# Stretch of operatic action



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Time and place of action in opera can not be contemporary. It must be ancient and unreal time period, one of those about which people have fantastic images - so fantastic that one more crazy idea that in these times people sang to each other instead of talking won't seem so ridiculous. 

Mythical hero is natural when singing, XXth century politician is not. 

That is why Elektra > Nixon in China


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Time and place of action in opera can not be contemporary. It must be ancient and unreal time period, one of those about which people have fantastic images - so fantastic that one more crazy idea that in these times people sang to each other instead of talking won't seem so ridiculous.
> 
> Mythical hero is natural when singing, XXth century politician is not.
> 
> That is why Elektra > Nixon in China


I agree with you, mostly. I wouldn't be interested in Anna Nicole.

And Rigoletto set in the White House in the 1960s with the President as the Duke, didn't work for me.

However, musicals (which are people singing to each other instead of talking) set contemporaneously seem to work. West Side Story for one.

And L'elisir d'amore, which imo is the perfect love story, is timeless.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

So La Traviata would have been ridiculous when Verdi wrote it, but it's fine now? Same with Cav and Pag, Jenufa, and so on. You can't suspend disbelief about contemporary subjects because they seem too rooted in the mundane, the present? It's certainly true that people nowadays don't randomly burst into song in the middle of a conversation, but that's not new. 

For me opera allows an exploration of psychological and emotional states though music, so I like (some) operas about contemporary subjects and some updated productions, as long as the latter make some kind of sense in terms of the emotional truth and culture of the opera.

However I take your point that myths tend to explore what is timeless in human interaction so might naturally lend themselves better to operatic treatment. Maybe the problem is that some modern operas are about phenomena that we are still coming to terms with, like the corrosive effect of the celebrity culture (Anna Nicole)?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> However I take your point that myths tend to explore what is timeless in human interaction so might naturally lend themselves better to operatic treatment.


Yes - there is nothing you couldn't put (musically) into archaic dress. All those people that dress Tannhauser into modern suit and claim to be working on making operas "actual" are simply dumb. Wagner wrote his Tannhauser almost 600 years after real Tannhauser died, another 150 years make no difference.

There is reason for which composers place their works in diffrent times. They know that timeless work shouldn't be understandable exclusively by their contemporaries. So the background must be taken from the past - then they will be sure that they focus on eternal things that will be understood by forthcoming generations.

Uhm, seems like I've made another point instead of elaborating on the first one.

I do not claim that what I say is undeniable and universal rule; it's point of view on how to make operas more natural and there are exceptions from what I say for sure.

People consider opera to be archaic form and this is not because they are used to singing knights, gods of old and stuff, what makes opera look really out of place is Nixon in China and other operas in this manner.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aramis said:


> Yes - there is nothing you couldn't put (musically) into archaic dress. All those people that dress Tannhauser into modern suit and claim to be working on making operas "actual" are simply dumb. Wagner wrote his Tannhauser almost 600 years after real Tannhauser died, another 150 years make no difference.


Except that the audience is NOT the same audience as 150 years ago, so it does make a difference. Sensibilities, mindsets, culture, attitudes, prejudices, experience of the world and society have all changed radically. Rather than being "simply dumb" (a bit of a sweeping statement), that's the issue many contemporary directors are addressing.

Unadulterated "period Wagner" can seem a bit stodgy to me (eg the Levine/Schenk ring) and I welcome modern takes on opera again as long as it's respecful of the music and the story and not a vehicle for some half-witted Regie enthusiast's wild flights of imagination.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Except that the audience is NOT the same audience as 150 years ago, so it does make a difference. Sensibilities, mindsets, culture, attitudes, prejudices, experience of the world and society have all changed radically.


That's the point - people are diffrent that 150 years ago, so if opera would be written according to XIXth century ways of thinking and mentality, composer could not predict how it will be seen in the future. That's why he chooses historical background. In XIX century people wouldn't attempt to kill Tannhauser if he would tell them that he was shagging with Venus. While being distanced from realities in which the opera takes place composer is able to write more timeless music which won't become unactual - not ever.

As for Traviata etc. I think many people consider it to be old fashioned love story - for some it's charming, others can't stand it. For me there is no problem, but I belive that story of Violetta and Alfredo is in some way archaic and outdated. Tannhauser, with it's universal approach, will never reach this status - it is purified from everything temporary.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aramis said:


> That's the point - people are diffrent that 150 years ago, so if opera would be written according to XIXth century ways of thinking and mentality, composer could not predict how it will be seen in the future. That's why he chooses historical background. In XIX century people wouldn't attempt to kill Tannhauser if he would tell them that he was shagging with Venus. While being distanced from realities in which the opera takes place composer is able to write more timeless music which won't become unactual - not ever.
> 
> As for Traviata etc. I think many people consider it to be old fashioned love story - for some it's charming, others can't stand it. For me there is no problem, but I belive that story of Violetta and Alfredo is in some way archaic and outdated. Tannhauser, with it's universal approach, will never reach this status - it is purified from everything temporary.


This is rather contradictory

You say Tannhauser is timeless - but you also say it is based on an event that could not happen in, say the XiX century. How does this make it different from la Traviata today?

I'm not even sure that La Traviata is so outdated - I have a friend from another culture, living now in NZ, who is, right now, having a lot of trouble from the family of the girl her son is dating. The other family is convinced that the relationship is the family's business, not the couple's.

Families' beliefs and attitudes can still affect their children, and the underlying themes in the opera of renunciation and the feeling of time slipping away from us are still relevant today.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

There are even some purists who think that operas like _Wozzeck_ should be staged (almost) exactly as they were in the 1920's. Barry Kosky's production for the Australian Opera in about 2000 made the captain into a policeman & some critics said it was silly. Maybe so, but with the recent issues of corruption in police forces in Australia in the late c20th (esp. Queensland, but other states were not immune), it was at least topical...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> You say Tannhauser is timeless - but you also say it is based on an event that could not happen in, say the XiX century. How does this make it different from la Traviata today?


The difference, as I see it, is that medieval envelope of Tannhauser is not literal, it's material which composer approach in very liberal way and listener chooses if he wants to palaver with it's climate or just focus on the essence sterilized from such aspects. Traviata, at the other hand, is weighted with it's historical aspect, it's like watching soap opera from 20 years ago in TV. Scene with matadors, gypsies - that is so addled. It has it's charm for many people but others can get annoyed. In Tannhauser everything is related to universal subject, every scene can be reduced to it's emotional or symbolic essence. Scene with matadors and gypsies is archaic fetish, relic of XIXth century entertainment. Enjoyable - but empty.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> Maybe the problem is that some modern operas are about phenomena that we are still coming to terms with, like the corrosive effect of the celebrity culture (Anna Nicole)?


From ROH

"Anna Nicole: Surtitle information

Since About the House went to print it has been decided that The Royal Opera's new Anna Nicole will be performed without surtitles.

The contemporary, direct and clear style of the libretto in delivery and language along with the use of some amplification for singers makes this opera very different from any new operas we have done here before. "

Interesting.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I tend to agree with Aramis on this issue. My first experience of opera was the Ring Cycle. (Hey - I dive into things head first.) Though I enjoyed it, I would have liked the traditional fat lady in winged Viking helmet experience. In the version I saw, some of that came through, but it gradually evolves to 1920's working class costumes and scenery. For me it destroys the mythic proportions of the story.

When I saw Jordi Savall's L'Orfeo with period instruments and costumes, the experience was much more magical.

However I also enjoy quirky things, like the newer humorous interpretation of Rameau's Les Indes galantes. I think there must be room for both modern interpretation and "stodgy" ones, as long as both are available and clearly labeled.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Aramis said:


> Time and place of action in opera can not be contemporary. It must be ancient and unreal time period, one of those about which people have fantastic images - so fantastic that one more crazy idea that in these times people sang to each other instead of talking won't seem so ridiculous.
> 
> Mythical hero is natural when singing, XXth century politician is not.
> 
> That is why Elektra > Nixon in China


I'm not so sure that's why _Elektra_ is a better opera than _Nixon in China_, which I also happen to like. I agree with mamascarlatti, "For me opera allows an exploration of psychological and emotional states though music." That's what it comes down to. I don't know that there is anything more "natural" about mythical figures singing to each other than anyone else. In fact that's one of those conventions of opera that fans understand, embrace, and often joke about in a loving manner. Case in point:

What's Opera, Doc?

Many of my favorite operas have characters grounded in the real world. Alban Berg's _Wozzeck_ is probably my favorite opera of the 20th century. I think there is a willing suspension of belief that goes along with enjoying the art form.

Of course, this is a different discussion than whether opera productions should be "updated" or placed in different situations or time periods than the composer intended.


----------

