Great music - terrible libretto - what is the best opera with the worst libretto.

[ahinton]

Which of course I didn't do, even if Friedenstag is pretty mediocre compared say to Salome, which to my mind is one of the masterpieces of any place and time, if that word means anything. But at a certain point he changed from being a an innovative and challenging composer to being a more or less perfunctory Kapellmeister, and at a time when plenty of other German-language opera composers (Berg, Hindemith, Krenek, Schoenberg, Schreker and Weill, to name a few very different examples) were concerned to throw light on their own time with their work in the theatre, with greater or lesser plausibility. And this was exactly the kind of uninvolved "apolitical" character the Nazis wanted as a cultural figurehead. He didn't become a fascism-friendly composer in 1933, he already was one.

If you're suggesting that a real-life composer is in any way comparable to the non-existent characters in a fiction I would have to refute it the Samuel Johnson way!

(Having said all this I do think Capriccio is a beautiful work, and one with a pretty good libretto as well.)

Most operas are inferior to Salome, even if not necessarily mediocre! Incidentally, I recall Claudio Arrau - not an artist known for his performances of challenging contemporary music - saying that he considered Die Soldaten to be the greatest 20th century opera since Salome.

As to Strauss in the inter-war years, his biographer Norman del Mar refers to this period as being one in which the composer's inspiration was rarely on a level that he attained in his best work previously and since. Where Strauss's political sympathies (whatever they might at any time have been) are concerned vis-à-vis his music, some parallel with Shostakovich under a very different but no less restrictive and fear-inducing régime might not seem entirely inappropriate. Strauss' tenure as Reichsmusikkammer president lasted only until his dismissal just over 18 months after assuming that rôle and, given his Jewish daughter-in-law and grandchildren, it's perhaps a wonder that it lasted that long or even that he was appointed in the first place. There is some evidence of Strauss's privately expressed disapproval of the régime but, not unlike the case of Shostakovich, it seems reasonable to conclude that he probably felt that it might serve no-one's best interests by declining that appointment; Shostakovich lived from time to time in fear of what the régime might do to him and his family and it would seem to come as no surprise if Strauss shared similar fears. The extent to which Strauss could fairly be described as "fascism-friendly" even before 1933 is, I think, at least open to question. Many years ago, Humphrey Searle told me that, at his only meeting with Strauss (during his short period of study with Webern), the composer said that, at 75, he was tired of the oppressions and demands of the day and simply wanted to be left alone to compose...

[Dave2002]

It is a given that all artists put their own work and needs before political statements, however worthy; and in this case, blocking out what was going on (if that's what Strauss did) gave us Daphne.

No - I don't think so, or at least not necessarily. I think there are many singer songwriters whose music derived from their devotion to political causes, and for whom words/lyrics may have been at least as important and a driving motivation for their writing. There are still some who work like that today.

See https://youtu.be/7dfZv43GxFs

[smittims]

It's often been said that one can't know what it was like unless you were there. I'm reminded of Annie Hall after seeing 'le Chagrin et le pitie' ; 'I wonder 'how long I'd hold out under interrogation'.

Alvie; 'you? they'd take away your Bloomingdales charge card and you'd tell them anything.'

Otto Klemperer recounted to his biographer a visit he paid to the Strausses shortly before he had to leave Germany in 1933. They mentioned future performances they'd like to see him at and he said he might not be there as he might have to leave Germany .

Pauline: don't you worry; if the Nazis give you any trouble we'll soon sort them out; won't we , Richard?

Strauss (shocked) : that would be just the moment to stand up for a Jew!'

[Master Jacques]

No - I don't think so, or at least not necessarily. I think there are many singer songwriters whose music derived from their devotion to political causes, and for whom words/lyrics may have been at least as important and a driving motivation for their writing. There are still some who work like that today.

See https://youtu.be/7dfZv43GxFs

We're not in disagreement. This video is a brilliant example of an artist - all power to her - proudly putting her work first, without feeling she's doing something less important than medics, lawyers or other members of society. Of course the artist can choose to utilise their artistry to support a political manifesto. Eisler is a good example of a composer who was happy to sell any 'what' message the Communist Party passed to him - but he remained determined to do it in his own way, in perfect control of the 'how' (i.e. his artistry).

[RichardB]

It is a given that all artists put their own work and needs before political statements

No it isn't. Many artists, primarily in the twentieth century, have developed the idea that their own work consists of political statements, some more explicit than others of course, and then the question is whether an artist'c work is to be a response to its social/political circumstances, or merely a symptom of them. Many dramatists from the twentieth century onwards, prominent among whom in Strauss's temporal and geographical vicinity was Bertolt Brecht, wouldn't recognise any separation between their art and their politics. The idea of putting one's own work and needs first is a luxury which comfortably-off individuals like Strauss could afford to live by, to be sure. Not everyone has been in the right time and place to reap such advantages.

[ahinton]

The idea of putting one's own work and needs first is a luxury which comfortably-off individuals like Strauss could afford to live by

Would you suggest that, had Strauss been considerably less well of than he might have been in the 20s and 30s, he would have been less able to shield himself from the vagaries of the régime?...

[Dave2002]

We're not in disagreement. This video is a brilliant example of an artist - all power to her - proudly putting her work first, without feeling she's doing something less important than medics, lawyers or other members of society. Of course the artist can choose to utilise their artistry to support a political manifesto. Eisler is a good example of a composer who was happy to sell any 'what' message the Communist Party passed to him - but he remained determined to do it in his own way, in perfect control of the 'how' (i.e. his artistry).

Problems can clearly arise if an artist is asked to do something he or she disagrees with. We have seen at least one tragic example of that very recently. It's easy enough I assume to create and perform works where one is in agreement with the message, but harder if there is tension. Sometimes I guess the artist just "goes with the flow" - a compromise - as to publicly go against a request might perhaps "not do too much damage", and cause some discomfort to the artist. Composers such as Shostakovich managed to embody feelings in their music which were perhaps understood by others, but not always interpreted as such. Having risen to some kind of prominence, it might be very hard to deny any requests from political "masters".

Other people might feel it is better to be mediocre, and simply fade from the scene altogether, rather than "be disappeared".

[Master Jacques]

If you're suggesting that a real-life composer is in any way comparable to the non-existent characters in a fiction I would have to refute it the Samuel Johnson way!

(Having said all this I do think Capriccio is a beautiful work, and one with a pretty good libretto as well.)

That's precisely what I'm suggesting. I can't remember reading any composer's biography without thinking less of them as a human being, by the time we've reached the death rites. That's why I dislike bringing biography into the equation: the work is all. Is a Chopin Étude any the less marvellous because its composer was a rabid, rather disgusting anti-Semite? I don't think it is. We can love the work, without liking the worker. As it is clear you do - to an extent - with R. Strauss as you see him.

So, no. I don't believe there's any significant difference between (say) Falstaff (or Ochs!) and a real-life bullying, aristocratic antique toper. The only point that matters, is that Shakespeare's Hamlet is still vividly alive to us, when his real-life original is to all intents and purposes lost in the mists of time. Of course Shakespeare's Hamlet is "real", it's simply a different kind of reality - one which dear old Dr Johnson, with his very limited understanding of opera and Shakespearian theatre (amongst many other things) failed to comprehend. "The best in this kind are but shadows...", but so are we all "unless imagination mend us".

(Agreed, RichardB, on Capriccio - though not on Salome, which I personally place firmly in the "shabby little shocker" box, unlike the truly impressive Elektra!)

[Master Jacques]

Problems can clearly arise if an artist is asked to do something he or she disagrees with. We have seen at least one tragic example of that very recently. It's easy enough I assume to create and perform works where one is in agreement with the message, but harder if there is tension. Sometimes I guess the artist just "goes with the flow" - a compromise - as to publicly go against a request might perhaps "not do too much damage", and cause some discomfort to the artist. Composers such as Shostakovich managed to embody feelings in their music which were perhaps understood by others, but not always interpreted as such. Having risen to some kind of prominence, it might be very hard to deny any requests from political "masters".

Other people might feel it is better to be mediocre, and simply fade from the scene altogether, rather than "be disappeared".

There is plenty to chew on here, thank you! Whether mediocrity is to be celebrated rather than despised is an interesting point. As for Shostakovich, I firmly believe that the myth we've built up about him in the West is wide of the mark in significant ways - especially when it comes to interpreting a movement such as the finale of the 5th Symphony as "profoundly ironic". Really? From a composer who loved and understood operetta better than any other 20th century "serious" composer, is it not possible that he was simply letting his hair down, in popular vein. "You want an optimistic conclusion? Then here you are!"

But I realise this is straying far from the thread - so I'd better say how much I admire the libretto of Moscow Cheryomushki!!

[RichardB]

As for Shostakovich, I firmly believe that the myth we've built up about him in the West is wide of the mark in significant ways - especially when it comes to interpreting a movement such as the finale of the 5th Symphony as "profoundly ironic".

I am inclined to agree. Many people in the West, aided and abetted by the highly suspicious Testimony, think that "their" Shostakovich - the clandestinely anti-communist one - is the real one. The truth, which we will never know in full, is surely much more complicated than that. Did Shostakovich always place his own artistic objectives before any political implications in his work? Surely not. But this constant ambiguity is part of what makes his work unique and compelling, while at the same time situating it within a Russian (mostly literary) tradition.

[Bryn]

There is plenty to chew on here, thank you! Whether mediocrity is to be celebrated rather than despised is an interesting point. As for Shostakovich, I firmly believe that the myth we've built up about him in the West is wide of the mark in significant ways - especially when it comes to interpreting a movement such as the finale of the 5th Symphony as "profoundly ironic". Really? From a composer who loved and understood operetta better than any other 20th century "serious" composer, is it not possible that he was simply letting his hair down, in popular vein. "You want an optimistic conclusion? Then here you are!"

But I realise this is straying far from the thread - so I'd better say how much I admire the libretto of Moscow Cheryomushki!!

A little over 21 years ago Gerard McBurney presented a Discovering Music o the subject of the 5th. He provided a very convincing analysis of the relationship between that symphony and the first of the Four Romances which was the first work DSCH composed after he was constrained to withdraw the 4th Symphony. Unfortunately, that Discovering Music edition is no longer available. However, McBurney also raised the issues in the booklet notes for the Hallé/Elder. recording, IIRC, (I do not have it to hand):



See also: McBurney's notes here.

[Master Jacques]

I am inclined to agree. Many people in the West, aided and abetted by the highly suspicious Testimony, think that "their" Shostakovich - the clandestinely anti-communist one - is the real one. The truth, which we will never know in full, is surely much more complicated than that. Did Shostakovich always place his own artistic objectives before any political implications in his work? Surely not. But this constant ambiguity is part of what makes his work unique and compelling, while at the same time situating it within a Russian (mostly literary) tradition.

Perfectly put! Too many people have created this Shostakovich myth, who have their own dog in the race.

[ahinton]

Perfectly put! Too many people have created this Shostakovich myth, who have their own dog in the race.

OK, but one problem here is that both Shostakovich and Roslavets (who suffered under that régime even worse than did Shostakovich himself) began as fans of it until it began to come back and bite them - so yes, Shostakovich's relationship with Communism as distinct from the régime that purported to promulgate it is a far from simple matter but, rather than "clandestinely anti-Communist" per se, it would hardly be a matter of surprise were he clandestinely anti-the régime given certain of its conduct.

[Dave2002]

Whether mediocrity is to be celebrated rather than despised is an interesting point.

For some they may prefer to be mediocre or unkown and alive, if they think they have a choice - though their perceptions of threats may vary.

[Bryn]

Perfectly put! Too many people have created this Shostakovich myth, who have their own dog in the race.

As linked to in #86, the crucial paragraph:

Into the quieter central section of the last movement, the composer weaves in a quotation from one his songs, the first of his Four Romances on Poems by Pushkin op.46. The words speak of the artist’s hope and faith that his inner self will recover from the catastophic ‘delusions’ that have ensnared it. Such half-hidden symbolism is typical of Shostakovich and emblematic of the way his music can appeal to audiences of many different kinds.