ROH 'William Tell'

[MrGongGong]

Interesting

So to what degree do people feel that the composers intentions are sacrosanct?

I heard a paper a couple of weeks ago at a conference where it is possible to demonstrate (and convincingly measure) whether there are elements in musical composition that are really there but the composer has no awareness of their presence. This was talking mostly about underlying rhythmic structures in music which was intended to be without pulse but I think it applies to other elements as well.

(and what Cage said about Indeterminancy)

I don't think it moves my 'analogy' away at all
someone was complaining that

If one modifies a work radically as was done with Guillueme Tell it becomes another work. I paid to see Guillueme Tell not a grungy play about 1990s Bosnia.

(i'm not going to post a link to the terrible Cliff Richard song with the title of the play with a bear )

[french frank]

So to what degree do people feel that the composers intentions are sacrosanct?

It depends on the implication of the word 'sacrosanct'.

It certainly isn't illegal to completely distort the composer's intention. So, from that point of view, all that is needed is for those in control - directors, management - to want to do it.

The points to analyse: Why would a director want to do that? Not in some vague sort of way, but why exactly? Artistically, you could say that a director (or performer) wants to take possession of the work. And they must have confidence that 'their work', if very different, is at least as interesting/valuable/worthwhile as the original, or it risks becoming a cheap vanity project.

And if it's the 'artist's' prerogative to give it a try, it's must be the audience's prerogative to throw rotten eggs/show their disapproval if they think it fails to meet their expectations in all their complexity.

[MrGongGong]

I Artistically, you could say that a director (or performer) wants to take possession of the work.

Pulling that one out for a moment.
Isn't that what one does when one performs a "work" which has parts which are substantially created by someone else anyway?

It IS the audience's prerogative not to like it
BUT (and it surely is the time for this?)
is that different from enthusiastically clapping between movements, or is the prerogative only confined to negative responses?

[french frank]

Pulling that one out for a moment.
Isn't that what one does when one performs a "work" which has parts which are substantially created by someone else anyway?

Yes, it wasn't saying there was anything wrong with it. But what you choose to do should be open to scrutiny - and it shouldn't be 'justified' by saying what isn't true. That seems to lack integrity.

It IS the audience's prerogative not to like it
BUT (and it surely is the time for this?)
is that different from enthusiastically clapping between movements, or is the prerogative only confined to negative responses?

If the inference is that the audience should have waited until the end before throwing eggs, perhaps so.

[MrGongGong]

But what you choose to do should be open to scrutiny - and it shouldn't be 'justified' by saying what isn't true. .

I'm not sure that this is what happened here though?

(that means I'm NOT SURE, as I don't have a detailed knowledge of the piece ...... Tony Pappano does )

[Prommer]

Ff and GG, get a room!

[MrGongGong]

Ff and GG, get a room!

I guess you don't like music or talking about it?

[jean]

Saw it in the cinema this afternoon - so glad I wasn't put off by the reports!

The whole productipon hung together beautifully, and there was nothing gratuitous about the rape scene (though of course I didn't see its unmodified form).

[Prommer]

I guess you don't like music or talking about it?

You do go on rather.

[Flosshilde]

the 'classical' convention for representing a violent act:

You do seem rather wedded to the classical convention; I'm sure you realise that not all drama adheres to it?

Having just returned from the cinecast, I think that it was a rather above average production, but not a great one. There were some very strong things in it. I thought Act 3 (with the infamous scene) the strongest - very powerful & gripping, especially the scenes between Tell & his son - Gerald Finlay & Sofia Fomina very moving. In fact I thought the portrayal of their relationship throughout the opera was particularly well done. John Osborn had a very fine voice but not one of the best actors.

As far as the story is concerned, I thought Princess Mathilde was rather week - I couldn't really work out what she was for, except to provide a love interest for Arnold. Surely if she was the daughter of the Emperor she would have had some authority over Gesler & been able to mitigate some of his actions?

Like Jean I'm very glad I wasn't put off by reports & reviews, & comments on this thread.

[Prommer]

Saw it in the cinema this afternoon - so glad I wasn't put off by the reports!

The whole productipon hung together beautifully, and there was nothing gratuitous about the rape scene (though of course I didn't see its unmodified form).

No, you didn't see the full version because they have been in headlong retreat all week, but it will have been better for the cuts.

Not saying a great deal...

[Don Basilio]

Saw it in the cinema this afternoon - so glad I wasn't put off by the reports!

The whole productipon hung together beautifully, and there was nothing gratuitous about the rape scene (though of course I didn't see its unmodified form).

Thank you very much for that, jean. We've had tickets for some time and I was a bit worried when I saw the comments (even making the front page of the Evening Standard).

But the rape is implied by the texts, even if not explicit. At least it is not trying to re-write the plot as in the awful Idomeneo. Maybe I just have a smutty mind, but in La donna del largo I though at one point the male chorus raped the female chorus. Now that was gratuitous.

[Flosshilde]

I think you will have a very popwerful & affecting experience - I think that the production serves the opera well, bringing out the inherent conflicts and emotions.

[french frank]

You do seem rather wedded to the classical convention; I'm sure you realise that not all drama adheres to it?

No, I'm not. And yes, I do.

I've now deleted my explanation as it's clearly required too many words and other people are bored.

[Prommer]

I think you will have a very popwerful & affecting experience - I think that the production serves the opera well, bringing out the inherent conflicts and emotions.

Just close your eyes at certain points and think of what the music suggests to you, and all will be well.