Opera Production

[Flosshilde]

Let me discuss the idea that opera should be stuck in the 19C or that the ROH should be a "museum of music". If one wants to see a Canaletto one can go the National Gallery - it's not called a "museum of painting". If one literally wants to see rubbish one can go to the Tate and see Tracy Emin's Bed (please discuss elsewhere whether you consider it artistic rubbish). You choose. I've never heard anyone suggest a Canaletto would be enhanced by sticking used condoms on it, complain that looking at Canaletto locks art into the 18C, or that it fails to connect with the realism of modern life. So yes, I am happy to see the public funded ROH being to opera (and ballet) what the National Gallery is to painting. I am not asking for *music* to be stuck to the 19C; I am only asking for *19C* music to be presented as 19C music - without used condoms.

This does suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of the differences between visual and dramatic arts (and also the history of visual art - there are plenty of examples of re-workings of paintings - look at these two, for example





Manet's painting drew much the same reaction as Tracey Emin's Bed has)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This does suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of the differences between visual and dramatic arts

I agree - and a careless understanding of the differences between sonic and dramatic Arts, too.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree - and a careless understanding of the differences between sonic and dramatic Arts, too.

Opera is both, but sometimes tries to be two separate things - which is one of the big issues under discussion.

[David-G]

I thought it might be interesting to attempt a rating of the operas I have seen since January 2013. The numbers below are on a scale from 0 to 5. The first figure is for the production, the second for the overall effect. Please note that these figures are subjective, approximate, and represent my personal reaction. Unlike Giacomo, I do go to works that I don’t like (or don’t understand?), in the hope (generally not realised) of being converted. Hence my low rating for Berg and Schoenberg. The number of ghastly productions at the ROH is relatively small; but it is rather depressing that these include the two efforts of our new Director of Opera.

Royal Opera House

4 4 The Minotaur
0 0 Eugene Onegin
5 3 Written on Skin
3 4 Nabucco
4 4 Die Zauberflote
4 5 Don Carlo
3 5 La Donna del Lago
3 3 Gloriana
5 5 Simon Boccanegra
4 3 La Rondine
4 5 Le Nozze di Figaro
4 5 Elektra
0 4 Les Vepres Siciliennes
3 0 Wozzeck
3 5 Parsifal
3 5 Carmen
0 1 Don Giovanni
3 5 Die Frau ohne Schatten
5 5 Faust
5 5 Dialogue des Carmelites
3 3 Manon Lescaut
3 5 Maria Stuarda
5 5 Ariadne auf Naxos
2 1 Moses und Aron (WNO)

Glyndebourne

5 5 Falstaff
3 3 Ariadne auf Naxos
5 3 Le Nozze di Figaro
3 4 Hippolyte et Aricie
5 5 Don Pasquale
5 6 Billy Budd
4 4 The Rape of Lucretia (Tour)
4 5 Der Rosenkavalier
5 5 Eugene Onegin
4 5 Don Giovanni
5 5 La Finta Giardiniera

ENO

4 5 Medea
2 4 Benvenuto Cellini

Others

0 0 Fidelio (Opera de Lyon at Edinburgh Festival)
3 3 The Snow Maiden (University College Opera)
5 5 King Priam (ETO)
4 4 Paul Bunyan (ETO)
4 4 Prince Igor (Novaya Opera Moscow, Coliseum)
5 5 L'Ormindo (ROH / Sam Wanamaker)
5 5 Zais (Rameau) (OAE in concert)
3 4 Fidelio (Dorset Opera)

You might deduce from the above that I am not too keen on Puccini!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Opera is both, but sometimes tries to be two separate things - which is one of the big issues under discussion.

Yes - but the discussion has started to chase its own tail because there is no agreement on which productions "try" to do this - what one (or a hundred) opera-goer(s) perceives as an example of the director's egotistic self-indulgence, another (hundred) regard as an inspirational revalation of a work they thought they knew well; the production that opened their eyes to how good the work is as theatre as well as Music.

Unless and until somebody can show evidence of falling ticket sales exclusive to "avant garde" Opera productions (or, of course, increased sales for such productions) in comparison with those of a more "traditional" persuasion, then the Thread can only be interesting and amusing, good-natured chat - not really "discussion".

[doversoul1]

This does suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of the differences between visual and dramatic arts (and also the history of visual art - there are plenty of examples of re-workings of paintings - look at these two, for example

Manet's painting drew much the same reaction as Tracey Emin's Bed has)

I agree that there is fundamental difference between visual and dramatic arts and as it happens, I think your example of the two paintings show this difference clearly.

Unless the viewers know the original painting, there is nothing in Manet’s work itself that suggests the existence of the original. Or did Manet present this work as his version of an old painting and was criticized for meddling with the original art? And as far as I am aware, the reaction to Tracey Emin's Bed was about the work itself and not the treatment of ‘the original’. However, as my knowledge of the history of visual art is nonexistence, this maybe all irrelevant. If that’s the case, please ignore this post.

This is another thread on this forum that has reminded me yet again how we all see and hear things so completely differently and I should be very careful not to think my idea as the only one (but I won't change my mind in my own space )

[Giacomo]

The "No" is a little egocentric, given that it's based only on your own viewpoint.

My apologies, please substitute "I beg to differ..."

It is based on my own viewpoint of my experiences which includes viewpoints some, but not all, others. My apologies for failing to note the name, address, ethnicity and sexual orientation of everyone I've ever said "How do you do?" asked "Did you enjoy that?".

[Giacomo]

... any art form that requires performance also has to have interpretation of some sort, which visual art by its nature doesn't.

True, and what we hear is interpreted. Productions however seem to be free [in my opinion, other view points may exist, this thread is about personal satisfaction with production]. Consider La donna del lago, the extras on stage with the musical instruments were not interpreted but invented, you clearly were satisfied by this but invention it was. If it's acceptable to show something that isn't in the origiinal would it be acceptable if we'd gone for and seen La donna del lago but the music/words had been Robert Bruce?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My apologies, please substitute "I beg to differ..."
It is based on my own viewpoint of my experiences which includes viewpoints some, but not all, others.

Yes; I'd understood that, but that still does not disprove the suggestion in the post of mine you quoted that there might be some people for whom the newer, what might be considered by some, more "outlandish" productions are the very ones that open their eyes and ears to what Opera as a genre is all about (rather than productions that merely stick to pre-Piscatorian notions of what a thetrical event should be).

My apologies for failing to note the name, address, ethnicity and sexual orientation of everyone I've ever said "How do you do?" asked "Did you enjoy that?".

Well, by your own admission, you're still very young and comparatively new to the Forum, so we'll overlook it this time. But you must try harder in future.

[Flosshilde]

I thought it might be interesting to attempt a rating of the operas

Isn't this getting a bit Grew-some?

[Giacomo]

Unlike Giacomo, I do go to works that I don’t like (or don’t understand?), in the hope (generally not realised) of being converted.

I do listen to them for exactly these reasons but I can't afford to go to the ROH for this. I did start with a very open mind but it's been filled with things I like - and what I really like is making discoveries.

[Flosshilde]

Unless the viewers know the original painting, there is nothing in Manet’s work itself that suggests the existence of the original. Or did Manet present this work as his version of an old painting and was criticized for meddling with the original art? And as far as I am aware, the reaction to Tracey Emin's Bed was about the work itself and not the treatment of ‘the original’.

I think it's quite probable that the viewers (or some of them) of Manet's painting would have been aware of Titian's painting (& others with the figure in a similar pose). Some of the reaction to Manet's painting would have been because of the 'desecration' of an Old Master; some because he had removed it from a safe historical context to a more dangerous contemporary one - a painting of a prostitute with a servant (and a black one at that) showing her a bouquet, probably given to her by the client the woman is staring at so provocatively and directly - in effect, the person looking at the painting, who has become thge client and a voyeur. You can see why it discomfitted & challenged in the 19th century; ironically it has itself attained the 'safety' of being an 'old master'.

I think there is a distinct parallel between that and the outrage some people express about updated opera productions; in fact, if you look at the reaction to Chereau's centenary Ring production when it was first put on, and the current view of it now that it has achieved a 'historical' distance there is a similar shift from outrage to acceptance.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The Chereau Ring is germane to this discussion; presumably, those who loathed and booed it in 1976 did not return in the subsequent years that it was mounted. Instead, their place was taken increasingly by others more enthusiastic about its insights, until, by the very last night it was cheered for nearly an hour. Watching the televised broadcasts was the catalyst that opened my ears to the glories of Wagner's stagecraft - and to the possibilities of the genre as a whole. And yet, Alpie can still refer to it (in #9) as "attention-seeking by the producer", and in terms that suggest that he believed that this wasn't a particularly controversial statement.

So, to address aeolie's question in the OP; How is it that the profession of opera directors keeps on getting away with what seems like a consistent level of dissatisfaction among opera audiences without being a source of concern to those running opera companies and trying to get more people to become interested in opera? - I would suggest that the "dissatisfaction" is far from "consistent", and that it must be at the very least maintaining audience numbers otherwise, in this money-driven society, they couldn't afford to put them on.

[aeolium]

So, to address aeolie's question in the OP; How is it that the profession of opera directors keeps on getting away with what seems like a consistent level of dissatisfaction among opera audiences without being a source of concern to those running opera companies and trying to get more people to become interested in opera? - I would suggest that the "dissatisfaction" is far from "consistent", and that it must be at the very least maintaining audience numbers otherwise, in this money-driven society, they couldn't afford to put them on.

Yes, and I regret adding that last sentence to my opening post as I could not justify it statistically.

Here is an article from what must be considered a conservative standpoint about opera productions, contrasting the post-war Regietheater-dominated European tradition with that of the Met (the author is presumably a New York resident):

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_urbanities-regietheater.html

What's interesting to me is that negative reaction to some productions - even to the point of refusal to perform - has not been confined to audiences but to musicians, singers and even conductors. The late Charles Mackerras was also one of those who complained about some of the productions he had to conduct, as mentioned in this interview discussing the merits of presenting opera in the language of the country where it is being performed:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/1999/nov/29/artsfeatures1

Comprehensibility is what it is all about, and Mackerras is well known for his opposition to radical productions that in his view tend to obscure the meaning much more than they illuminate. He makes no bones about his opinion of the notorious 60s production of Mozart's Don Giovanni by the German director Ruth Berghaus, which he conducted when he was music director at Welsh National Opera. More recently he famously parted company with Richard Jones's staging of Handel's Julius Caesar in Munich, unable to understand why there needed to be a man with a fridge on his back and a dinosaur on stage.

Wouldn't those directors maintain that they are searching beneath the surface of the work for other layers of meaning? "That's what they think they are doing, and if they really are doing that then it is legitimate," he answers. "But a lot of productions by those directors are exceedingly inaccessible. Who are you doing these operas for? If it's for other producers, opera critics and opera managements who all know, say, Figaro, then I'm all for them presenting a commentary on the work rather than telling the story.

"But if you are genuinely honest in your aim to be more accessible to as many people as possible then you are obliged to present the work as the composer and the librettist intended, so that it can be understood."

If you are going to see an opera that you know well and have seen several times before, it is not a great concern if the production seems to you perverse and misguided, or seems to distort the intentions of the authors in places. But what if you are going for the first time and know nothing of it? If you see for instance Donna Anna consenting to her rape at the start of Don Giovanni, and later going back for more - as in the recent Holten ROH production - this is presumably the understanding of the character you will take away with you. Is that a good thing?

[Giacomo]

This does suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of the differences between visual and dramatic arts (and also the history of visual art - there are plenty of examples of re-workings of paintings - look at these two, for example

This is not re-working of the original but a new work, the original is still available. Gosh woo a fundamental lack of understanding!?!

To me the performance of an existing opera compared to tangible work is more like [but not the same as] making 50 bronzes from one original cast, 50 prints from a wood cut. [Your viewpoint and resulting pleasure may vary.] Due to the nature of the performance there is going to variance and that interpretation. A performance is ephemeral but the memory lasts in exactly the same way as if the work is permanent/tangible and is only looked at briefly. If one is to have a memory of the original or experience the original then it must be presented, at least in spirit. If it is present as a derived work then we don't have the opportunity to see the work. [Your viewpoint and resulting pleasure may vary.]

I'm talking about satisfaction with the productions/presentation of existing works. I'm still mystified as to why the music and production are treated so differently.