Prom 45 - 16.08.13: Tippett – The Midsummer Marriage

[Sir Velo]

Let's see: better librettist; E M Forster or Michael Tippett?

[Richard Barrett]

Let's see: better librettist; E M Forster or Michael Tippett?

But that's the wrong question really, since opera is suppoed to be an artistic unity rather than two things stuck together. What I tried to address in my last post was that the style and structure of Tippett's texts reflect the style and structure of his music in a way probably nobody else could have managed. Personally I find this more interesting than the construction of a composer-librettist "dream team".

[ahinton]

But that's the wrong question really, since opera is suppoed to be an artistic unity rather than two things stuck together. What I tried to address in my last post was that the style and structure of Tippett's texts reflect the style and structure of his music in a way probably nobody else could have managed. Personally I find this more interesting than the construction of a composer-librettist "dream team".

You have a serious and interesting point here and, as a consequence of having read this post and your previous one, I feel obliged to go back and have another think about this. Like many, I've long thought that Tippett as his own librettist has given rise to no small amount of dramatic and narrative confusion, not least in my long-standing favourite among his stage works, The Midsummer Marriage, in which I've long felt that its magnificent music has somehow contrived to act as the rescuer of the work as a whole; perhaps I ought to rethink this. Your thoughts above, for which many thanks, are especially persuasive.

[Flosshilde]

Let's see: better librettist; E M Forster or Michael Tippett?

Obviously Michael Tippett was for the operas Michael Tippett wanted to write. If Forster had written the librettos they would have been different operas.

If the reference to Forster was referring to his collaboration with Britten, he actually only wrote one libretto for Britten (the only libretto he wrote), & that was an adaptation of another author's work, so hardly a good comparison with Tippett.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

If the reference to Forster was referring to his collaboration with Britten, he actually only wrote one libretto for Britten (the only libretto he wrote), & that was an adaptation of another author's work, so hardly a good comparison with Tippett.

... and that in collaboration with Eric Crozier because he (Forster) and Britten weren't confident in his abilities as an opera librettist.

[Sir Velo]

Obviously Michael Tippett was for the operas Michael Tippett wanted to write. If Forster had written the librettos they would have been different operas.

If the reference to Forster was referring to his collaboration with Britten, he actually only wrote one libretto for Britten (the only libretto he wrote), & that was an adaptation of another author's work, so hardly a good comparison with Tippett.

I cited Forster as an example of someone with whom Britten collaborated. Obviously, it was only the one opera, and there was another collaborator involved in the project. However, my main point (which I admit I did not develop fully) was that Britten worked with librettists who, on the whole, provided a higher standard of literary output than Tippett did in his own works.

This is not to diminish Tippett's achievements, since they are many and impressive. I have less of a problem with the perceived gaucheries of his texts as I believe, along with RB, that they are integral to the works. Where I would disagree is that Britten was somehow perfunctory or uninspired in his text setting. Grimes; Budd; Turn of the Screw etc are all a successful fusion of words and music.

[Flosshilde]

I cited Forster as an example of someone with whom Britten collaborated. Obviously, it was only the one opera, and there was another collaborator involved in the project.

So how much was Forster's, how much Crozier's, how much Crabbe's, & how much Britten's (it's not unknown for composers to tell their librettist what they should be writing)?

However, my main point (which I admit I did not develop fully) was that Britten worked with librettists who, on the whole, provided a higher standard of literary output than Tippett did in his own works.

Most of Britten's libretti were based on other sources, so one would assume that their literary qualities might stem from that. Does one listen to, or watch, an opera for its literary or its dramatic qualities? How well do most opera libretti stand up as literature?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This is not to diminish Tippett's achievements, since they are many and impressive. I have less of a problem with the perceived gaucheries of his texts as I believe, along with RB, that they are integral to the works.

Where I would disagree is that Britten was somehow perfunctory or uninspired in his text setting. Grimes; Budd; Turn of the Screw etc are all a successful fusion of words and music.

I think this might be exaggerating other people's suggestion here, SirV (with the exception of those who dislike BB's Music, perhaps). Apart from A Midsummer Night's Dream, Paul Bunyan, and Grimes, Britten's operas use rather mundane, two-dimensional libretti - which is generally standard practice for operas: the Music supplies the missing two dimensions. Britten's arguments with Slater (and his break with Auden) demonstrate that he was interested in collaborating only insofar as this accommodated the Music he already had in mind for the project. His subsequent use of second-rate (or long dead) poets to provide him with libretti demonstrates this - his use of a better standard of poetry was reserved for his songs and concert works for voice(s).

Much the same can be said of Tippett (and many other composers) - but I much prefer Tippett's engagement with developments in contemporary Theatre in his operas to Britten's more Rattiganesque idea of Drama.

[edashtav]

Much the same can be said of Tippett (and many other composers) - but I much prefer Tippett's engagement with developments in contemporary Theatre in his operas to Britten's more Rattiganesque idea of Drama.

That's a neat thought, Ferney!

[amateur51]

Much the same can be said of Tippett (and many other composers) - but I much prefer Tippett's engagement with developments in contemporary Theatre in his operas to Britten's more Rattiganesque idea of Drama.

That's a fascinating thought, ferney. I was listening yesterday to Matthew Parris' programme Great Lives on R4 about George Devine and it never occurred to me until now to make the connection between the theatrical break by Devine/Osborne and how it might have affected musical composition too.

[Richard Barrett]

it never occurred to me until now to make the connection between the theatrical break by Devine/Osborne and how it might have affected musical composition too.

I think the reason might be that it hardly affected musical composition at all, since, for one thing, opera is a notoriously conservative genre, and, for another, in general British composers were and remain more conservative than their counterparts in the theatre. We still get "contemporary" operas straightforwardly based on Shakespeare plays, for example, or lurid melodramas, rather than the kind of fusion of drama and ideas which Tippett (not always successfully) attempted to create.