# Could You Shorten That Aria? Opera Weighs Cuts in the Classics



## Der Fliegende Amerikaner (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm really interested in what folks on this forum think about this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/a...t-aria-opera-weighs-cuts-in-the-classics.html

Excerpt:

_But it is a tricky balancing act. Can opera companies, many of them struggling at the box office, broaden their appeal by cutting without alienating their core audience of connoisseurs, who tend to view such cuts as disfigurements close to vandalism?

"I don't think we can any longer fail to hear what our audience is saying about length," David Gockley, the American impresario who just retired as the general director of the San Francisco Opera, said in an interview this spring as he prepared for his final season._

I attended the Opera in the Ballpark event in San Francisco on July 2. While watching the performance on the jumbo screen, I thought something was odd and peculiar as I knew Carmen pretty well. This article confirmed my suspicions that snippets were made to the score.

Here's another possible example:
https://www.seattleopera.org/on-stage/la-traviata/
_Approximate Running Time: 1 hour, 50 minutes with no intermission_

I suspect cuts were made as the ten audio versions (all without intermissions) on the Met On Demand site range from 1:54 to 2:08:
http://www.metopera.org/Season/On-Demand/

The article also mentions another trend which is reducing the number of intermissions. I personally enjoy intermissions when I can grab a drink, mingle and chat with people, and use the restroom. During intermissions at the Met, I usually run across the street to Epicerie Boulud for a quick meal or go downstairs to the basement to view the opera themed artwork. So I was disappointed that the Willy Decker production of La Traviata removed the intermission between Acts II and III, as well as between Acts I and II of Richard Eyre's productions of Le Nozze di Figaro and Carmen.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

A telling statement,


> They fear that three- and four-hour nights, with occasional slow passages, turn off time-pressed modern audiences.


Fear rarely results in good decisions. Unfortunately, when they cater to "the masses" they will look like "them asses."


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Could You Shorten That Aria? Opera Weighs Cuts in the Classics


Are the going bananas over there? I do remember a few years back at the met that a performance of Tosca, people from the audience did get there coast between act 2 and 3 to put it under their chair, last note was played en away they where .
Ridiculous behaviour .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Occasionally there are good artistic reasons for cuts in opera. Composers routinely cut, rearranged and revised their own works for different performances up until the last half of the 19th century, and even later. Not everything in every opera is musically interesting or dramatically essential. Some arias and choruses have long been traditionally omitted for some such reason. It's nice to get to know them, but that might be what recordings are for.

However, it sounds as if we now think we have to pander to the attention spans of people raised in the culture of sound bites, who think that an opera should be like an action movie: visually spectacular and fast-moving. There's apparently no end to the ways we can wreck works of art.


----------



## Ginger (Jul 14, 2016)

Wow what!? I am very sorry but in my opinion it is totally wrong to shorten operas. There will always be parts you don't like that much, but opinions vary and my neighbour just might love exactly this scene or that line of the aria. So who is allowed to decide what stays and what's cut out? 

Concerning the breaks I totally agree with you: they can be so much fun. But I recently visited the MET and although it was Ballett there were far too many breaks! Used to Verdi or Wagner you definitely don't need one every twenty minutes.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Ginger said:


> Wow what!? I am very sorry but in my opinion it is totally wrong to shorten operas. There will always be parts you don't like that much, but opinions vary and my neighbour just might love exactly this scene or that line of the aria. So who is allowed to decide what stays and what's cut out?
> 
> Concerning the breaks I totally agree with you: they can be so much fun. But I recently visited the MET and although it was Ballett there were far too many breaks! Used to Verdi or Wagner you definitely don't need one every twenty minutes.


Strong point made, well done, welcome to TalkClassical . :cheers:


----------



## Ginger (Jul 14, 2016)

Thank you very much


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> However, it sounds as if we now think we have to pander to the attention spans of people raised in the culture of sound bites, who think that an opera should be like an action movie: visually spectacular and fast-moving. There's apparently no end to the ways we can wreck works of art.


This. Opera is an art form that should stand above the whims and demands of the modern man, not give in to them.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

I'm in the minority I guess, but I'd prefer a live cultural practice over a museum piece. If it moves the needle at all on growing a rapidly disappearing audience, I'm all for it. 

Also, frankly, I consider most opera to be about as artistically sacrosanct as broadway musicals. If they cut a Carmen or Boheme or a Faust or whatever, I frankly don't care at all. And honestly I wouldn't even mind if they observed what used to be standard cuts for those I consider the pinnacle of artistic achievement like Don Carlo or the Ring, although I prefer my recordings to be complete.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> I'm in the minority I guess, but I'd prefer a live cultural practice over a museum piece. If it moves the needle at all on growing a rapidly disappearing audience, I'm all for it.
> 
> Also, frankly, I consider most opera to be about as artistically sacrosanct as broadway musicals. If they cut a Carmen or Boheme or a Faust or whatever, I frankly don't care at all. And honestly I wouldn't even mind if they observed what used to be standard cuts for those I consider the pinnacle of artistic achievement like Don Carlo or the Ring, although I prefer my recordings to be complete.


You definitely are in the minority.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Cuts in late Romantic and modern operas are harder to justify simply because the music doesn't contain clear-cut "numbers" and cutting means altering the progression of the music and creating awkward joins. There are "traditional" cuts in Wagner which are rarely used now because they distort the works, and with people knowing the operas from recordings few want to be without the full experience even to save their sore bottoms. I think the only Wagner cut still generally made is the one in Lohengrin's act 3 narrative.

In 1972 I saw _Tristan_ at the Met employing the traditional cuts in acts 2 and 3, and the poor Tristan (Helge Brilioth) still couldn't get through the piece without losing his voice. Imaginary headline: La Nilsson eats another tenor and spits him out.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm one of those who would prefer to see opera die rather than be reduced to a sequence of twitter tweets accompanied by music. We have a "fast-paced" lifestyle because our economy is directed by shallow, consumerist psychopaths worshiping the dollar. The goal of prosperity should be leisure time, the slow-paced lifestyle that permits cultivation of the arts and enjoyment of nature and each other's company, not technological "progress" for progresses' sake, 60 hour work weeks, busywork as a virtue, and a house full of made-in-China gadgets.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

The cuts in Bieito's _Carmen_ are nothing new; this production premiered in 1999. The DVD release from the Liceu runs 156 minutes, which is about how much music we had at SFO. I guess I am one of the "purists" that missed some of the cuts, as I mentioned in my review of the first performance, but these were not arbitrary cuts to reduce the running time.

It's also bizarre to hear Gockley talk about needing to cut operas because one of the other pieces that ran during this summer season was _Don Carlo_, in Italian with much of the Fontainebleau act grafted on. With the two 20-minute intermissions this ran near 4 and a half hours. I still heard people wishing the had included the woodcutters scene, too. I guess this opera is one of the exceptions, like _Les Troyens_ and the Ring.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Cuts in late Romantic and modern operas are harder to justify simply because the music doesn't contain clear-cut "numbers" and cutting means altering the progression of the music and creating awkward joins.


I was really thrown by the cuts made to _Lulu_ by West Edge Opera last year. They cut about an hour, and took intermission just before the film. They also used a reduced orchestration for 20 players. The structure and progression of the music mean so much to this opera that it came off very oddly.

Of course this company could/would not have performed a full length version with the full orchestration. They, by rule, choose shorter operas and/or cut them to 2 to 2.5 hours of music.

This seems less egregious for Baroque operas - _Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria_ last year, _Agrippina_ this year. And the other two operas for 2016 - _Powder Her Face_ nor _Příhody lišky Bystroušky_ (The Cunning Little Vixen) - will need cuts to be short enough (and the former was written for a small orchestra).


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> I'm in the minority I guess, but I'd prefer a live cultural practice over a museum piece. If it moves the needle at all on growing a rapidly disappearing audience, I'm all for it.
> 
> Also, frankly, I consider most opera to be about as artistically sacrosanct as broadway musicals. If they cut a Carmen or Boheme or a Faust or whatever, I frankly don't care at all. And honestly I wouldn't even mind if they observed what used to be standard cuts for those I consider the pinnacle of artistic achievement like Don Carlo or the Ring, although I prefer my recordings to be complete.


We even read minority's posts .


----------



## cheftimmyr (Oct 28, 2015)

As a Millenial who has been listening to opera for almost 12 months, one of the things I most appreciate about opera is its juxtaposition to our current societal state and trends. I make the time to sit down and become lost in a world of audible beauty; it shouldnt be rushed (or cut!!!). The fact that most of my listening time is spent in Wagner is further testament to my commitment of making time. :lol:

In general I want to hear the operas, and appreciate the art, as they were written and intended to be enjoyed. Every note and phrase was notated with purpose. Some of the Wagner cuts that used to be traditional, as Duck mentioned above, always leave me wanting when I hear the "gaps". Somewhere in the back of my mind I think Hans Sachs would have something to say about this!


----------



## Ginger (Jul 14, 2016)

Cheftimmyr, I think it's brilliant how you are referring to Hans Sachs! 
I agree, opera can be a gift consisting of beautiful time. 

I'm very critical about 'antiquated' performances as well, but you shouldn't change something just because its 'modern'. Only if its getting better. A one and a half hour Götterdämmerung definitely wouldn't be better....


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

Just play the music faster. Normal Ring: 15hrs. Goodall Ring: 17hrs. Boulez Ring 12hrs.

And doesn't the Karl Bohm's Tristan clock in at around three and a half hours. The usual is around 4hrs.

Imagine if Boulez conducted La Boheme it would be over in 70mins.

And considering the yoof of today can binge watch Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead, an average three hour opera should be no problem.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Loge said:


> Just play the music faster. Normal Ring: 15hrs. Goodall Ring: 17hrs. Boulez Ring 12hrs.
> 
> And doesn't the Karl Bohm's Tristan clock in at around three and a half hours. The usual is around 4hrs.
> 
> Imagine if Boulez conducted La Boheme it would be over in 70mins.


He new his limits, I don't think Puccini as one of them .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Loge said:


> Just play the music faster. Normal Ring: 15hrs. Goodall Ring: 17hrs. Boulez Ring 12hrs.
> 
> And doesn't the Karl Bohm's Tristan clock in at around three and a half hours. The usual is around 4hrs.
> 
> ...


Not only could conductors conduct faster, but the musicians could play faster if Wagner's impossible violin parts could be rewritten as glissandos so that the players wouldn't have to worry about individual notes, which nobody actually hears anyway. Then, if the music went faster, the stage action could speed up too; we've all seen silent movies, so we know it can be done, and we know that singers could get the words out faster as well, since we've all heard _The Barber of Seville_. It takes Wagnerian characters so long to get around to doing things, and sometimes we wait and wait and they never do anything at all. What's an actor to do? So much time could be saved - say, right after Tristan and Isolde drink that cocktail, where the soprano and tenor just stand there looking bewildered, when we all know that they just can't wait to get it on. Wham, bam...! That could be more fun for everybody, especially if the soprano and tenor have 600 pounds between them.

We can begin working toward a newer, faster Wagner by putting Roger Norrington on the podium. He is the only conductor who has ever realized that the prelude to _Tristan_ is a Viennese waltz, which is why it was first performed by Johann Strauss and his orchestra (yes, it really was).


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

cheftimmyr said:


> As a Millenial who has been listening to opera for almost 12 months, one of the things I most appreciate about opera is its juxtaposition to our current societal state and trends. I make the time to sit down and become lost in a world of audible beauty; it shouldnt be rushed (or cut!!!). The fact that most of my listening time is spent in Wagner is further testament to my commitment of making time. :lol:
> 
> In general I want to hear the operas, and appreciate the art, as they were written and intended to be enjoyed. Every note and phrase was notated with purpose. Some of the Wagner cuts that used to be traditional, as Duck mentioned above, always leave me wanting when I hear the "gaps". Somewhere in the back of my mind I think Hans Sachs would have something to say about this!


Composer intent is an interesting criteria considering that the performance practice for opera productions did cut and alter from performance to performance, often with the willing participation of the composers themselves up until the latter half of the last century. They were interested in success at the gate, and would happily cut arias, scenes, and full acts from their written scores if they thought it would help their works be popular successes--odd that our respect for composers lead us to the exact opposite conclusion they themselves reached.

Couple of things that occur to me when I think about this:
1) My absolute favorite Ring Cycle out of my current count of around thirty is the 1950 Furtwangler at La Scala, by a very sizeable margin. It has cuts in Act 2 of Walkure and Act 3 of Siegfried, and I care not at all when I'm listening to this glorious thing. Would I prefer it complete? Yes, but not by nearly enough to prevent this from being The One Ring for me.

2) Several otherwise fantastic recordings I have of Rigoletto observes the very unfortunate cut to the Gilda/Rigoletto duet, one of the most beautiful pieces of music Verdi ever wrote, and I spin those recordings much less frequently as a result. However, some recordings observes the cut to the Duke's cabaletta, which is a piece of music I enjoy but don't miss at all when it's cut and in fact prefer since it always seems a little artificial and shoehorned into place. Some cuts make sense and don't detract from a performance, and some don't.

3) Maybe the most drastic violence done to composer intent is the Rimsky Korsakov re-composition of Boris Godunov. I don't care though, I much prefer hearing Boris Christoff bellowing like a lunatic in that version over any recording of either the 1869 or 1872 that I've heard.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> *Composer intent is an interesting criteria* considering that the performance practice for opera productions did cut and alter from performance to performance, often with the willing participation of the composers themselves up until the latter half of the last century. *They were interested in success at the gate, and would happily cut arias, scenes, and full acts from their written scores if they thought it would help their works be popular successes--odd that our respect for composers lead us to the exact opposite conclusion they themselves reached.*
> 
> Couple of things that occur to me when I think about this:
> 1) My absolute favorite Ring Cycle out of my current count of around thirty is the 1950 Furtwangler at La Scala, by a very sizeable margin. It has cuts in Act 2 of Walkure and Act 3 of Siegfried, and I care not at all when I'm listening to this glorious thing. Would I prefer it complete? Yes, but not by nearly enough to prevent this from being The One Ring for me.
> ...


I approve heartily of such a non-purist viewpoint on this subject - on almost any subject, actually. The fact that composers felt free to cut and rearrange their own works, though, shouldn't make us think that we occupy positions of similar authority, or are viewing the issue from their point of view. Undoubtedly, they wanted their works to be well-received and were prepared to make some adjustments. But it's common for composers - for all creators in the performing arts, actually - to make revisions and emendations after a premiere or in the course of a run, when they've had an opportunity to see and hear how the thing actually comes across in performance. When we produce an opera of Mozart or Verdi we're dealing with a piece that's been tried and found true (or not) for many decades or centuries; we're not the creators trying to get it into shape, and our next meal doesn't depend on persuading the impresario not to cancel the next performance. There may still be legitimate practical reasons for cutting and revising, but unlike the composer we have to remember that we are servants of the work and that our job is to bring audiences to an appreciation of what the composer and librettist have actually done. What they might do, if they were still around, isn't ours to guess.

I like Rimsky's take on _Boris_ too. After all, Rimsky was no slouch. Who knows what Mussorgsky would have said about it? As long as it's billed as "Mussorgsky, arr. Rimsky-Korsakov" I'm fine with it. The nice thing about the age of recording is that we can have any version whenever we want it.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I saw a _L'incoronazione di Poppea_ last night. It probably ran about 2:50, including a 15-minute interval (in the middle of the second act). No original score of the opera is extant, so speaking of a "complete" performance doesn't mean the same thing as with other operas, but they still cut 30-40 minutes: the prologue with the gods, as well a few other shorter scenes.

I thoroughly enjoyed what I saw, and was thrilled that I was able to see it. There were a few times during the performance that I missed having seen the gods, but it would not stop me from recommending others see it or seeing further productions by this young company. And I'm not sure it would have actually been that much better if it had run 3:45.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> The nice thing about the age of recording is that we can have any version whenever we want it.


I'd like to highlight and heartily agree with this statement, too. I have a difficult time picking a favorite opera, or a favorite performance, etc., in part because I love the variations on a theme. Nothing has to be definitive because I don't actually live on a desert island.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

mountmccabe said:


> I'd like to highlight and heartily agree with this statement, too. I have a difficult time picking a favorite opera, or a favorite performance, etc., in part because I love the variations on a theme. Nothing has to be definitive because I don't actually live on a desert island.


As much as I agree with you, there must be one or two favourites?


----------

