# Peter Grimes: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends!



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

*I’m going to see Peter Grimes Wednesday night and I’m hopeful it will be a more satisfying experience than the first time I went to hear it. That time, my friend and I found ourselves at the end of the evening going okayyy?? But do to the opera’s stature, we both believe there’s more there that we were not tapping into. Letting Grimes just come to me didn’t seem to work. I won’t really do research before going to see a show but I will allow myself a kind of opening mindset. My thought is to keep in mind that it’s the story of an outsider, and see if I’m more sympathetic to what I watch through that lens. I know there are some Peter Grimes fans on here, if memory serves me TsarasLondon is one. I take any offering intended to encourage a happy experience.k*


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

There are a range of ways of 'playing' the character of Grimes with the original, Peter Pears, at one end of the spectrum and (probably) Jon Vickers at the other. Personally I lean towards thinking that more of a middle road, albeit one leaning more towards Vickers is the better choice. I am assuming that you will be seeing the current Met production with Alan Clayton about whom I've seen a lot of good comments, and who seems to have a good handle on Grimes. While they aren't quite as important, the wrong casting of Ellen Orford and Balstrode can negatively impact the story and I know nothing about the casting in this production. Lastly it takes a really good conductor to bring everything together, especially the various interludes.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Becca said:


> There are a range of ways of 'playing' the character of Grimes with the original, Peter Pears, at one end of the spectrum and (probably) Jon Vickers at the other. Personally I lean towards thinking that more of a middle road, albeit one leaning more towards Vickers is the better choice. I am assuming that you will be seeing the current Met production with Alan Clayton about whom I've seen a lot of good comments, and who seems to have a good handle on Grimes. While they aren't quite as important, the wrong casting of Ellen Orford and Balstrode can negatively impact the story and I know nothing about the casting in this production. Lastly it takes a really good conductor to bring everything together, especially the various interludes.


Is there an easy way to describe the difference between the Pears and the Vickers approach?...and Yes, the Met.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

They are both outcasts but for different reasons, Vickers is an emotional misfit, not antisocial but not knowing how to relate to people, whereas Pears characterization seems to have more to do with sexuality, probably not gay but leaving the villagers thinking that he might be. Beyond that I will not go, my background is in the hard sciences and I tread in the psychiatric waters at my peril!


----------



## Branko (3 mo ago)

Yes, one can see Grimes as an outcast, but I have a slightly different take on it. I don't know whether this helps to open any doors to Peter Grimes, but in my mind the sea is the main protagonist. Or you can call it antagonist. The unsung music - what comes out of the orchestra pit - is what makes and breaks Grimes' fate. It is him against the sea. I feel that the rest of the people in the story have made their peace with this force of nature, but Grimes will not accept his given place in the greater scheme of things. For me, the idea of fate and the concept of hubris comes into it very strongly, almost in the way of a classic drama. And this is reflected in the music. For instance, the moment the passacaglia theme is introduced, Fortuna's wheel starts spinning and we know that Grimes' fate is sealed, there is no return for him. It all happens in the front of the church - very telling. Here Ellen's input is so important....ah, I love this opera. I could go on and on. But my main focus is the idea of the sea as a greater power shaping and breaking the lives of the villagers and I very much listen out for this in a recording or performance. 
I heard Clayton in London recently - enjoy the show !


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I have always found Peter Grimes to be incredibly moving, whether I'm seeing it in the theatre or just listening to it at home. I have both the Davis recording with Vickers and the Britten with Pears and I like them equally, though their protagonists are quite different. 

I can't remember how many times I have seen it in the theatre, but I have vivid recollections of two productions, one at Covent Garden with Ben Heppner and conducted by Antonio Pappano, and one at the English National Opera with Philip Langridge and conducted by David Atherton. Britten and Pears were both homosexual and in a relationship at a time when it was illegal for two men to have sex. Although many in their circle turned a blind eye, they would always have to be careful not to reveal the true nature of their relationship. One of the main themes is surely how society views with suspicion anyone different from themselves and how this mistrust can quickly be mobilised into mob violence. The scene where the chorus are baying for Grimes's blood is utterly terrifying, or at least it was in both the above productions.

We should remember that Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Nazi's Enigma Code, without whom the outcome of WWII might well have been quite different, was hounded to his death in 1954 by society and the authorities. Forced to accept either medical castration or prison after being convicted of indulging in homosexual acts, he chose the former, but committed suicide in 1954. It is a particularly shocking indictment of our society at that time. He was posthumously pardoned by Queen Elizabeth II in 2013, giving rise to the Alan Turing law, a term now used informally to refer to a 2017 law in the United Kingdom that retroactively pardoned men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

ScottK said:


> That time, my friend and I found ourselves at the end of the evening going o okkayyy??


Can I ask why?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Artran said:


> Can I ask why?


Absolutely.... (I may be assuming too much for local slang on an international site) it was the same response I had at the end of the movie raging Bull… I could see all the intelligence and skill and talent from creators and performers but the story, as told through the music, still left me going… Why are they telling me all this? I felt no connection to Grimes who simply seemed to be guilty of what all the towns people say he was guilty of. I felt no insight into why this probable guilt needed to be viewed in a larger light.(been a while, as I remember it he’s not absolutely shown to be guilty correct?)And because of the type of music that Britten writes, I, personally, did not get a purely musical satisfaction. I felt that this music, to be important to me, was going to need to connect to a story that moved me in a way I comprehended more than I did.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Absolutely.... (I may be assuming too much for local slang on an international site) it was the same response I had at the end of the movie raging Bull… I could see all the intelligence and skill and talent from creators and performers but the story, as told through the music, still left me going… Why are they telling me all this? I felt no connection to Grimes who simply seemed to be guilty of what all the towns people say he was guilty of. I felt no insight into why this probable guilt needed to be viewed in a larger light.(been a while, as I remember it he’s not absolutely shown to be guilty correct?)*And because of the type of music that Britten writes, I, personally, did not get a purely musical satisfaction. I felt that this music, to be important to me, was going to need to connect to a story that moved me in a way I comprehended more than I did.*


Wagner said that he wanted his audiences to understand through feeling. That's a matter for music, first and foremost. I've always felt a mythical quality in _Grimes_, as I do in certain other operas (_Parsifal_ and _Pelleas_ come to mind). In myth we don't always understand what we're being shown, yet it speaks to something deep inside us, something archetypal, and we're enchanted and held by a strange sense that we're witnessing something important. _Grimes_ is a marvelous score, and I hope that on further acquaintance it works its dark sea magic on you.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner said that he wanted his audiences to understand through feeling. That's a matter for music, first and foremost. I've always felt a mythical quality in _Grimes_, as I do in certain other operas (_Parsifal_ and _Pelleas_ come to mind). In myth we don't always understand what we're being shown, yet it speaks to something deep inside us, something archetypal, and we're enchanted and held by a strange sense that we're witnessing something important. _Grimes_ is a marvelous score, and I hope that on further acquaintance it works its dark sea magic on you.


You all will be the first to know! Thanks for sharing. Your thought may be the kind I respond to. In any case, I always like “try to turn off the thinking” suggestions!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Branko said:


> Yes, one can see Grimes as an outcast, but I have a slightly different take on it. I don't know whether this helps to open any doors to Peter Grimes, but in my mind the sea is the main protagonist. Or you can call it antagonist. The unsung music - what comes out of the orchestra pit - is what makes and breaks Grimes' fate. It is him against the sea. I feel that the rest of the people in the story have made their peace with this force of nature, but Grimes will not accept his given place in the greater scheme of things. For me, the idea of fate and the concept of hubris comes into it very strongly, almost in the way of a classic drama. And this is reflected in the music. For instance, the moment the passacaglia theme is introduced, Fortuna's wheel starts spinning and we know that Grimes' fate is sealed, there is no return for him. It all happens in the front of the church - very telling. Here Ellen's input is so important....ah, I love this opera. I could go on and on. But my main focus is the idea of the sea as a greater power shaping and breaking the lives of the villagers and I very much listen out for this in a recording or performance.
> I heard Clayton in London recently - enjoy the show !





Branko said:


> Yes, one can see Grimes as an outcast, but I have a slightly different take on it. I don't know whether this helps to open any doors to Peter Grimes, but in my mind the sea is the main protagonist. Or you can call it antagonist. The unsung music - what comes out of the orchestra pit - is what makes and breaks Grimes' fate. It is him against the sea. I feel that the rest of the people in the story have made their peace with this force of nature, but Grimes will not accept his given place in the greater scheme of things. For me, the idea of fate and the concept of hubris comes into it very strongly, almost in the way of a classic drama. And this is reflected in the music. For instance, the moment the passacaglia theme is introduced, Fortuna's wheel starts spinning and we know that Grimes' fate is sealed, there is no return for him. It all happens in the front of the church - very telling. Here Ellen's input is so important....ah, I love this opera. I could go on and on. But my main focus is the idea of the sea as a greater power shaping and breaking the lives of the villagers and I very much listen out for this in a recording or performance.
> I heard Clayton in London recently - enjoy the show !


I love it! Your passion for the opera comes through loud and clear and your Peter vs the sea will not be forgotten!!!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I have always found Peter Grimes to be incredibly moving, whether I'm seeing it in the theatre or just listening to it at home. I have both the Davis recording with Vickers and the Britten with Pears and I like them equally, though their protagonists are quite different.
> 
> I can't remember how many times I have seen it in the theatre, but I have vivid recollections of two productions, one at Covent Garden with Ben Heppner and conducted by Antonio Pappano, and one at the English National Opera with Philip Langridge and conducted by David Atherton. Britten and Pears were both homosexual and in a relationship at a time when it was illegal for two men to have sex. Although many in their circle turned a blind eye, they would always have to be careful not to reveal the true nature of their relationship. One of the main themes is surely how society views with suspicion anyone different from themselves and how this mistrust can quickly be mobilised into mob violence. The scene where the chorus are baying for Grimes's blood is utterly terrifying, or at least it was in both the above productions.
> 
> We should remember that Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Nazi's Enigma Code, without whom the outcome of WWII might well have been quite different, was hounded to his death in 1954 by society and the authorities. Forced to accept either medical castration or prison after being convicted of indulging in homosexual acts, he chose the former, but committed suicide in 1954. It is a particularly shocking indictment of our society at that time. He was posthumously pardoned by Queen Elizabeth II in 2013, giving rise to the Alan Turing law, a term now used informally to refer to a 2017 law in the United Kingdom that retroactively pardoned men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.


In 1954, the government of one of the world’s powerful, modern democracies drove him to kill himself......Many of these sharings focus on the theme of an individual warring with something more powerful. And they all share passion for this opera. I’m looking forward to this!


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

I really hope you and your friend enjoy it. It seems pretty common to think of Pears and Vickers as being on opposite sides of a spectrum in terms of their assumptions of the title role. Vickers has a more powerful voice, and he lent the character more of what I might characterize as malevolence. Also, remember that it was premiered in June 1945; I think it is a poignant representation of man's cruelty to man. Grimes is not a good person, in that we see his treatment of John and Ellen; but we are confronted with his undeniable humanity towards the end, and Britten leaves it up to us to make a moral judgement. I'll also mention that the chorus is _extremely_ important throughout this opera. For example in the "Old Joe has gone fishing" round, Grimes does not join the chorus but sings his own part, before the chorus regroups without him. He is an outcast, not one of them, so he does not join their music.


----------



## Artran (Sep 16, 2016)

ScottK said:


> Absolutely.... (I may be assuming too much for local slang on an international site) it was the same response I had at the end of the movie raging Bull… I could see all the intelligence and skill and talent from creators and performers but the story, as told through the music, still left me going… Why are they telling me all this? I felt no connection to Grimes who simply seemed to be guilty of what all the towns people say he was guilty of. I felt no insight into why this probable guilt needed to be viewed in a larger light.(been a while, as I remember it he’s not absolutely shown to be guilty correct?)And because of the type of music that Britten writes, I, personally, did not get a purely musical satisfaction. I felt that this music, to be important to me, was going to need to connect to a story that moved me in a way I comprehended more than I did.


Ok, thanks.

Maybe it could help if you try to see in the opera the themes about which Britten would like to talk about openly but he simply couldn't.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I love the opera and my wife hates it.
If a person does not get a piece of music, I doubt that I can change their mind through words alone.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I have always found Peter Grimes to be incredibly moving, whether I'm seeing it in the theatre or just listening to it at home. I have both the Davis recording with Vickers and the Britten with Pears and I like them equally, though their protagonists are quite different.
> 
> I can't remember how many times I have seen it in the theatre, but I have vivid recollections of two productions, one at Covent Garden with Ben Heppner and conducted by Antonio Pappano, and one at the English National Opera with Philip Langridge and conducted by David Atherton. Britten and Pears were both homosexual and in a relationship at a time when it was illegal for two men to have sex. Although many in their circle turned a blind eye, they would always have to be careful not to reveal the true nature of their relationship. One of the main themes is surely how society views with suspicion anyone different from themselves and how this mistrust can quickly be mobilised into mob violence. The scene where the chorus are baying for Grimes's blood is utterly terrifying, or at least it was in both the above productions.
> 
> We should remember that Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Nazi's Enigma Code, without whom the outcome of WWII might well have been quite different, was hounded to his death in 1954 by society and the authorities. Forced to accept either medical castration or prison after being convicted of indulging in homosexual acts, he chose the former, but committed suicide in 1954. It is a particularly shocking indictment of our society at that time. He was posthumously pardoned by Queen Elizabeth II in 2013, giving rise to the Alan Turing law, a term now used informally to refer to a 2017 law in the United Kingdom that retroactively pardoned men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.


Very well said. I also find Peter Grimes incredibly moving. In fact, it may be my favourite 20th Century Opera. I'd probably rank it higher than any of Richard Strauss' Operas.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

arpeggio said:


> I love the opera and my wife hates it.
> If a person does not get a piece of music, I doubt that I can change their mind through words alone.


When we were early teenagers I was still leery of eating cabbage and was quite impressed one night at dinner when my younger sister sat down and filled her plate with it, mashed in some new potatoes, butter and salt & pepper and devoured it. Half learning a new trick and half wanting to enjoy it the way she did seems to have carried the day. I can’t say I’ll definitely have a different experience- no amount of desire to like it has ever made me an Electra fan and I’m an ardent Straussian - but I think being immersed in all these responses is an enjoyable way to try!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

damianjb1 said:


> Very well said. I also find Peter Grimes incredibly moving. In fact, it may be my favourite 20th Century Opera. I'd probably rank it higher than any of Richard Strauss' Operas.


It might just be mine too. I have a massive soft spot for *Der Rosenkavalier *(well about 80% of it, anyway), but I think *Peter Grimes *is not only a better opera, formally and dramatically, but also a more important one.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> It might just be mine too. I have a massive soft spot for *Der Rosenkavalier *(well about 80% of it, anyway), but I think *Peter Grimes *is not only a better opera, formally and dramatically, but also a more important one.


I agree with you here (although I like Rosenkavalier somewhat less than you do), but I can say that Grimes is the better opera without hesitation. Rosenkavalier is too long for its material for starters (both words and music). However, I find it difficult to pick a greater opera between Peter Grimes and Elektra. (The latter is helped by its superb libretto, it's surely not controversial to state that Sophocles was a better writer than Hofmansthal).

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I agree with you here (although I like Rosenkavalier somewhat less than you do), but I can say that Grimes is the better opera without hesitation. Rosenkavalier is too long for its material for starters (both words and music). However, I find it difficult to pick a greater opera between Peter Grimes and Elektra. (The latter is helped by its superb libretto, it's surely not controversial to state that Sophocles was a better writer than Hofmansthal).
> 
> N.


True, but, as you know, I can't stand *Elektra. *I may love the soprano voice but almost two hours of women screaming at each other is a bit too much for me. It's all so overwrought.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> True, but, as you know, I can't stand *Elektra. *I may love the soprano voice but almost two hours of women screaming at each other is a bit too much for me. It's all so overwrought.


Yes and (as previously discussed) I love the opera. Do you at least appreciate Elektra as a great opera though? (I'm bored to tears by Nozze di Figaro, but I still think it's a masterpiece.)

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

damianjb1 said:


> Very well said. I also find Peter Grimes incredibly moving. In fact, it may be my favourite 20th Century Opera. *I'd probably rank it higher than any of Richard Strauss' Operas.*


I agree completely. Strauss is a brilliant composer, but there's typically something of the showman about him. For me he rarely cuts deep, except when he's deeply sentimental; his aging Viennese aristocrats are more real and moving than his crazy Greeks and Biblical nymphomaniacs, although somehow they all end up singing and dancing waltzes. _Grimes_ is a stark and powerful portrait of human nature and life.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> True, but, as you know, I can't stand *Elektra. *I may love the soprano voice but almost two hours of women screaming at each other is a bit too much for me. It's all so overwrought.


Electra is for me "Strauss sometimes promises more than he delivers" opera! I've never lost my curiosity about Grimes and after reading here, I can certainly see why it could be more important.............thanks to Hoffmansthall, I would not remove a note/word of Rosenkavalier!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I agree completely. Strauss is a brilliant composer, but there's typically something of the showman about him. For me he rarely cuts deep, except when he's deeply sentimental; his aging Viennese aristocrats are more real and moving than his crazy Greeks and Biblical nymphomaniacs, although somehow they all end up singing and dancing waltzes. _Grimes_ is a stark and powerful portrait of human nature and life.


The Marschallin cuts me very deep......I consider her a stark and powerful portrait of human nature and life. If sorrow over the passage of time and love is in itself deeply sentimental, then he shares his fate with Eliot, Auden, Hopkins and a lot of other poets, just with a little more schlag!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

ScottK said:


> The Marschallin cuts me very deep......I consider her a stark and powerful portrait of human nature and life. If sorrow over the passage of time and love is in itself deeply sentimental, then he shares his fate with Eliot, Auden, Hopkins and a lot of other poets, just with a little more schlag!


The Marschallin is one of my favourite characters in all opera, but all the Ochs tomfoolery outstays its welcome for me. I can't wait to get past all the "comedy" in the third act, but from the Marschallin's entrance onwards I am fully committed, especially when Schwarzkopf is singing it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> The Marschallin is one of my favourite characters in all opera, but all the Ochs tomfoolery outstays its welcome for me. I can't wait to get past all the "comedy" in the third act, but from the Marschallin's entrance onwards I am fully committed, especially when Schwarzkopf is singing it.


Is the Ochs stuff ever subject to cuts? Is any of it even cuttable? That guy has deterred me from sitting down to the whole of _Rosenkavalier_ over the years. And that god-awful whining Marianderl (is that her/his/her name?)... People certainly do differ in what they find amusing.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Strauss is a brilliant composer, but there's typically something of the showman about him. For me he rarely cuts deep, except when he's deeply sentimental; his aging Viennese aristocrats are more real and moving than his crazy Greeks and Biblical nymphomaniacs, although somehow they all end up singing and dancing waltzes.


I understand. I'm oddly reminded of, btw,


hammeredklavier said:


> Sure, I can admit that "Rowan Atkinson is a genius actor who showed enormous skill and talent in entertaining his audiences. He surely deserves his popularity and fame. Who can argue that?"
> Just cause there are people who go further to find "meaning" in his acting, it doesn't mean I have to sympathize with them; doesn't matter how many there are.


----------



## ewilkros (8 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Is the Ochs stuff ever subject to cuts? Is any of it even cuttable? .


It is and certainly was in my day (previous century!) -- for example there's a long bit about "hunting" for girls back home [read: molesting migratory workers].

<pulls out score>

-- in the piano-vocal score, from page 72/2/4 to 75/2/4 (_Da hat's Nächte_!/ snip /_Wollt, ich könnt'sein_)
then 75/4/1 to 80/4/3
(_Wär Verwendung für jede_. / snip/ E_r weiss mehr als_ das A-B-C!)

or in the 1949 Met performance--under Fritz Reiner, no less--from 71/1/4 to 82/2/5 (..._wo nicht dem Knaben Cupido ein Geschenkerl abzulisten wär_ to _Nein, Er agirt mir gar zu gut_), possibly so the aging Emanuel List can avoid the 8-measure high F going down to low B-flat (_ein Heu-eu-eu-eu-eu-eu-eu in der Nähe dabei *sein*_)

at 27:38, here--






--a nice big chunk, or, in other words, "a disfiguring cut"


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> The Marschallin is one of my favourite characters in all opera, but all the Ochs tomfoolery outstays its welcome for me. I can't wait to get past all the "comedy" in the third act, but from the Marschallin's entrance onwards I am fully committed, especially when Schwarzkopf is singing it.


Ochs doesn't need to crack me up to fill the space, and he's not always a buffoon. Walter Berry had the purest everyman charm and pretty good comic chops. I was never putting up with him. And good comic timing can carry the day and get laughs even in uninspired situations. The last guy I saw at the Met had some genuine menace with the discovery of who Mariandl is. His impact took its place within the strength of Hoffmansthall's librettto as being yet another facet of the trials of the search for love. The tenor, ochs, Faninal, the intriguers for gosh sakes, all bring something to bear on the theme of search for love.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Is the Ochs stuff ever subject to cuts? Is any of it even cuttable? That guy has deterred me from sitting down to the whole of _Rosenkavalier_ over the years. And that god-awful whining Marianderl (is that her/his/her name?)... People certainly do differ in what they find amusing.


They do! 
No....I do not go to Rosenkavalier for Mariandl and neither did my dad. But ..." nein, nein..i trink kein vein.." done right, could get a big laugh from him and he was no idiot.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> Yes and (as previously discussed) I love the opera. Do you at least appreciate Elektra as a great opera though? (I'm bored to tears by Nozze di Figaro, but I still think it's a masterpiece.)
> 
> N.


I will have to say that, after three hearings, I don't consider it a great opera. It feels like it attempts what Salome achieves. It aint pretty lyricism but I also find it to NOT be what it seems to want to be.... a jarring and visceral exploration of its themes. I keep waiting for that music to happen and don't get it. And it seems almost like he finally says....alright, I'll just give them one of my big lush gorgeous soprano scenes. But for the record...and to put myself in my place before someone else does...I don't consider Tristan a great opera. It may possibly have the most beautiful music ever written but I don't think it's a great opera.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Günther Groissböck's Ochs (which I've only ever seen videotaped) focuses on the fact that Ochs is essentially broke and desperate. Faninal doesn't have the social status that Ochs has, but he does have cash. Ochs's finagling with the notary during _Di rigori armato il seno_ to try to get Faninal to pay _him_ to marry Sophie shows us how anxious he is about money. Ochs's frequent use of foreign idioms is, I think, intended to help him puff himself up a bit, to convince himself that he's better than those around him because of his status (and the education he presumably got as a result of his status). If he can play the part of a wealthy, well-off aristocrat, then perhaps his existence will be tolerated or supported. He obviously doesn't have the grace or charm to play this convincingly; his deep voice singing that light waltz demonstrates that perfectly. To circle back to my point, Ochs isn't just a comic character; he is about to be in financial trouble, and marrying Sophie to get access to Faninal's wealth is an escape route he seeks. And if he had a bit more self-awareness, he might just have gotten away with it. I think this perspective on Ochs, which seems sufficiently grounded in the libretto to me, makes him a more interesting character, and not just a buffoon added for comic relief.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Ochs doesn't need to crack me up to fill the space, and he's not always a buffoon. Walter Berry had the purest everyman charm and pretty good comic chops. I was never putting up with him. And good comic timing can carry the day and get laughs even in uninspired situations. The last guy I saw at the Met had some genuine menace with the discovery of who Mariandl is. His impact took its place within the strength of Hoffmansthall's librettto as being yet another facet of the trials of the search for love. The tenor, ochs, Faninal, the intriguers for gosh sakes, all bring something to bear on the theme of search for love.


I'm a musician living in the sticks. I don't get to see operas (unless I look for them on YouTube), so I depend mainly on the music to keep me interested. There are operas I've rarely listened to which I might find more enjoyable in the theater, but my favorite operas are quite compelling to me as drama (including comedy) through music. Ochs is musical dead time for me. The libretto may be clever, but opera isn't literature, and if the music isn't interesting I don't care if the characters are spouting Milton, James Joyce or Mark Twain.

Of course Ochs is an obnoxious person too. I don't need opera to find examples of that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I don't consider Tristan a great opera. It may possibly have the most beautiful music ever written but I don't think it's a great opera.


What makes a great opera?


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> What makes a great opera?


Opera is drama and the lifeblood of drama is conflict, felt by the audience. I think that needs to be achieved before any other element is considered.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

ScottK said:


> Opera is drama and the lifeblood of drama is conflict, felt by the audience. I think that needs to be achieved before any other element is considered.


I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, if that were the only metric, then Elektra would be the greatest opera ever written!

N.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

The Conte said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, if that were the only metric, then Elektra would be the greatest opera ever written!
> 
> N.


It’s definitely not the only metric it’s just the sine qua non to my way of thinking. No sense going anywhere else until that has been credibly achieved. And unfortunately that is the thing I lack in Electra… I think he went for it big time but I, the audience member, and that is the place where the conflict needs to be felt, do not feel a sense of conflict in Electra. I feel the attempt. Very important here… I’m an enormous Strauss fan… I am NOT attempting to talk you out of it !Just the opposite… There has to be a reason I’ve gone to see the opera three times. I’d love to have you or a performance convince me!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Opera is drama and the lifeblood of drama is conflict, felt by the audience. I think that needs to be achieved before any other element is considered.


Opera is _drama through music. _The lifeblood of opera is the power of its music to reveal the emotional meaning of its stories, felt by the audience (and guaged, for all practical purposes, by bums in seats and record sales). No opera has survived by virtue of any non-musical element, literary or theatrical, where the music fails to convince.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Opera is _drama through music. _The lifeblood of opera is the power of its music to reveal the emotional meaning of its stories, felt by the audience (and guaged, for all practical purposes, by bums in seats and record sales). No opera has survived by virtue of any non-musical element, literary or theatrical, where the music fails to convince.


Agreed!


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> Günther Groissböck's Ochs (which I've only ever seen videotaped) focuses on the fact that Ochs is essentially broke and desperate. Faninal doesn't have the social status that Ochs has, but he does have cash. Ochs's finagling with the notary during _Di rigori armato il seno_ to try to get Faninal to pay _him_ to marry Sophie shows us how anxious he is about money. Ochs's frequent use of foreign idioms is, I think, intended to help him puff himself up a bit, to convince himself that he's better than those around him because of his status (and the education he presumably got as a result of his status). If he can play the part of a wealthy, well-off aristocrat, then perhaps his existence will be tolerated or supported. He obviously doesn't have the grace or charm to play this convincingly; his deep voice singing that light waltz demonstrates that perfectly. To circle back to my point, Ochs isn't just a comic character; he is about to be in financial trouble, and marrying Sophie to get access to Faninal's wealth is an escape route he seeks. And if he had a bit more self-awareness, he might just have gotten away with it. I think this perspective on Ochs, which seems sufficiently grounded in the libretto to me, makes him a more interesting character, and not just a buffoon added for comic relief.


I get, and like, it all! Of course it has to be performed that way.
Groissbock's name sounds familiar. Was he possibly the Ochs when the Met opened the present production?


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

ScottK said:


> I get, and like, it all! Of course it has to be performed that way.
> Groissbock's name sounds familiar. Was he possibly the Ochs when the Met opened the present production?


Yes exactly. That's the video I had in mind.


----------



## damianjb1 (Jan 1, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I agree completely. Strauss is a brilliant composer, but there's typically something of the showman about him. For me he rarely cuts deep, except when he's deeply sentimental; his aging Viennese aristocrats are more real and moving than his crazy Greeks and Biblical nymphomaniacs, although somehow they all end up singing and dancing waltzes. _Grimes_ is a stark and powerful portrait of human nature and life.


I'm not much of a fan of Strauss' music other than his songs. Even the Tone Poems do little for me. Like you I find most of his output more concerned with surface effects than real depth. I find Salome and Elektra extremely entertaining but they've never moved me. 'Lurid' is the word that often comes to mind for me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

damianjb1 said:


> I'm not much of a fan of Strauss' music other than his songs. Even the Tone Poems do little for me. Like you I find most of his output more concerned with surface effects than real depth. I find Salome and Elektra extremely entertaining but they've never moved me. 'Lurid' is the word that often comes to mind for me.


"Lurid" with a smile and a wink, and an eye on box office receipts.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> "Lurid" with a smile and a wink, and an eye on box office receipts.


Wasn't it on this very thread that a wise observer was recently mentioning "fanny's in the seats" soon after conflict in the music felt by the audience, in a brief discussion about qualities of a great opera???? Is our tip of the hat to commercial realities, of the same weight for Strauss as for Wagner??? Or is Strauss superficially commercial while Wagner is profoundly commercial??


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Wasn't it on this very thread that a wise observer was recently mentioning "fanny's in the seats" soon after conflict in the music felt by the audience, in a brief discussion about qualities of a great opera???? Is our tip of the hat to commercial realities, of the same weight for Strauss as for Wagner??? Or is Strauss superficially commercial while Wagner is profoundly commercial??


It doesn't matter how much a composer wants an audience. They all do. What matters is whether they sound as if they do.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

WD I'd take you on my side in court any day of the week, but my tastes must be cheesier than yours - not martyring here, I'm boasting  -- I'd never dreamed of Richard Strauss being guilty of Tin-Pan Alley-itis!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> WD I'd take you on my side in court any day of the week, but my tastes must be cheesier than yours - not martyring here, I'm boasting  -- I'd never dreamed of Richard Strauss being guilty of Tin-Pan Alley-itis!


Tin Pan Alley suggests conscious pandering. With Strauss I don't think it was pandering at all. He just naturally had a vein of profound superficiality. Can anyone really believe in the humanity of Salome or Elektra? But it doesn't matter whether we can or not, so long as we're thrilled, fascinated, entertained. Obsession, nymphomania, necrophilia, whatever... It's all in good fun.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Tin Pan Alley suggests conscious pandering. With Strauss I don't think it was pandering at all. He just naturally had a vein of profound superficiality. Can anyone really believe in the humanity of Salome or Elektra? But it doesn't matter whether we can or not, so long as we're thrilled, fascinated, entertained. Obsession, nymphomania, necrophilia, whatever... It's all in good fun.


That’s the send-off I needed! A country away, I’m off to dream of ...if it’s Salome or Electra you’ll hear about it😆🤨😆!!!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Can anyone really believe in the humanity of Salome or Elektra?


I would turn this around and ask how anyone can be really human if they don't believe in the humanity of Teresa Stratas' Salome (in the film) or almost any soprano in Elektra's opening monologue. The Agamemnon! aria is the perfect musical transcription of Freud.

To misquote Jordan B Peterson: You can tell Strauss was a genius because some people are still pissed (off) with him.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I would turn this around and ask how anyone can be really human if they don't believe in the humanity of Teresa Stratas' Salome (in the film) or almost any soprano in Elektra's opening monologue. The Agamemnon! aria is the perfect musical transcription of Freud.
> 
> To misquote Jordan B Peterson: You can tell Strauss was a genius because some people are still pissed (off) with him.
> 
> N.


I'll grant you, it's impossible not to believe in the humanity of Teresa Stratas.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> profound superficiality. Can anyone really believe in the humanity of Salome or Elektra?


Now I was happily on my way and you guys got it rolling again.......Actually I knew I'd come back sometime just to smile at "profound superficiality"!!!
But your choice of characters for the humanity test seems to have avoided the obvious candidate for "as human as any character who ever walked the stage", the Marschallin of course. And it has to be noted that your compliment to Stratas refutes your questioning the humanity of Salome because she ONLY exists in the person of a performer. And why am I thinking that Studer may possibly have been able to pull off the trick?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I'll grant you, it's impossible not to believe in the humanity of Teresa Stratas.


Why would anyone be pissed off with Strauss? Even Ernestine Schumann-Heink wasn't actually pissed off with him, despite being, as Klytemnestra, part of what she described as "a set of mad women."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Now I was happily on my way and you guys got it rolling again.......Actually I knew I'd come back sometime just to smile at "profound superficiality"!!!
> But your choice of characters for the humanity test seems to have avoided the obvious candidate for "as human as any character who ever walked the stage", the Marschallin of course.


I didn't avoid the Marschallin. Did you forget my saying "his aging Viennese aristocrats are more real and moving than his crazy Greeks and Biblical nymphomaniacs"?



> And it has to be noted that your compliment to Stratas refutes your questioning the humanity of Salome because she ONLY exists in the person of a performer.


By that logic ALL operatic characters are equally human because they're all performed by human beings. Clearly you're overlooking something here.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't avoid the Marschallin. Did you forget my saying "his aging Viennese aristocrats are more real and moving than his crazy Greeks and Biblical nymphomaniacs"?
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic ALL operatic characters are equally human because they're all performed by human beings. Clearly you're overlooking something here.


I still can't drop in....ughhh!

You ARE requiring close reading! But, be that as it may....you did say that. I can't say that saying they are more human than characters you insist are not believably human is any kind of large scale acknowledgement of great humanity but...again the close reading...you did say that his profound superficiality was a "vein" and not his entire definition.

On the second one, simply being human is not the point at all. It's the performers ability to bring vivid human-ness to their characterizations that is one of the most important points setting Callas and Stratas and Gobbi et al apart. All operatic performers are NOT equally human while performing characters onstage...not remotely close!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> I still can't drop in....ughhh!
> 
> You ARE requiring close reading! But, be that as it may....you did say that. I can't say that saying they are more human than characters you insist are not believably human is any kind of large scale acknowledgement of great humanity but...again the close reading...you did say that his profound superficiality was a "vein" and not his entire definition


Yes! Yes! You're beginning to understand me! It's all about close reading! The reading cannot be too close! Hahahahaha!



> On the second one, simply being human is not the point at all. It's the performers ability to bring vivid human-ness to their characterizations that is one of the most important points setting Callas and Stratas and Gobbi et al apart. All operatic performers are NOT equally human while performing characters onstage...not remotely close!


I'm talking about characters as presented and expressed by the composer, not performers and what they make of those characters. Great performers can bring "vivid humanness" to just about anything, and make the most shallow, trivial or meretricious material seem profound. A great musician can inject powerful expression into a few random notes. Great comic actors can turn an ephemeral sitcom into a cultural classic.

I do think Salome and Elektra are strong theatrical creations and excellent material for a singer/actor with voice and charisma.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> Yes! Yes! You're beginning to understand me! It's all about close reading! The reading cannot be too close! Hahahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about characters as presented and expressed by the composer, not performers and what they make of those characters. Great performers can bring "vivid humanness" to just about anything, and make the most shallow, trivial or meretricious material seem profound. A great musician can inject powerful expression into a few random notes. Great comic actors can turn an ephemeral sitcom into a cultural classic.


The difference between the playwright and the novelist is that for the playwright there is no such thing as “ characters presented and expressed by the playwright “.... he/ she REQUIRES the performer. The novelist hands the characters and situation directly to the readers imagination, the playwright hands a facsimile, an approximation. And I promise to keep reading closely!!👍👍👍


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> The difference between the playwright and the novelist is that for the playwright there is no such thing as “ characters presented and expressed by the playwright “.... he/ she REQUIRES the performer. The novelist hands the characters and situation directly to the readers imagination, the playwright hands a facsimile, an approximation. And I promise to keep reading closely!!👍👍👍


There are most certainly characters presented by the playwright or composer. Sure, a performer is needed to realize a character for an audience, just as one is needed to realize a piece of music. That doesn't prevent us from analyzing and evaluating plays, operas or symphonies on their own very definite terms. We can make meaningful and valid statements about the plots and characters of operas based solely on what the composer and librettist have given us, and judge on that basis whether a performance is faithful to those intrinsic qualities. An opera score is not, as you claim, a facsimile or an approximation of a performance. It's the essence, the core and the guiding spirit of the work, which performer and audience must consult to produce and perceive an integral work of art. It's more accurate to say that a performance is a facsimile or approximation of the opera, which, if it's really good, is larger in its possibilities than any single performance can encompass. Callas said that she arrived at her interpretations by listening for what the composer did in the music. Norma attains the stature of tragedy because Bellini's music tells us she does, not because Callas or some other singer knows how to bring that music to an audience.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> There are most certainly characters presented by the playwright or composer. Sure, a performer is needed to realize a character for an audience, just as one is needed to realize a piece of music. That doesn't prevent us from analyzing and evaluating plays, operas or symphonies on their own very definite terms. We can make meaningful and valid statements about the plots and characters of operas based solely on what the composer and librettist have given us, and judge on that basis whether a performance is faithful to those intrinsic qualities. An opera score is not, as you claim, a facsimile or an approximation of a performance. It's the essence, the core and the guiding spirit of the work, which performer and audience must consult to produce and perceive an integral work of art. It's more accurate to say that a performance is a facsimile or approximation of the opera, which, if it's really good, is larger in its possibilities than any single performance can encompass. Callas said that she arrived at her interpretations by listening for what the composer did in the music. Norma attains the stature of tragedy because Bellini's music tells us she does, not because Callas or some other singer knows how to bring that music to an audience.


No, I think our bottom lines on this are going to remain quite different. The opera composer/playwright may possibly be the most important creative contributor - but as you said, a comic genius can turn nothing into substantial stuff, so in that case the creator is not the most important- and their material at its best is unquestionably, again and again, worth discussing and considering, analyzing and judging for the value of the composers contribution alone. But it is the unique choice of the opera composer/playwright that they write things that in the final measure, they will relinquish into the hands of Director, conductor, and performer and it is that final summative mixture that IS Strauss’ Salome and Britten’s Grimes. We’re clearly headed towards “performers as interpreter or creator?” and that’s not been one I’ve ever spent a lot of time cogitating. But I guess this paragraph shows which direction I would lean.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> No, I think our bottom lines on this are going to remain quite different. *The opera composer/playwright may possibly be the most important creative contributor* - but as you said, *a comic genius can turn nothing into substantial stuff, so in that case the creator is not the most important-* and their material at its best is unquestionably, again and again, worth discussing and considering, analyzing and judging for the value of the composers contribution alone. But *it is the unique choice of the opera composer/playwright that they write things that in the final measure, they will relinquish into the hands of Director, conductor, and performer and it is that final summative mixture that IS Strauss’ Salome and Britten’s Grimes.* We’re clearly headed towards “performers as interpreter or creator?” and that’s not been one I’ve ever spent a lot of time cogitating. But I guess this paragraph shows which direction I would lean.


You're making the word "important" do a lot of work. I have no doubt that Hans Neuenfels was critically "important" in bringing people something he called _Lohengrin_ when he filled the Bayreuth stage with funny pink and yellow rats right out of Sesame Street. I also have no doubt that Wagner has no choice, at the moment, but to "relinquish into the hands of director, conductor, and performer" the creation he called "Lohengrin." But regardless of any contributor's "importance," the question of what _Lohengrin_ IS - whether, in fact, it IS anything at all - still begs for an answer. You posit that an opera IS the "final summative mixture" of the efforts of all who contribute to a performance in the theater. Logically, that means that _Lohengrin_ IS anything any bunch of producers and performers make of it.

To someone who has spent decades enjoying and seeking to understand the opera as left to us by the composer/librettist, the idea that pink and yellow rodents might contribute something "important" to that pleasure and understanding comes as a profound surprise.

Congrats on receiving your degree from the University of Postmodernism. Pity Wagner never attended.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> You're making the word "important" do a lot of work. I have no doubt that Hans Neuenfels was critically "important" in bringing people something he called _Lohengrin_ when he filled the Bayreuth stage with funny pink and yellow rats right out of Sesame Street. I also have no doubt that Wagner has no choice, at the moment, but to "relinquish into the hands of director, conductor, and performer" the creation he called "Lohengrin." But regardless of any contributor's "importance," the question of what _Lohengrin_ IS - whether, in fact, it IS anything at all - still begs for an answer. You posit that an opera IS the "final summative mixture" of the efforts of all who contribute to a performance in the theater. Logically, that means that _Lohengrin_ IS anything any bunch of producers and performers make of it.
> 
> To someone who has spent decades enjoying and seeking to understand the opera as left to us by the composer/librettist, the idea that pink and yellow rodents might contribute something "important" to that pleasure and understanding comes as a profound surprise.
> 
> Congrats on receiving your degree from the University of Postmodernism. Pity Wagner never attended.


That's the University of Postmodernism Pottsdam!!! Or as we like to say....UPP!!! Yessss...we are a sophmoric bunch!

I don't think my contention, that the work is the summative whole, shows any preference for rodents of any color! As unappealing as it sounds, that production was the Lohengrin offered up at that place that night and that's the deal Wagner signed on for. Wagner may have turned over a few times to have his name attached but apparently Britten did the same, while alive, about Vickers Grimes. But both were powerless. Isn't this one of the main reasons for Bayreuth?...so he could do as much as possible of it his way? (don't lose alot of time if thats wrong, it's a real question coming from a recollection I believe to be true.)

And in any case...evolution or development can be tricky things. But would you really want to go see Tristans and Isoldas







 that look like this??...forever???? I mean that couch is just all wrong! Sometimes, there are a few rodents along the way!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> That's the University of Postmodernism Pottsdam!!! Or as we like to say....UPP!!! Yessss...we are a sophmoric bunch!
> 
> I don't think my contention, that the work is the summative whole, shows any preference for rodents of any color!


Of course it doesn't. But Wagner had a "preference" for a vermin-free _Lohengrin - _actually a redundancy_ -_ and therefore so do I.



> As unappealing as it sounds, that production was the Lohengrin offered up at that place that night and that's the deal Wagner signed on for.


You've seen the paper he signed?



> Wagner may have turned over a few times to have his name attached but apparently Britten did the same, while alive, about Vickers Grimes. But both were powerless. Isn't this one of the main reasons for Bayreuth?...so he could do as much as possible of it his way? (don't lose alot of time if thats wrong, it's a real question coming from a recollection I believe to be true.)


That was certainly one of the reasons for Bayreuth. Whether there is now any reason for Bayreuth is a serious question.



> And in any case...evolution or development can be tricky things.


Vandalism is not evolution.


> But would you really want to go see Tristans and Isoldas
> View attachment 177926
> that look like this??...forever???? I mean that couch is just all wrong! Sometimes, there are a few rodents along the way!


Did _Tristan_ ever look like that posed studio photo? Not according to Wagner's stage directions.

I really need to stop you before you trivialize and misrepresent my views any further. My view is simple: a work of art is defined and understood primarily in terms of its content, and a performance of an opera is actually a performance of that opera to the extent that it illuminates the music and drama as given by the composer and librettist. The pursuit of that goal allows for _genuine_ evolution in our perception of the works, and plenty of latitude to producers and performers. But regardless of what we do with an art work of the past - regardless of whether we respect it or exploit and vandalize it - the artist's meaning as revealed in his work is still primary in defining what the work IS.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> - the artist's meaning as revealed in his work is still primary in defining what the work IS.


To me, pretty much where we differ...in opera and theater I see it as artists plural. It’s a team. And I guess we need to stop... you use humor, but if you think I’m trivializing your view when I use mine, I guess we’ve reached the point where we speak different languages. I think I have always shown you respect.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> To me, pretty much where we differ...in opera and theater I see it as artists plural. It’s a team. And I guess we need to stop... you use humor, but if you think I’m trivializing your view when I use mine, I guess we’ve reached the point where we speak different languages. I think I have always shown you respect.


Fine with me. I was interested in the logical implications of your position, and in clarifying mine. The pink and yellow rats are good for that, a least, and possibly for preschoolers' birthday parties.


----------

