We live in a negative "blame culture" where the seething minority claim to speak for a majority which is happy with what they get when they go to the opera house. And they are happy because (and this is the point) they get something unexpected and unpredictable.

"Prima le parole, doppa la musica".
You might personally feel that music is more important: so might I. But surely you must admit that the debate (the fruitful tension) has always been there? Lord knows there's enough been written on the matter, from Dryden to Brecht and beyond. That is, concerning the debate between "pure" music lovers (who don't tend to like opera much anyway) and the pragmatic theatre lovers for whom the word - and the performance - is at the heart of the matter. Where you or I might come down on the line is irrelevant. Of course nobody would go to see the libretto of Tristan and Isolde being performed without the music: that's a reductio ad absurdum. But in opera, you cannot divorce the two.

You have not taken my point about the deeper "relevance" of droit de seigneur, or the fact that Beaumarchais himself writes about it as an old, outmoded custom which still hung in there - as it still does in our own day and age - in relations between rich, powerful men and poor, pretty women. MrGongGong is quite right: "If music is to avoid being a museum (and there are good and bad museums) it seems highly appropriate to re-contextualise work."

In fact the contextualisation of Figaro began with Beaumarchais (and da Ponte) who set the play in Spain, not the contemporary France which it is obviously "about". So if you're wanting strict historical accuracy you need an Andalusian setting with a medieval peasantry and customs: Spain and France had very different customs in the 1780's, but Beaumarchais was writing about his "here and now". That "here and now" is what we need to replicate, not a Classical, museum idea of rural Iberia.

It's up to you whether you prefer an operatic museum to a living, operatic theatre; but please don't think you are speaking for the "majority", or for those of us who prefer theatre (which encompasses opera) to be a contemporary art form with resonance for us and our own time.

[jean]

...However, I assume one of the major attractions of most baroque operas’ original productions was the spectacles on the stage, which is unrealistic in many ways to try to reproduce for modern staging...

It's really the extraordinarily stylised gesture that would be so difficult for modern audiences - I only know about it at all because I saw Lina Lalandi's productions of Rameau in the 1970s.

And modern opera companies rarely seem able to afford the dancers. To have seventeenth-century costumes without the dance would just draw attention to what was missing.

I found the Californian beach-party Elysian Fields in the recent Buxton Festival Orpheus quite effective, and the dance movements they'd devised worked better than they would have if the chorus had been dressed in those ridiculous costumes.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No, this is a not uncommon misunderstanding. Music is an Art of sound - the instrumental sounds they imagine are essential to their conception; Mozart's Clarinets have a different sound from those of Elgar or, for that matter, Vivaldi - as his Basset Horns also sound significantly different from the timbre of his Clarinets. Play his Music on members of the modern Clarinet family, and you move away from those individual timbres.

Drama works with words and human interactions: it does not require specific physical types, or voice ranges, or exact, positionings of the actors on stage - it does not need the pronunciation of the language of the writer's time in the way that Handel's Music benefits from sensitive employment of the instruments and conventions of Handel's contemporaries. Drama's focus is on the way people behave and the words they use to communicate this behaviour. Music is about sound contrasts and combinations.

But surely the music and the staging/action/scenery (etc.) belong together? There is always scope for interpretation, but this needs to be done with discretion, and I wonder whether this goes out of the window in some productions.