# Pulitzer-winning Washington Post chief art critic explains why Meyerbeer is great



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

https://www.operanews.com/Opera_News_Magazine/2018/2/Features/Barred_Genius.html


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Your thread title is inaccurate. It should be *"Pulitzer-winning Washington Post chief art critic tries to explain why Meyerbeer's operas aren't performed very often."* Phillip Kennicott's answer is that it's Wagner's fault.

Bleah.

A defense of Meyerbeer's work that begins with a hysterical a screed against anti-semitism and big bad Wagner is not going to end well. Kennicott tells us that "if Meyerbeer hadn't been Jewish, his work would still be with us today." Sorry, Phil, but the truth is probably closer to "if Meyerbeer were a greater composer his work would be performed more often." All of the author's fulsome praise for Meyerbeer's noble character and artistic ambitions go nowhere toward assessing the musical and dramatic merits of his operas. Also nowhere is any mention of the fact that those operas, like many 19th-century operas which have fallen out of favor, were quite popular early in the 20th century. Look at books like "The Standard Operas" by George P. Upton, published in 1914, or "The Victor Book of the Opera" (I have the 10th edition from 1929), and you'll find half a dozen Meyerbeer operas discussed as staples of the repertoire. Was anti-semitism less of a factor then than it is now? Is it now a factor at all?

From what I've heard of them, I'd have no problem with the suggestion that Meyerbeer's works, like many operas that were once popular, merit more of a place in the repertoire than they now occupy. Some reasons for their relative neglect might include the expense and financial risk of staging them - they're called "grand opera" for a reason - and the difficulty of finding singers who can do them justice. But I have to point out that such considerations haven't kept nearly every provincial opera company from attempting to stage the works of that awful man Wagner.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I always hate it when somebody wants to lift up a particular composer by dumping on another composer. With that in mind, I consider the article a loser from a writer I can't trust.

I just noticed that the writer is the paper's chief art critic. I expect much better from a chief.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

The article puts forth the theory that Meyerbeer isn't performed today because Wagner attacked him in his intellectually weak and prejudiced article "Judaism in Music". Whilst not an opera composer Mendelssohn is also attacked in that article, therefore if Phillip Kennicott is correct why is Mendelssohn regularly performed, but Meyerbeer not?

N.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

I'm reminded of this similar article by Tom Service, blaming what he sees as a lack of proper recognition for Mendelssohn among the concert going public on Wagner and his essay as well. Apparently Wagner has had far more posthumous influence on the public perception of other composers through an essay that only a minuscule number of classical music listeners has ever read than he ever had in even his own lifetime, when both composers were widely admired. 

Quick, someone make a name for themselves by penning an essay on how the lack of current popularity of many of Offenbach's operettas that were hugely successful in the 19th century can be blamed on Wagner's antisemitism and his opinion of them as filth.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Wagner's cringing obsequiousness to Meyerbeer when he needed the Jewish composer's support when struggling (which Meyerbeer gladly gave) contrasts with the vile prose Wagner wrote ten years later when his hatred for the Jews could find expression. The phrase, "Biting the hand that has fed you," comes to mind. But then Wagner was rather good at that, wasn't he? I certainly wouldn't say Wagner is the only reason for Meyerbeer's disappearance. But Wagner's vicious writing does stand as a major monument to human ingratitude, however good or bad Meyerbeer's works are.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> Wagner's cringing obsequiousness to Meyerbeer when he needed the Jewish composer's support when struggling (which Meyerbeer gladly gave) contrasts with the vile prose Wagner wrote ten years later when his hatred for the Jews could find expression. The phrase, "Biting the hand that has fed you," comes to mind. But then Wagner was rather good at that, wasn't he? I certainly wouldn't say Wagner is the only reason for Meyerbeer's disappearance. But *Wagner's vicious writing does stand as **a major monument to human ingratitude, however good or bad Meyerbeer's works are.*


Well, that didn't take long, did it? The Star/David Inquisition is never caught napping when Wagner's name comes up.

"However good or bad Meerbeer's works are," and Philip Kennicott's feeble attempt to explain their present neglect (if that's what it is) by blaming Wagner, happen to constitute the subject of this thread. But apparently you haven't noticed, don't care, or have no thoughts on the matter.

Righteous moral posturing at Wagner's expense comes cheap. Two questions: how does it contribute anything to this discussion? And who do you suppose is interested in hearing it - AGAIN?

This obsession with damning Wagner "stands as a monument" to something, but I'd probably best refrain from saying what.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I have listened to a few of Meyerbeer's operas 
and they're just not very good.
Contrived not inspired imo.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Well, that didn't take long, did it? The Star/David Inquisition is never caught napping when Wagner's name comes up.
> 
> "However good or bad Meerbeer's works are," and Philip Kennicott's feeble attempt to explain their present neglect (if that's what it is) by blaming Wagner, happen to constitute the subject of this thread. But apparently you haven't noticed, don't care, or have no thoughts on the matter.
> 
> ...


Interesting you criticise people for 'damning Wagner' when Wagner damned a whole race. That ever occur to you? What I have said about Wagner is not moral posturing surely just the reaction of anyone who believes in decent human values. Maybe you think that the historian Simon Sharma is also misguided when you talked about Wagner is poisonous prose against the Jewish race? He's obviously misguided too and the BBCshould not broadcast his programs?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> Interesting you criticise people for 'damning Wagner' when Wagner damned a whole race. That ever occur to you? What I have said about Wagner is not moral posturing surely just the reaction of anyone who believes in decent human values.


I know exactly what Wagner did. I don't like it, as I don't like a lot of things great contributors to our culture have said and done, but I'm not obsessed with these people's vices and weaknesses and don't consider their human failings relevant to assessing the value of their work to me or to the world.

As I said, righteous moral condemnation comes cheap. Anyone can make a show of it, but some people seem to think that doing it makes them especially admirable, at least in their own eyes. Philip Kennicott apparently believes that it can serve as a substitute for demonstrating the artistic virtues of the composer he's trying to defend. Kennicott looks ridiculous doing that, as does anyone who sees in it a fun game and joins in the mud-throwing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I have listened to a few of Meyerbeer's operas
> and they're just not very good.
> Contrived not inspired imo.


I haven't experienced a complete Meyerbeer opera, but my impression is that there is some fine music in them. If it were all as good as the various arias recorded by the great golden-age singers back when the operas were popular, I'm sure Meyerbeer would not have faded from the repertoire.

The idea that the effect of Wagner's anti-semitic writings (which hardly anyone sitting in the opera house has even read) kicked in gradually during the 20th century to bring about a popular composer's demise is absurd.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

NickFuller said:


> https://www.operanews.com/Opera_News_Magazine/2018/2/Features/Barred_Genius.html


What a dreadful, foolish article. The critical comments others here have already posted put it well, and I'd rather see any of you writing for the Washington Post. IMO, Meyerbeer wrote some fine music, but on the whole his elaborate productions belong to an earlier era. Mendelssohn's music, especially his earlier, 'lighter' music but even the Oratorios, remains highly popular today. His string quartets are superb. Maybe it's because Mendelssohn had a better grasp of more fundamental, universal themes than did Meyerbeer, or for that matter Weber, another highly popular composer of the early romantic era who gets much less attention today than in the 19th century. As has already been noted, Wagner was harshly critical of both Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn, and was also critical of the German poet Heinrich Heine. I can't see how any of that is relevant today. 
This critic might worry less about Meyerbeer and more about 20th-century composers who had their careers cut short when they were murdered by the Nazis, many of whom are pretty much forgotten today, often unjustly, imo. The Czech composer Erwin Schulhoff is one worth investigating, imho.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Despite Wagner's and also Schumann's attacks on Meyerbeer, his popularity still carried very much into the early part of the 20th century and can be heard on many of the early Edison cylinders:

http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?nq=1&query_type=author&query=Meyerbeer,+Giacomo,+1791-1864


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> Despite Wagner's and also Schumann's attacks on Meyerbeer, his popularity still carried very much into the early part of the 20th century and can be heard on many of the early Edison cylinders:
> 
> http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?nq=1&query_type=author&query=Meyerbeer,+Giacomo,+1791-1864


Yes. Both Meyerbeer and Weber, and several other early romantic composers, were far more popular in their own day and as late as the early 20th century than they are today. Ed.: George Onslow is another.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I know exactly what Wagner did. I don't like it, as I don't like a lot of things great contributors to our culture have said and done, but I'm not obsessed with these people's vices and weaknesses and don't consider their human failings relevant to assessing the value of their work to me or to the world.
> 
> As I said, righteous moral condemnation comes cheap. Anyone can make a show of it, but some people seem to think that doing it makes them especially admirable, at least in their own eyes. Philip Kennicott apparently believes that it can serve as a substitute for demonstrating the artistic virtues of the composer he's trying to defend. Kennicott looks ridiculous doing that, as does anyone who sees in it a fun game and joins in the mud-throwing.


 If Wagner produces reasoning like this I'm glad I don't listen to it


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Caruso also did his share of Meyerbeer recordings:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

There are a number of reasons why Meyerbeer's operas aren't performed as much today as they were 100 years ago:

1) They are very long and whilst there are some extremely long works in the repertoire (Wagner and Don Carlo) the ones that are regularly performed contain characters with complex personalities and music with inventive harmonies and a wide spectrum of tonal colour. Therefore the interest in the plots and music means that an audience will tolerate their length.

2) The characters in Meyerbeer tend to move from one stock situation to another in fairly standard 'poses' rather than evolving and whilst the orchestration is more creative and serves the dramatic scenarios more vividly than most classical opera that had gone before or what was being written by the bel canto composers his melodies aren't as inspired or satisfying as Mozart's or the italian bel canto school.

3) Part of the attraction was the spectacle of the productions as seen at the Paris Opera. It's very difficult for an opera house in the 21st century to recreate that in a world where Hollywood has the monopoly on spectacle.

4) Meyerbeer calls for a range of superb singers, without first rate singers and due to reasons 1 - 3 above his works can come across as flat.

I have actually seen a Meyerbeer opera - Robert le Diable. It has it's moments (acts four and five I remember being particularly enjoyable musically), however dramatically it didn't pull it's punches. That was due in part to a weak production and some problems with the casting (one of the parts had to be recast at least three times due to illness). The story with demons and ghostly nuns was also difficult to tell in the 21st century. That said, I could appreciate that an audience that was used to bel canto and classical works such as La Vestale (and bearing in mind that this was before Verdi or Wagner got off the ground) would have found it immensely thrilling.

I am very familiar with Les Hugenots and I think it is underrated, the music is more inspired than much of Meyerbeer's other works and despite its length it can hold a listeners ears. This autumn they are performing it in Paris, well worth an opera trip if you can make it.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Star said:


> If Wagner produces reasoning like this I'm glad I don't listen to it


Perhaps you could tell us what motivates you to enter discussions of music you're glad you don't listen to for the sole purpose of criticizing its composer's character. I'd like to see an explanation of "reasoning like that."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> There are a number of reasons why Meyerbeer's operas aren't performed as much today as they were 100 years ago:
> 
> 1) They are very long and whilst there are some extremely long works in the repertoire (Wagner and Don Carlo) the ones that are regularly performed contain characters with complex personalities and music with inventive harmonies and a wide spectrum of tonal colour. Therefore the interest in the plots and music means that an audience will tolerate their length.
> 
> ...


_Les Huguenots_ is generally considered his best, is it not? And also the one most often revived?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NickFuller said:


> https://www.operanews.com/Opera_News_Magazine/2018/2/Features/Barred_Genius.html


Oh Nick, how could you. Another article calling into question the character and motives of that solid citizen, that paragon of virtue, RW. The moral outrage you will cause! Naughty man! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Oh Nick, how could you. Another article calling into question the character and motives of that solid citizen, that paragon of virtue, RW. Naughty man! :lol:


Well if it isn't Ms. Star's other half! Now all us ignorant folk can expect to hear that Wagner was a nasty anti-semite whose operas are long and boring and have lousy librettos. People tell me they're really eager to be told that again; it's been hard to keep it in mind since the last time you said it, but lucky for us you're always willing to pitch in and rescue a thread in danger of venturing too far into the actual analysis of music and ideas.

Thanks now to Philip Kennicott and Nick Fuller, you can add to your repertoire of molotov cocktails the newly-proved theory that the real reason people don't perform Meyerbeer is that Wagner insulted him. We just can't have too many things to blame Wagner for.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Oh Nick, how could you. Another article calling into question the character and motives of that solid citizen, that paragon of virtue, RW. The moral outrage you will cause! Naughty man! :lol:


From what I've read, Wagner was an arrogant, self-centered, callous and difficult man even apart from his vile attacks on Jewish artists that seem to have been motivated by little more than his obsession with self-promotion and aggrandizement.
But that has very little to do with the subject of this thread, so why bring it up? The question here is, why are Meyerbeer's operas relatively unpopular, or at least, seldom produced, today? The idea that this has anything to do with Wagner's criticism is farfetched, to say the least. Mendelssohn's violin concerto and Incidental Music to A Midsummer Night's Dream remain two of the most popular classical music works ever written, and Wagner was just as critical of Mendelssohn.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I side with Wooduck in this topic, but reading the article makes me want to try Meyerbeer recordings. Many of them are modern.

It would be a fine link to my Berlioz listenings. I need to get into French and Russian opera. 20th century will come later and then Puccini, Rossini, Donizetti and Bellini.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I initially thought that this thread had two issues. One concerned the quality of Meyerbeer's music; the other was whether Wagner's condemnation of Meyerbeer has had any lasting impact on the popularity of his works.

Now a 3rd issue has come to light. Are Star and DavidA incapable of separating Wagner's music from Wagner the man or do they simply refuse to do so, preferring to mock both Wagner and Wooduck.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Thanks now to Philip Kennicott and Nick Fuller, you can add to your repertoire of molotov cocktails the newly-proved theory that the real reason people don't perform Meyerbeer is that Wagner insulted him. We just can't have too many things to blame Wagner for.


Wagner did the same kind of hatchet job on some composer named Brahms. The poor guy's reputation never recovered.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> preferring to mock both Wagner and Wooduck.


It's pretty clear that this is their only motivation in any discussion where Wagner is brought up, under the guise of merely offering their observations. Well, that and perhaps getting some kind of amusement out of indirectly insulting and aggrivating fans of the composer.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I initially thought that this thread had two issues. One concerned the quality of Meyerbeer's music; the other was whether Wagner's condemnation of Meyerbeer has had any lasting impact on the popularity of his works.
> 
> Now a 3rd issue has come to light. * Are Star and DavidA incapable of separating Wagner's music from Wagner the man or do they simply refuse to do so, preferring to mock both Wagner and Wooduck*.


It crossed my mind that these two user names are one and the same person posing as two different posters. Hmmmm. I wonder.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

nina foresti said:


> It crossed my mind that these two user names are one and the same person posing as two different posters. Hmmmm. I wonder.


I've thought the same thing. Not surprising, since "nina foresti" is my other user name.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

nina foresti said:


> It crossed my mind that these two user names are one and the same person posing as two different posters. Hmmmm. I wonder.


I've noticed that certain posters seem to think that if a large number of posts appear in these TC forums stating the same or similar opinions or ideas, that somehow lends those opinions or ideas increased credibility. That would be a fallacy even if posters couldn't post the same thing multiple times or post under multiple aliases. But worse yet, it turns potentially interesting new discussions towards topics that though undeniably relevant have probably been explored enough here, such as Wagner the Anti-Semite.

To comment on a less-discussed aspect of Meyerbeer's music: As a big Gilbert & Sullivan fan (I've seen most of their operettas in live performance), my interest in Meyerbeer stems in large part from his obvious influence, whether direct or indirect, on Sir Arthur Sullivan. One can also find in Gilbert & Sullivan the influence of Mendelssohn, Donizetti, and even Verdi, and I'm sure none of that was accidental. Putting their comical parodies in the context of traditional grand opera, itself frequently parodied by Sullivan as well as Gilbert in a very clever way, just made them that much more effective to the audiences of their time. Alas, though today's G&S performers can and nearly always do substitute current verbal jokes that are often very nearly as clever as many of Gilbert's original ones, Sullivan's musical jokes are lost as their original musical context is largely gone.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Why blame Wagner, again? Think about it the other way around. Wagner praised and endorsed Halevy (another Jewish master of grand opera) wholeheartedly. If Saint Richard's opinions had too much weights as some of you suggested, why is Halevy still obscure today?

There are a lot of reasons why Meyerbeer and a legion of composers around that time (Spontini, Halevy, Mercadante, etc. all of whom I prefer to Meyerbeer) have fallen out of fashion like The Conte listed out above.

Lacking superb singers would be one spot-on explanation. Heck, if Donizetti and Bellini hadn't been lucky enough to be revived in the 1950s by _you-know-who_, who reinvented the long lost magic of Giuditta Pasta, their reputation would have been as dormant as of Meyerbeer now. Who will be the _Cornélie Falcon_ of this generation to bring excitement and justice to the demanding writing of Meyerbeer?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I've noticed that certain posters seem to think that if a large number of posts appear in these TC forums stating the same or similar opinions or ideas, that somehow lends those opinions or ideas increased credibility. That would be a fallacy even if posters couldn't post the same thing multiple times or post under multiple aliases. But worse yet, it turns potentially interesting new discussions towards topics that though undeniably relevant have probably been explored enough here, such as Wagner the Anti-Semite.


All true. Unfortunately, in this case the cited article itself is the chief culprit, and the problem doen't lie in bringing up anti-semitism but in dropping the particular context in which it's relevant (but then, ignoring context is a specialty of Wagner bashers, here and elsewhere).

The idea of blaming Wagner for posterity's judgment of other composers isn't original with Philip Kennicott; The Conte and Faustian have both mentioned the case of Mendelssohn, the other famous Jewish composer about whom Wagner had unflattering things to say (although, characteristically contradicting himself, he also praised him), and Faustian brought up this article by Tom Service: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music I remember having read this at some point and having thought it absurd, as I think Kennicott's article is.

It's worth noting that the reputations of Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn have had similar trajectories but different outcomes. Both were hugely popular in their day, but Mendelssohn's finely wrought tastefulness came to seem overly genteel, sentimental and (in his popular oratorios) stuffy as the 19th century wore on and turned into the 20th. This was a perfectly predictable result in light of the radical developments in the later Romantic and Modern eras; public perception of 18th-century music was affected similarly, with that vigorous innovator Haydn becoming "Papa Haydn" and Mozart reduced to an effeminate purveyor of pretty tunes. Ironically, Wagner _did_ affect the reputation of Mendelssohn, but not by criticizing him in an essay that no one read: he did it simply by composing music that so overwhelmed listeners that, as Nietzsche and others complained, they lost their taste for music that offered less visceral thrills.

Meyerbeer's operas apparently continued to give opera lovers the thrills they craved well into the new century, and this seemed to change only when newer musical styles had fully penetrated the repertoire around the world. It took some time for Wagner's works to receive satisfactory productions on several continents; Strauss's musically and dramatically daring operas extended the possibilities of the "Wagner school"; the raw excitement of verismo took over the Italian repertoire and consigned the early Italian Romantics (the "bel canto" composers) to near-oblivion; and even Mozart remained represented by only two or three works. A consequence of the radical changes in the musical and dramatic nature of opera is that styles of singing also changed (a large subject in itself which I won't tackle here).

It would be wrong to think that Mendelssohn ever lost the intellectual respect due a composer of his skill. He is, after all, never omitted from book anthologies of "the great composers." He merely lost for a time the highest accolades bestowed on composers felt to be more "profound" or "revolutionary," and we had to get out of the grip of Romantic and Modernist ideologies to get beyond the Victorian images in our heads and appreciate him fully. Meyerbeer, on the other hand, has suffered like most opera composers from a lack of interest outside that restricted domain; nobody uninterested in opera asks how good a composer he is, just as nobody asks how good a composer Donizetti is (Donizetti, in fact, wrote some very good piano and chamber music). It may be significant that Verdi and Puccini have more often attracted the notice of non-operatic musicians, and of course it goes without saying that Wagner's musical contributions were enormous.

Mendelssohn's reputation, like that of Meyerbeer and many other composers, has had its ups and downs according to fashion. But Mendelssohn has come through it all unscathed, while Meyerbeer has not. If Wagner has never really had much say in the matter, we do; we can give Meyerbeer a chance to prove that he can still deliver the goods. I wonder when we'll hear and see _Les Huguenots_ in a Met HD broadcast?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> All true. Unfortunately, in this case the cited article itself is the chief culprit, and the problem doen't lie in bringing up anti-semitism but in dropping the particular context in which it's relevant (but then, ignoring context is a specialty of Wagner bashers, here and elsewhere).
> 
> The idea of blaming Wagner for posterity's judgment of other composers isn't original with Philip Kennicott; The Conte and Faustian have both mentioned the case of Mendelssohn, the other famous Jewish composer about whom Wagner had unflattering things to say (although, characteristically contradicting himself, he also praised him), and Faustian brought up this article by Tom Service: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/may/05/felix-mendelssohn-richard-wagner-classical-music I remember having read this at some point and having thought it absurd, as I think Kennicott's article is.
> 
> ...


I once did hear a live radio broadcast of Les Huguenots, but I don't remember if it was the Met. I've only heard selections from other Meyerbeer operas. As you yourself have noted, full on opera productions are an expensive proposition, and I doubt Meyerbeer's operas are exceptions to that rule. But some opera composers still get frequent performances of their overtures (Mozart, Rossini and Wagner overtures are very popular in concert performance, as I'm sure you know) and their most famous arias make it to vocal recital programs. 
But consider Benjamin Godard. Only Jocelyn had real success in his own lifetime, never mind afterwards. Today, only one aria from Jocelyn, the Berceuse, is, or at least used to be, routinely included in soprano recitals. There's also at least one soprano aria from Les Huguenots that gets some performances, isn't there? One or two selections from other operas, too. So these composers haven't been forgotten entirely, not even by me, and I'm no expert in lesser-known 19th century opera composers. But I think history has made its judgment, even aside from the shorter term ups and downs of cultural fashion. Mozart, Mendelssohn and Wagner are performed and recorded consistently regardless of short term ups and downs. Donizetti less so, Meyerbeer a lot less so, and Godard a whole lot less so.
In short, I'm not expecting a major Meyerbeer comeback. His aesthetic worked in his day but doesn't play as well in modern times. It's no accident that his operas were parodied by Gilbert and Sullivan, as I mentioned earlier. They were already yesterday's fashion in the late 19th century.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

*Full opera!*

I'm an hour into _Le Prophete_ and enjoying it...


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

I just stumbled across this. Definitely one of Simionato's and Corelli's best nights. This performance is "italianized", but with such thrills who care?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> I'm an hour into _Le Prophete_ and enjoying it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have this one on DVD, unbeatable .


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I'm listening to Meyerbeer too! I've tried _Robert le Diable_ (fine, lacking in good recordings) _L'Africaine_ (almost perfect Muti recording in Florence in mono), and now I'm finishing *Le Prophète* in the only studio recording conducted by Richard Lewis. This is the most satisfying yet, and the synopsis of the libretto is mind-blowing. Next up is _Les Huguenots_ by Bonynge.










The music is still not what I would look for, but it could be on my watch list.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Rogerx said:


> I have this one on DVD, unbeatable .


I've listened to some of this on youtube. Meyerbeer certainly gives Dame Joan the chance to display her superb vocal technique, doesn't he? Even if you don't want to put him in the first rank of composers, I think you have to concede him his part in helping to put the "grand" in grand opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> I'm an hour into _Le Prophete_ and enjoying it...


I listened to the first three acts (out of five) last night. It was the longest sustained chunk of Meyerbeer I've ever heard. I think I can understand why he was popular 150 years ago but is no longer.

To elaborate a comment I left on YouTube: what I hear in _Le Prophete_ is not a cohesive musical drama but a picturesque succession of pleasant, sometimes clever numbers. Most of these numbers are appealing in themselves, and there are some effective orchestral touches and crowd-pleasing vocal displays, but the overall effect is moment-by-moment, shapeless and emotionally shallow, with little sense of dramatic progression or characterization. Conceivably this could be pleasant "entertainment" in the theater, given extraordinary singing and acting and spectacular staging (which it no doubt received at Meyerbeer's Paris Opera). Short of that, I doubt I'd cross the street to see it.

I've heard better bits from Meyerbeer than anything I heard here, but I think they all come from _Les Huguenots_, which I suspect is a more impressive opera than _Prophete._ Whether its "bits" achieve a stronger continuity, or a greater depth of characterization, I'll have to discover. But on the basis of three hours of this piece - which was, after all, one of his "greatest hits" - I feel pretty confident in saying that those who think Meyerbeer is ripe for a major reassessment and revival can just dream on - or listen at home.﻿


----------



## davidglasgow (Aug 19, 2017)

> To what extent is anti-Semitism to blame for the almost complete disappearance of Meyerbeer's work? The safest guess: if Meyerbeer hadn't been Jewish, his work would still be with us today


I wonder if his operas really are "rarely revived" per the article?

At http://www.operadis-opera-discography.org.uk there is a list of ten operas by Meyerbeer. Between these 10 operas, there are *63* recordings spread between the 1950s and 2000s, twenty being _Les Huguenots_ despite the huge casts required.

However, that list is incomplete as there are several other records listed on www.operaclass.com including _Emma di Resburgo_ (Stoehr conducts), _Margherita d'Anjou _ (2017? with Luisi conducting on CD and DVD), _Dinorah_ (Mazzola conducts) and _Robert Le Diable_ from 2012 (Daniel Oren conducting).

In addition, a recent 'critical edition' recording of _Le Prophete _ has been released on CD in March 2018 with Giuliano Carella conducting.

I would not necessarily conclude from these releases that Meyerbeer is neglected or forgotten. Indeed the New York Times ran an article by Zachary Woolfe last year confidently saying


> Heard of Giacomo Meyerbeer? He's on the Cusp of a Musical Renaissance


What is more problematic than the frequency of performances and recordings are the challenges in casting the main roles.

Raoul seems to be one of those parts, a bit like Arrigo in _I Vespri Siciliani_ and Énée in _Les Troyens_ which is murderous to cast. Ditto Poliuto, Arnold in _Guillaume Tell_ and Guglielmo Ratcliff, which explains why those operas are effectively shelved until an artist with the requisite gifts revives them.

The difference is that critics have not felt the need to explain the absence of these other operas from the repertoire by attributing it to the religious beliefs of Donizetti, Rossini or Mascagni respectively or what their long-dead peers wrote about them...


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> To elaborate a comment I left on YouTube: what I hear in _Le Prophete_ is not a cohesive musical drama but a picturesque succession of pleasant, sometimes clever numbers. Most of these numbers are appealing in themselves, and there are some effective orchestral touches and crowd-pleasing vocal displays, but the overall effect is moment-by-moment, shapeless and emotionally shallow, with little sense of dramatic progression or characterization.﻿


I have to say I feel the same about Schubert´s operas.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Music critic and historian Charles Rosen wrote: "Meyerbeer's approach to opera may seem cynical. His music is not, like Donizetti's, an immediate expression of the sentiments of his characters but a calculated manipulation of the audience." From what I've heard of his grand operas so far, there may be truth to this. But I think one would have to be familiar with each opera's libretto to know for sure what's related to a character or not within his different operas. In the meantime, it was undoubtedly Meyerbeer who put the spectacle in grand opera. I'm reminded of producer/director Cecil B. DeMille doing the same with movies, which were highly popular at the time, of putting the Biblical spectacle in his productions... If it were big and spectacular, people would come. They did.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

That seems a very apt parallel.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> Music critic and historian Charles Rosen wrote: "Meyerbeer's approach to opera may seem cynical. His music is not, like Donizetti's, an immediate expression of the sentiments of his characters but a calculated manipulation of the audience." From what I've heard of his grand operas so far, there may be truth to this. But I think one would have to be familiar with each opera's libretto to know for sure what's related to a character or not within his different operas. In the meantime, it was undoubtedly Meyerbeer who put the spectacle in grand opera. I'm reminded of producer/director Cecil B. DeMille doing the same with movies, which were highly popular at the time, of putting the Biblical spectacle in his productions... If it were big and spectacular, people would come. They did!


Good comments by you, also Woodduck and several others here. I've really enjoyed this thread once we started discussing Meyerbeer's operas. Funny, when I was a young 'un developing my ear for classical music, I would have to go to the Lincoln Center music library in New York and sit for hours in a nice upholstered chair with a heavy stack of LPs, listening with their turntable (probably Thorens) and their headphones (probably Koss). Of course, there was great classical music on the radio 24/7 (or as close to that as they could get under FCC rules) but even then an entire Meyerbeer opera was not an everyday event. 
Today we can all click on youtube without going anywhere and in an hour or two remind ourselves what we liked and/or disliked about Meyerbeer, at least for the most part. And I agree entirely with you and Woodduck. Some beautiful music and gorgeous spectacle, but not compelling enough musically or dramatically to convince a modern listener like me to sit all the way through his lengthy productions, at least not very often. As I've mentioned before, I think it no accident that La traviata, Carmen and the Magic Flute are the most often produced operas. They aren't just collections of virtuoso arias, spectacular scenes and fancy costumes, they are both musically and dramatically compelling as a whole in a way that still resonates with modern audiences.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

If one were to continue being cynical about Meyerbeer, perhaps it’s that his big productions and spectacles are undermined with a certain lack of sincerity and not offering more of the whole in each one: that he was presenting big ideas, big productions, big casts, big choruses, and yet never dealing with any of these big ideas in a way that goes beyond mere entertainment and a pleasant night out at the opera. 

But I do enjoy some of the music as his audience must’ve done, and, like fluteman and others, I also find this a rather interesting thread because the story encompasses so many of the big names during the 19th century—and consider the other spicy ingredients: German-born Jewish composer writing operas in French; wealthy to begin with and then gets wealthier with the success of his operas, which creates even more resentment and jealousy; accusations of bribing critics for good reviews, whether true or not; a man generous to Wagner who secretly begins to despise him and his success—a man who stays true to his religion rather than being a fake Christian; criticism that he offers immoral characters in some of his operas; criticism from Schumann that his operas are ”unChristian, ” and on and on and on with many other angles on how to assess this tangeled web of history. 

But surely he was one of the most important figures at that time with a life of consequences and repercussions that have lasted until today. Regardless of all the various opinions of him, I don’t see how he could have won. 

He kept a diary throughout his life. I bet it’s a fascinating read, and what little I know of it he does not come across as a terrible person. And how many people remember that it was Robert Schumann’s publication that printed Wagner’s vitriolic screed on the Jews, though Schumann was not the editor at the time. But he had to approve of it. So nobody has clean hands in that era regarding anti-Semitism, or freedom from blatant prejudice, jealousy, spite, and other behaviors that kind of remind me of the mess the world's in today.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Today we can all click on youtube without going anywhere and in an hour or two remind ourselves what we liked and/or disliked about Meyerbeer, at least for the most part. And I agree entirely with you and Woodduck. Some beautiful music and gorgeous spectacle, but not compelling enough musically or dramatically to convince a modern listener like me to sit all the way through his lengthy productions, at least not very often. As I've mentioned before, I think it no accident that La traviata, Carmen and the Magic Flute are the most often produced operas. They aren't just collections of virtuoso arias, spectacular scenes and fancy costumes, they are both musically and dramatically compelling as a whole in a way that still resonates with modern audiences.


I'm moved to reflect that writing opera is a special sub-field of composition, and that many composers have failed at it in one way or another. Sheer musical mediocrity aside, the failures may be due to an inability to match musical structures to dramatic structures (Sloe mentioned Schubert here) or to find specific qualities of expression that bring characters to life and allow audiences to identify with them (even negatively). There are countless operas that disappear soon after their premieres, and many more that hold the stage for a time because they appeal to the sensibilities of their contemporary audiences but eventually fade from view when they fail to satisfy later eras.

Wagner was not alone in feeling that Meyerbeer's theater pieces, so accommodating to contemporary audiences' desires for a good show featuring catchy music, virtuoso singing, dance, and scenic spectacle, lacked something in artistic integrity and depth. Schumann and Berlioz criticized his works too (though it should be acknowledged up front that Schumann's own little-discussed antisemitism can be seen in his remarks, both published and private). Like Wagner, Berlioz was initially impressed by Meyerbeer's inventiveness, especially in his use of the orchestra. But, also like Wagner, he was increasingly resentful of Meyerbeer's controlling influence in the Paris opera world, and chagrined that a wealthy showman would get all the breaks while his own more artistically high-minded operas went begging for performance. He and Meyerbeer maintained a generally cordial personal relationship, but his late remarks on Meyerbeer's operas are revealing. Here are a few:

"The Meyerbeer bank is working like one man. He left pensions to writers who have been hired to praise him at a fixed monthly rate and to extol his music. It will thus be far more lucrative to praise it instead of music that is merely beautiful but does not bring any return. How can you compete with means such as these? Heine was right."

"Yes, I have seen the dress rehearsal of L'Africaine, but I did not return. I have read the score. It is no longer just pieces of string [ficelles, i.e. tricks] that you find there, but in truth ropes, and ropes woven from straw and rags. I am fortunate not to be obliged to talk about it."

"I was recently at the Opéra, and L'Africaine was being performed. One of my critic friends detained me after the first Act and forced me to listen to Acts II and III. 'Listen, I said to him, if you do not let me go, I feel I am going to fly into a rage, and I will bite you.' What abominable rubbish, what a disgusting pile of notes! All this will have cost a great deal of money - and to think it was being advertised for the last twenty years…"

Probably the most famous - and succinct - criticism of Meyerbeer was Wagner's. Those very grand operas, Wagner said, consisted of "effects without causes." It's a bit harsh - this is Wagner, after all - but it hits the bullseye. We can concede, as both Wagner and Berlioz did, that many of those "effects" are ingenious; both composers (and Verdi as well) learned from them. But apparently they are no longer enough. The operas the world continues to treasure show their composers finding essential causes for their effects, identifying deeply with the people they're writing about, and creating musical forms that trace the trajectory of emotions and ideas that shape their stories. It's really amazing to consider the variety of ways composers have found to accomplish this over the history of the art form, and I have to wonder to what degree an obviously talented composer like Meyerbeer was motivated by such artistic goals. It's clear that his contemporary composers were at least skeptical.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> So nobody has clean hands in that era regarding anti-Semitism, or freedom from blatant prejudice, jealousy, spite, and other behaviors that kind of remind me of the mess the world's in today.


Slightly off topic, but it really is remarkable how some artists live their lives and careers in a nonstop pursuit of wealth, public acclaim, and professional status, ethics and integrity be [email protected], where others reject all of that even if it means living a monkish life of near poverty. If Meyerbeer belongs in the former category, the ultimate example of the latter has to be Bela Bartok. An outspoken critic of the Nazis even though he wasn't Jewish, he lived out his life in exile and near total poverty in the US, adamantly refusing any charity. Fortunately for all of us, his close friend Joseph Szigeti convinced Benny Goodman to commission Contrasts for clarinet, violin and piano and Serge Koussevitsky to commission the Concerto for Orchestra to give Bartok some desperately needed money.
But in the end, how much do the artistic reputations of Meyerbeer, Schumann, Wagner, or Bartok depend on what they were like as people? I would argue, almost not at all. In time the man fades away, his art remains.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

fluteman said:


> Slightly off topic, but it really is remarkable how some artists live their lives and careers in a nonstop pursuit of wealth, public acclaim, and professional status, ethics and integrity be [email protected], where others reject all of that even if it means living a monkish life of near poverty. If Meyerbeer belongs in the former category, the ultimate example of the latter has to be Bela Bartok. An outspoken critic of the Nazis even though he wasn't Jewish, he lived out his life in exile and near total poverty in the US, adamantly refusing any charity. Fortunately for all of us, his close friend Joseph Szigeti convinced Benny Goodman to commission Contrasts for clarinet, violin and piano and Serge Koussevitsky to commission the Concerto for Orchestra to give Bartok some desperately needed money.
> But in the end, how much do the artistic reputations of Meyerbeer, Schumann, Wagner, or Bartok depend on what they were like as people? I would argue, almost not at all. In time the man fades away, his art remains.


To me, your first sentence sounds like a questionable, black/white sort of dichotomy. Meyerbeer, etc. was venal and unethical, whereas Bartok and Szigeti were practically living saints? I agree that who they were as people shouldn't really affect how we hear their music, but surely these composers (and most artists) were more complex than your post makes out?

Edited to add: Also, what did Meyerbeer do that was "bad," other than be a commercial success?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I've seen the word "calculated" used many times to describe Meyerbeer's operas: i.e., Meyerbeer is calculated, whereas Donizetti is genuine. Can somebody please explain to me what is meant by this? In other words, what, specifically, is it about Meyerbeer that suggests a word like "calculated" or a phrase like "he's only concerned with effects"?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I've seen the word "calculated" used many times to describe Meyerbeer's operas: i.e., Meyerbeer is calculated, whereas Donizetti is genuine. Can somebody please explain to me what is meant by this? In other words, what, specifically, is it about Meyerbeer that suggests a word like "calculated" or a phrase like "he's only concerned with effects"?


Ultimately, I suspect, this is something we have to hear and see. Speaking for myself out of a limited contact with his work (about 2/3 of _Le Prophete_ and excerpts from several other operas), I find Meyerbeer showing limited interest in, or capacity for, defining character through music, or creating an emotional trajectory over the course of a drama's unfolding. Music that lacks expressive depth impresses mainly by its cleverness, catchiness or visceral energy, trying mainly for theatrical effect. There's also the whole idea of "grand opera" as a big entertainment, with elements such as ballet not strictly necessary to telling a story, along with plenty of opportunities for singers to show off and flashy scenic effects to wow the audience. Meyerbeer was considered the operatic master of showmanship in his day.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Ultimately, I suspect, this is something we have to hear and see. Speaking for myself out of a limited contact with his work (about 2/3 of _Le Prophete_ and excerpts from several other operas), I find Meyerbeer showing limited interest in, or capacity for, defining character through music, or creating an emotional trajectory over the course of a drama's unfolding. Music that lacks expressive depth impresses mainly by its cleverness, catchiness or visceral energy, trying mainly for theatrical effect. There's also the whole idea of "grand opera" as a big entertainment, with elements such as ballet not strictly necessary to telling a story, along with plenty of opportunities for singers to show off and flashy scenic effects to wow the audience. Meyerbeer was considered the operatic master of showmanship in his day.


This reminds me a bit of the fact that, much as I love Bellini, I've always sort of thought that he was more interested in "music for music's sake" than in character-defining and dramatic cohesion.

Would it help to view Meyerbeer distinctly as a Biedermeier type of composer -- "Biedermeier" being shorthand for a kind of "form over content" aesthetic?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> This reminds me a bit of the fact that, much as I love Bellini, I've always sort of thought that he was more interested in "music for music's sake" than in character-defining and dramatic cohesion.
> 
> Would it help to view Meyerbeer distinctly as a Biedermeier type of composer -- "Biedermeier" being shorthand for a kind of "form over content" aesthetic?


Oh, I don't know. But he was a hell of a businessman!  Of course opera was big business then, and the Paris Opera was a gigantic enterprise that Meyerbeer practically owned, to the chagrin of Berlioz and Wagner. He knew what audiences wanted and gave it to them in spades.

I know what you mean about Bellini, although some of his characters - I'm thinking of Norma and Amina - are memorable. Adalgisa and Pollione, though, don't have much individuality, and in general we don't feel that we know his characters as unique individuals. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'd say Donizetti was better at characterization. It's too bad Bellini died so soon.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Oh, I don't know. But he was a hell of a businessman!  Of course opera was big business then, and the Paris Opera was a gigantic enterprise that Meyerbeer practically owned, to the chagrin of Berlioz and Wagner. He knew what audiences wanted and gave it to them in spades.
> 
> I know what you mean about Bellini, although some of his characters - I'm thinking of Norma and Amina - are memorable. Adalgisa and Pollione, though, don't have much individuality, and in general we don't feel that we know his characters as unique individuals. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'd say Donizetti was better at characterization. It's too bad Bellini died so soon.


I was just wondering whether Meyerbeer could be sort of lumped in with, say, Carl Maria von Weber.

I agree about Donizetti being better at characterization. Bellini's _own_"voice" is always instantly recognizable, but it doesn't strike me that his Pollione or Elvira, say, are as musically well-drawn as are Donizetti's Nemorino or Lucia.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I was just wondering whether Meyerbeer could be sort of lumped in with, say, Carl Maria von Weber.
> 
> I agree about Donizetti being better at characterization. Bellini's _own_"voice" is always instantly recognizable, but it doesn't strike me that his Pollione or Elvira, say, are as musically well-drawn as are Donizetti's Nemorino or Lucia.


Weber should be lumped in with Bellini. Both were early bloomers (Weber, like his relative-by-marriage Mozart, was a child prodigy), both produced one exceptional work (Der Freischütz was the cornerstone of German romantic opera, Norma was the cornerstone of bel canto opera) with other weaker works but with memorable moments (Oberon, Euryanthe, I Puritani, Il Pirata), and both died young.

Weber also wrote important works for solo piano (the four piano sonatas are strong, and currently resurrected by the period instrumentalists) , and for the clarinet. His contributions to the clarinet literature are as important as of Mozart and Brahms. Sorry for being offtrack -- just can't help it since Weber is one of my most favorite early romantic composers, more so than Mendelssohn.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I was just wondering whether Meyerbeer could be sort of lumped in with, say, Carl Maria von Weber.
> 
> I agree about Donizetti being better at characterization. Bellini's _own_"voice" is always instantly recognizable, but it doesn't strike me that his Pollione or Elvira, say, are as musically well-drawn as are Donizetti's Nemorino or Lucia.


Like silentio, I'm fond of Weber. I don't think he has anything in common with Meyerbeer, other than an inventive approach to orchestral sonority. The characters in _Der Freischutz_ are quite nicely drawn, and the Wolf's Glen scene is anything but effect for effect's sake. Wagner had no end of admiration for Weber and was a pall-bearer at his funeral, for which he wrote a special piece.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Looking at this article I think Kennicott certainly overplays his hand. Whatever effect Wagner's idiotic anti-Semitic rantings had on his own society, I doubt (and certainly hope) no-one outside the neo-fascist movement takes them seriously these days. So why the neglect of Meyerbeer? He was certainly someone who believed that opera should be entertainment (something that did not find favour with Wagner) so might be looked upon as a composer in the same way as Cecil B de Mille may be looked upon as a director - big on spectacle but lightweight on profound substance. But he filled theatres just like in his day de Mille filled cinemas. Entertainment was Meyerbeer's chief goal and for those of us who go to the opera to be entertained this is a worthy goal. There are of course film directors who can do entertainment and profundity at the same time - think of Wyler or Spielberg - as there were composers who could both entertain and write great works of art, of whom Mozart and Verdi lead the field in opera, with Puccini and Bizet as runners up imo. But as de Mille's films have passed out of fashion with an increasingly sophisticated public so has Meyerbeer. Must say, however, this thread has made me want to catch up on Meyerbeer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> There are of course film directors who can do entertainment and profundity at the same time - think of Wyler or Spielberg - as there were composers who could both entertain and write great works of art, of whom Mozart and Verdi lead the field in opera, with Puccini and Bizet as runners up imo.


"Profundity" is not a word that comes to mind when I think of Puccini and Bizet.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> "Profundity" is not a word that comes to mind when I think of Puccini and Bizet.


No? Carmen is a pretty good record of a man caught in a sexual attraction with a femme fatale. Haven't you heard Butterfly's longing for Pinkerton or Mimi's heartbreak at Rudolf's jealousy or Tosca's jealousy? These are real characters to me. I've met people like it. Messages about human nature which is what we all live with


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Mendelssohn's reputation, like that of Meyerbeer and many other composers, has had its ups and downs according to fashion. But Mendelssohn has come through it all unscathed, while Meyerbeer has not.


Because Wagner and Meyerbeer wrote operas and Mendelssohn didn't. Of course Wagner's style and writings are going to hold more influence over the subsequent reception of the former.

I don't think one can meet an argument along the lines of "Meyerbeer's operas have been unfairly forgotten because we compare them unfavourably to his rival Wagner's operas" (not saying whether this is true or not) by pointing to the success of Mendelssohn's symphonies.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gallus said:


> Because Wagner and Meyerbeer wrote operas and Mendelssohn didn't. Of course Wagner's style and writings are going to hold more influence over the subsequent reception of the former.
> 
> I don't think one can meet an argument along the lines of "Meyerbeer's operas have been unfairly forgotten because we compare them unfavourably to his rival Wagner's operas" (not saying whether this is true or not) by pointing to the success of Mendelssohn's symphonies.


Good point. Mendelssohn's symphonies aren't going to be compared directly to the operas Wagner wrote or inspired other composers to write. Nevertheless his music did come to seem rather tame, tidy and old-fashioned - Victorian, perhaps (he was Queen Victoria's favorite composer) - amid the progressive, partly Wagner-inspired trends of the late 19th and 20th centuries. But the point of the article was not that Meyerbeer suffers from being _compared_ to Wagner, but from being _disparaged_ by Wagner. Mendelssohn was also disparaged, though less strenuously.

The larger point is that a number of composers have bounced back from such dips in their reputations, and there's scant evidence that Meyerbeer's failure to do so has anything, especially nowadays, to do with Wagner's writings _or_ his music. We don't now guage the worth of anyone's operas by comparing them to Wagner's; his works are now seen as peculiar and inimitable, with a secure place in the repertoire alongside works in many other styles. Whether Meyerbeer's style will gain back much of its former appeal, or be viewed in some new perspective, seems unlikely.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Good point. Mendelssohn's symphonies aren't going to be compared directly to the operas Wagner wrote or inspired other composers to write. Nevertheless his music did come to seem rather tame, tidy and old-fashioned - Victorian, perhaps (he was Queen Victoria's favorite composer) - amid the progressive, partly Wagner-inspired trends of the late 19th and 20th centuries. The larger point is that a number of composers have bounced back from such dips in their reputations, and there's scant evidence that Meyerbeer's failure to do so has anything, especially nowadays, to do with Wagner's writings _or_ his music. We don't now guage the worth of anyone's operas by comparing them to Wagner's; his works are now seen as peculiar and inimitable, with a secure place in the repertoire alongside works in many other styles. Whether Meyerbeer's style will gain back much of its former appeal, or be viewed in some new perspective, seems unlikely.


I'd suggest operas (especially grand operas) are much more difficult to resurrect from critical oblivion than an orchestral work though because they're more of a risk to stage. I guess Monteverdi has been revived, though probably not to the level of his current critical reputation...


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Gallus said:


> Because Wagner and Meyerbeer wrote operas and Mendelssohn didn't. Of course Wagner's style and writings are going to hold more influence over the subsequent reception of the former.
> 
> I don't think one can meet an argument along the lines of "Meyerbeer's operas have been unfairly forgotten because we compare them unfavourably to his rival Wagner's operas" (not saying whether this is true or not) by pointing to the success of Mendelssohn's symphonies.


Mendehlson wrote operas and they are less popular than Meyerbeer´s.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> No? Carmen is a pretty good record of a man caught in a sexual attraction with a femme fatale. Haven't you heard Butterfly's longing for Pinkerton or Mimi's heartbreak at Rudolf's jealousy or Tosca's jealousy? These are real characters to me. I've met people like it. Messages about human nature which is what we all live with


Effective portrayals of sexual compulsion, jealousy and heartbreak, even in the hands of a master like Puccini, don't necessarily strike me as profound. Most operas present pretty simple characters in the grip of simple emotions. These personages generally don't deal in a serious way with larger moral, spiritual or political issues, wrestle with psychological problems, question the meaning of life, offer glimpses of higher consciousness, or undergo much (or any) psychological or intellectual growth. The world around them is portrayed mainly as a setting for the playing out of their passions, and not as a wider realm of meaningful relationships, institutions and cosmic drama which the individual characters must struggle to understand, influence or come to terms with.

A few operas by a few composers do seem to get beneath the familiar surface of things, go beyond their characters' obvious motivations to the deeper wellsprings of their behavior, show larger forces at work in society and in the universe, and provoke us to think, question, and feel differently about life. But I don't think _Carmen_ is one of them. I find its portrayal of human behavior, and its music as well, vivid and theatrically compelling but more picturesque than deep. Don Jose is just a boy from the country whose gonads get him into trouble; he learns nothing, and his end is pathetic rather than tragic. Carmen is fascinatingly enigmatic, but depends on her interpreter to humanize her; her "card aria" may be an attempt at this, but its grave darkness seems out of keeping with the rest of her behavior. She needs someone like Callas to suggest that there's anything beneath the gypsy act.

Maybe opera isn't the best medium for an in-depth look at life's complexities and mysteries, which tends to require more words than an opera libretto can or should try to put across from the musical stage, where music rightfully dominates. This is probably why we don't have operas on Hamlet or King Lear worthy of their subjects. Indeed, the only great operas based on Shakespeare may be Verdi's _Otello_ and _Falstaff. _ Shakespeare's _Merry Wives of Windsor_ makes no pretense to be profound, and _Falstaff_ surpasses it in depth by the subtlety of Verdi's music. _Otello,_ being an opera, wisely leaves out most of the characters' philosophizing and just goes to the heart of their emotions, but purely by musical means it attains a quality of tragic elevation which neither Bizet nor Puccini ever equal, or even seem to be aiming at.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> "Profundity" is not a word that comes to mind when I think of Puccini and Bizet.


Nor does the word 'profundity' come to mind when I think of Spielberg or, as much as I love his work, Wyler. Maybe DavidA was thinking of a different word.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Gallus said:


> I'd suggest operas (especially grand operas) are much more difficult to resurrect from critical oblivion than an orchestral work though because they're more of a risk to stage. I guess Monteverdi has been revived, though probably not to the level of his current critical reputation...


Monteverdi washed back ashore as part of the early music tsunami. He deserves the attention, of course. I don't know to what extent he's now on the radar of the "general" opera lover, since his works are intimate and rarely done in Meyerbeer-sized theaters, but I think _L'Orfeo_ and _Poppea_ get suitable attention in appropriate venues.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Effective portrayals of sexual compulsion, jealousy and heartbreak, even in the hands of a master like Puccini, don't necessarily strike me as profound. *Most operas present pretty simple characters in the grip of simple emotions. *These personages generally don't deal in a serious way with larger moral, spiritual or political issues, wrestle with psychological problems, question the meaning of life, offer glimpses of higher consciousness, or undergo much (or any) psychological or intellectual growth. The world around them is portrayed mainly as a setting for the playing out of their passions, and not as a wider realm of meaningful relationships, institutions and cosmic drama which the individual characters must struggle to understand, influence or come to terms with.
> 
> A few operas by a few composers do seem to get beneath the familiar surface of things, go beyond their characters' obvious motivations to the deeper wellsprings of their behavior, show larger forces at work in society and in the universe, and provoke us to think, question, and feel differently about life. But I don't think _Carmen_ is one of them. I find its portrayal of human behavior, and its music as well, vivid and theatrically compelling but more picturesque than deep. Don Jose is just a boy from the country whose gonads get him into trouble; he learns nothing, and his end is pathetic rather than tragic. Carmen is fascinatingly enigmatic, but depends on her interpreter to humanize her; her "card aria" may be an attempt at this, but its grave darkness seems out of keeping with the rest of her behavior. She needs someone like Callas to suggest that there's anything beneath the gypsy act.
> 
> Maybe opera isn't the best medium for an in-depth look at life's complexities and mysteries, which tends to require more words than an opera libretto can or should try to put across from the musical stage, where music rightfully dominates. This is probably why we don't have operas on Hamlet or King Lear worthy of their subjects. Indeed, the only great operas based on Shakespeare may be Verdi's _Otello_ and _Falstaff. _ Shakespeare's _Merry Wives of Windsor_ makes no pretense to be profound, and _Falstaff_ surpasses it in depth by the subtlety of Verdi's music. _Otello,_ being an opera, wisely leaves out most of the characters' philosophizing and just goes to the heart of their emotions, but purely by musical means it attains a quality of tragic elevation which neither Bizet nor Puccini ever equal, or even seem to be aiming at.


Woe appear to have different perceptions of profundity. To me profundity is not something we can't understand or identify with in our experience - like the speaker no-pne could understand so they said, "Isn't he deep!"
To me something profound must be based on something like real situations where one can identify with the characters. In the operas mentioned I can. Actually it is the simple emotions which are the most profound as life consists of simple emotions we all experience. Great art can express them. We identify with them. That to me is profound.
Operas which attempt too much in terms of philosophising lose me. Opera is not the medium for them, as you say.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

bz3 said:


> Nor does the word 'profundity' come to mind when I think of Spielberg or, as much as I love his work, Wyler. Maybe DavidA was thinking of a different word.


Of course Spielberg could do his "indiana Jones" which no-one could mistake as profound. But ET is a profound study of childhood emotions and relationships as well as a great kids movie. People who don't think so have perhaps never had kids. And Schindler's List? Never been moved by it. OK I know the end is too sentimental but the movie is profound.
I should perhaps have used 'great works of art' rather than 'profound' as that covers many of them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Woe appear to have different perceptions of profundity. To me profundity is not something we can't understand or identify with in our experience - like the speaker no-pne could understand so they said, "Isn't he deep!"
> To me something profound must be based on something like real situations where one can identify with the characters. In the operas mentioned I can. Actually it is the simple emotions which are the most profound as life consists of simple emotions we all experience. Great art can express them. We identify with them. That to me is profound.
> Operas which attempt too much in terms of philosophising lose me. Opera is not the medium for them, as you say.


Clearly we are using the word "profound" to mean different things. It is one of those words, isn't it? I suppose the last scene of _La Boheme_ could be called "profoundly sad," but that still wouldn't make the opera profound. Profound things give me pause and make me feel the need to reorient myself in some way. Rodolfo and Mimi just make me pull out my hankie, dab a few tears, blow my nose, curse Puccini for his skill at manipulating me, and go back to arguing with people on TC.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

My frame of reference can be summed:

Henry James, George Eliot = Profound
Charles Dickens, John Steinbeck = not profound

Certainly there can be disagreement at the fringes but I think that's fairly clear to readers. Maybe music is harder.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

bz3 said:


> My frame of reference can be summed:
> 
> Henry James, George Eliot = Profound
> Charles Dickens, John Steinbeck = not profound
> ...


Music _is_ harder, and probably more subject to disagreement. Is Bruckner deeply spiritual and awe-inspiring, or just heavy and boring? Depends on who you ask.

In opera, my candidates for profundity might not be accepted as such by those who don't enjoy them, or who enjoy them in a different way. Take _The Magic Flute._ Is it an amusing, fanciful, slightly silly entertainment set to charming music, or is it a richly archetypal tale of human maturation told through music of deceptive simplicity? I think it's the latter, and that it's one of the most profound of all operas in touching upon very basic aspects of what it is to be human and giving them sublime expression. In striking ways _Flute_ is a comedic twin to Wagner's _Parsifal,_ another symbolic tale of the perilous passage to adulthood, which shares with it such primal archetypes as the naive boy as hero, the journey fraught with perils and mysteries to be solved, the ambivalent mother, the wise old man who offers guidance, and the fundamental and pervasive male-female duality ("Mann und Weib," Spear and Grail).

Perhaps only the genre of myth allows the inner journey of a human life to be told in such concentrated form - to represent and express psychic experiences of crucial formative importance covered over and forgotten in the mundane pursuits of adult life - and for me these two operas are masterpieces of that genre in the realm of musical drama. (Ingmar Bergman evidently feels the same way: in his wonderfully creative film of _Flute,_ he gives us a backstage glimpse of the singer portraying wise old Sarastro studying the score of _Parsifal,_ preparing to portray Wagner's wise old man, Gurnemanz, a role written for exactly the same kind of deep, lyrical bass voice.)

It's a testimony to the depth and fundamental importance of the issues embodied in these two operas that they can be expressed with such beauty and compelling power in works so utterly different in style and intent.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> *Effective portrayals of sexual compulsion, jealousy and heartbreak, even in the hands of a master like Puccini, don't necessarily strike me as profound.* Most operas present pretty simple characters in the grip of simple emotions. These personages generally don't deal in a serious way with larger moral, spiritual or political issues, wrestle with psychological problems, question the meaning of life, offer glimpses of higher consciousness, or undergo much (or any) psychological or intellectual growth. The world around them is portrayed mainly as a setting for the playing out of their passions, and not as a wider realm of meaningful relationships, institutions and cosmic drama which the individual characters must struggle to understand, influence or come to terms with.
> 
> A few operas by a few composers do seem to get beneath the familiar surface of things, go beyond their characters' obvious motivations to the deeper wellsprings of their behavior, show larger forces at work in society and in the universe, and provoke us to think, question, and feel differently about life. But I don't think _Carmen_ is one of them. I find its portrayal of human behavior, and its music as well, vivid and theatrically compelling but more picturesque than deep. Don Jose is just a boy from the country whose gonads get him into trouble; he learns nothing, and his end is pathetic rather than tragic. Carmen is fascinatingly enigmatic, but depends on her interpreter to humanize her; her "card aria" may be an attempt at this, but its grave darkness seems out of keeping with the rest of her behavior. She needs someone like Callas to suggest that there's anything beneath the gypsy act.
> 
> Maybe opera isn't the best medium for an in-depth look at life's complexities and mysteries, which tends to require more words than an opera libretto can or should try to put across from the musical stage, where music rightfully dominates. This is probably why we don't have operas on Hamlet or King Lear worthy of their subjects. Indeed, the only great operas based on Shakespeare may be Verdi's _Otello_ and _Falstaff. _ Shakespeare's _Merry Wives of Windsor_ makes no pretense to be profound, and _Falstaff_ surpasses it in depth by the subtlety of Verdi's music. _Otello,_ being an opera, wisely leaves out most of the characters' philosophizing and just goes to the heart of their emotions, but purely by musical means it attains a quality of tragic elevation which neither Bizet nor Puccini ever equal, or even seem to be aiming at.


I would say that sexual compulsion, jealousy and heartbreak is what life can be made up of. To portray them effectively is profound. Of course, it depends what we mean by 'profound'. To me Verdi's Falstaff has moments which are profound - Sir John's musing about old age - in with the comedy. Certainly at my age I can identify with him! Mozart's treatment of the Count's repentance and his wife's forgiveness is profound as it deal with the deepest human emotions we can identify with. To me being profound is not being lofty - rather expressing emotions and situations to us in ways we can understand. Like great teaching is revealing the deep things in a manner people can understand. I agree though opera has its limits in this. There are too many words needed between the notes.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

bz3 said:


> My frame of reference can be summed:
> 
> Henry James, George Eliot = Profound
> Charles Dickens, John Steinbeck = not profound
> ...


I just find James and Eliot boring not profound! If you read Oliver Twist there is a profound understanding of the wretchedness of life in those times and a profound understanding of human character.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I just find James and Eliot boring not profound! If you read Oliver Twist there is a profound understanding of the wretchedness of life in those times and a profound understanding of human character.


I studied both Eliot and Dickens when I did my English degree many years ago now, and I always preferred Eliot. Even now Dickens rather irritates me, and I find his characters more like caricature than real people.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> I studied both Eliot and Dickens when I did my English degree many years ago now, and I always preferred Eliot. Even now Dickens rather irritates me, and I find his characters more like caricature than real people.


I confess with some shame that I haven't read Dickens or Eliot since my 20s. My last brush with Dickens was coaching a bunch of high school students in the musical _Oliver_ and having to teach them to do Cockney accents.

The experience was less than profound.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> To me, your first sentence sounds like a questionable, black/white sort of dichotomy. Meyerbeer, etc. was venal and unethical, whereas Bartok and Szigeti were practically living saints? I agree that who they were as people shouldn't really affect how we hear their music, but surely these composers (and most artists) were more complex than your post makes out?
> 
> Edited to add: Also, what did Meyerbeer do that was "bad," other than be a commercial success?


I just noticed this post, and of course you are right, these things are rarely "black and white", and also I certainly didn't mean to imply Meyerbeer was such a villain. He did seem to put a high priority on maximizing his reputation and financial success, though that isn't necessarily a cardinal sin. What I was trying to say is that it's remarkable how some great artists care deeply about such things and work hard for them, while others seem to care very little about them, Bartok being a prime example of the latter. 
My main point was that long after these composers are dead and gone, their art stands or falls on its merits, as when we evaluate it we tend to disregard the sort of lives they led, and I think rightly so. I think it dangerous to try to apply ones own morals and values to those who lived in a very different time and place.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I just find James and Eliot boring not profound! If you read Oliver Twist there is a profound understanding of the wretchedness of life in those times and a profound understanding of human character.


James and Eliot boring?? Good grief.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I confess with some shame that I haven't read Dickens or Eliot since my 20s. My last brush with Dickens was coaching a bunch of high school students in the musical _Oliver_ *and having to teach them to do Cockney accents.*
> 
> The experience was less than profound.


Hope they were better than Dick van ****'s in Mary Poppins!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Hope they were better than Dick van ****'s in Mary Poppins!


His wasn't great. I thought mine was pretty good at the time, but there was nobody to correct me if I got it wrong. The kids...I don't know. People are remarkably variable in their linguistic dexterity. I've sung successfully in several languages, but I have yet to find any classical repertoire in Cockney.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> His wasn't great. *I thought mine was pretty good at the time, but there was nobody to correct me if I got it wrong*. The kids...I don't know. People are remarkably variable in their linguistic dexterity. I've sung successfully in several languages, but I have yet to find any classical repertoire in Cockney.


Half my family were cockneys so there would have been plenty to correct you here! They thought Van **** was excruciating. It seems to be a very difficult accent for an American to bring off. Of course, Disney should have had Tommy Steele (a real cockney) opposite Julie Andrews but the thing was made for American audiences and I don't suppose many people noticed.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Half my family were cockneys so there would have been plenty to correct you here! They thought Van **** was excruciating. It seems to be a very difficult accent for an American to bring off. Of course, Disney should have had Tommy Steele (a real cockney) opposite Julie Andrews but the thing was made for American audiences and I don't suppose many people noticed.


In 1980 Cheryl Kennedy (born in North Enfield) was to play Eliza in a Broadway revival of *My Fair Lady* starring Rex Harrison. American Equity had disputed the casting, but Harrison insisted that the role be played by an English actress. Unfortunately, though she played the role for abut a year in the pre-Broadway try-outs, she had to withdraw before the Broadway premiere, after a physician diagnosed nodes on her vocal chords. She later told my singing teacher, who coached her when she returned to singing, that the producers were continually telling her to sound more cockney, _like Dick Van **** in *Mary Poppins*_!!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

My impression is that English-speakers on both sides of the ocean are generally miserable at accents. An English person I heard interviewed called his countrymen "language idiots," and I thought, "you should hear _us!_" But maybe it's just easier to notice flaws in one's own kind.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Half my family were cockneys so there would have been plenty to correct you here! They thought Van **** was excruciating. It seems to be a very difficult accent for an American to bring off. Of course, Disney should have had Tommy Steele (a real cockney) opposite Julie Andrews but the thing was made for American audiences and I don't suppose many people noticed.


Even as a very young child when Mary Poppins came out, I thought it was absurd that Dick Van **** even attempted an English accent. I'm a very big fan of his otherwise, though. And it works both ways. Not long ago I saw the Broadway revival of Golden Boy, starring Tony Shalhoub, a very good actor many of you probably remember from his starring role with Stanley Tucci in the wonderful movie Big Night, or as an alien in Men in Black II, or as the star of the TV series Monk. Shalhoub is from Wisconsin and is as American as can be, but is skilled with accents, and did a good job as the Italian father in Golden Boy. Alas, Lorna, the hard-boiled girl from Newark, was played by Yvonne Strahovski, an Australian actress, who was coached into using a thick yet inaccurate accent that wasn't quite Brooklynese or New Yorkese, and nowhere near Newarkese. It brought an otherwise great production down a notch. A generic American accent, as done so perfectly by the Australian actress Rachel Griffiths, for example, would have been fine. 
Too bad Dick Van **** didn't have the Geico gecko commercials to study. They are the best examples of a cockney accent we routinely get on American TV these days.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> My impression is that *English-speakers on both sides of the ocean are generally miserable at accents. *An English person I heard interviewed called his countrymen "language idiots," and I thought, "you should hear _us!_" But maybe it's just easier to notice flaws in one's own kind.


This is not so. Get a great actor - Olivier, Guinness, Maggie Smith - and you will find (with the odd misfire) they are pretty good.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> My impression is that English-speakers on both sides of the ocean are generally miserable at accents. An English person I heard interviewed called his countrymen "language idiots," and I thought, "you should hear _us!_" But maybe it's just easier to notice flaws in one's own kind.


I'm not sure this is true anymore. Quite a few American actors these days manage very creditable English accents, and the reverse is, according to some of my American friends, also true.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I remember watching 'The Wire' and being astonished to find out that Idris Elba and Dominic West were British. I was totally convinced they were American. Mathew Rhys in 'The Americans' is another great example of a Brit ( actually Welsh) with a fine American accent. The woman who played Liev Schreiber's wife in 'Ray Donovan' is Irish and has a pretty good Boston accent. I think it may have been true years ago but modern voice coaches are pretty good and it's not so unusual to find good accents on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> I remember watching 'The Wire' and being astonished to find out that Idris Elba and Dominic West were British. I was totally convinced they were American. Mathew Rhys in 'The Americans' is another great example of a Brit ( actually Welsh) with a fine American accent. The woman who played Liev Schreiber's wife in 'Ray Donovan' is Irish and has a pretty good Boston accent. I think it may have been true years ago but modern voice coaches are pretty good and it's not so unusual to find good accents on both sides of the Atlantic.


Agreed. Idris Elba was phenomenal in The Wire. Another British actor who is thoroughly convincing as an American is Hugh Laurie.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I'll agree that some are better than others (for instance, when I watch British TV shows it seems like all the bit-part actors playing Americans sound like they're all going for a particular New York accent). Laurie always sounded like he was trying to impersonate a frog when he did American accents.

The worst and least creditable to me are affected southern accents - of virtually any type. Kevin Spacey's in House of Cards is a notable recent one that I thought was terrible but garnered much praise in northeastern publications. Though after his boy-rape revelations I doubt anyone would challenge me much on this point anymore, compared to the pushback at the time.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

bz3 said:


> I'll agree that some are better than others (for instance, when I watch British TV shows it seems like all the bit-part actors playing Americans sound like they're all going for a particular New York accent). Laurie always sounded like he was trying to impersonate a frog when he did American accents.
> 
> The worst and least creditable to me are affected southern accents - of virtually any type. Kevin Spacey's in House of Cards is a notable recent one that I thought was terrible but garnered much praise in northeastern publications. Though after his boy-rape revelations I doubt anyone would challenge me much on this point anymore, compared to the pushback at the time.


What Hugh Laurie does right is that he does not attempt an exaggerated regional accent, but instead keeps it generic. He is a very plausible American surgeon in House, and the flat monotone serves his sarcastic character well, even if it is frog-like. OTOH, Kevin Spacey is remarkable at impersonating fellow celebrities, but surprisingly, his southern accent is as you point out unconvincing, as in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. But his Bobby Darin in Beyond the Sea was amazing. I guess a lot of it is how well the actor is coached, and how motivated the actor is to get it right.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

bz3 said:


> James and Eliot boring?? Good grief.


Absolutely! I can always remember Silas Marner going under the name of Silas Narner when we read it at school.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

I love Henry James but there's no denying he can be boring in places. There are certain parts of the Golden Bowl which become almost self-parodic in the intensity of its navel-gazing.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Gallus said:


> I love Henry James but there's no denying he can be boring in places. There are certain parts of the Golden Bowl which become almost self-parodic in the intensity of its navel-gazing.


Henry James was famously unsuccessful with his theatrical work, I think precisely for this reason. As for the novels, I think you have to accept and adjust your frame of mind to the extraordinarily meticulous and slow pace. If you can, they can hold you in a vice-like grip. He could have titled any of them The Turn of the Screw.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Kennicott is an idiot. He literally panned a performance of one of our Unheard Beethoven works by Leonard Slatkin and the National Symphony in advance by saying he didn't need to hear it, he knew it was bad. His editor should have fired him for that alone.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

gardibolt said:


> Kennicott is an idiot. He literally panned a performance of one of our Unheard Beethoven works by Leonard Slatkin and the National Symphony in advance by saying he didn't need to hear it, he knew it was bad. His editor should have fired him for that alone.


I'm not familiar with him, but he expertly supports your point of view in his article on Meyerbeer. He is a worthy challenger to the recently-retired Richard Dyer of the Boston Globe, champion of Joyce Hatto, for the award for most inane piece of classical music criticism.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> I'm not familiar with him, but he expertly supports your point of view in his article on Meyerbeer. He is a worthy challenger to the recently-retired Richard Dyer of the Boston Globe, champion of Joyce Hatto, for the award for most inane piece of classical music criticism.


Ah, Joyce... She could play anything every bit as well as every other pianist ever recorded.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Ah, Joyce... She could play anything every bit as well as every other pianist ever recorded.


You do know how to make me chortle. :lol:


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Ah, Joyce... She could play anything every bit as well as every other pianist ever recorded.


Never heard of her before but why do it? She had been performing in public and had made genuine recordings like this  no need to make fake recordings. Not everyone can be the most celebrated pianist.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sloe said:


> Never heard of her before but why do it? She had been performing in public and had made genuine recordings like this  no need to make fake recordings. Not everyone can be the most celebrated pianist.


The Hatto story is or was well-documented online. The New Yorker published an entertaining and accurate piece with most of the relevant information. There you will find the answer to your question, or at least as much of an answer as likely ever will be possible.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There's a 2012 movie, _Loving Miss Hatto_, that goes into great detail about her marriage, motivations, and so forth. Not bad at all.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2220204/


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Gallus said:


> I love Henry James but there's no denying he can be boring in places. There are certain parts of the Golden Bowl which become almost self-parodic in the intensity of its navel-gazing.


Well he's certainly stylized, especially his late works, but compared to rough contemporaries like the Brontes, Austen, Dreiser, Thackeray, Harding it was similar subject matter. I think it's sort of unfair to compare late James to anything else - you really have to work up to that even if you're a pretty good reader. James did Joyce earlier and more convincingly in his late years, and nobody accuses Joyce of being boring even if he doesn't beguile them.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KenOC said:


> There's a 2012 movie, _Loving Miss Hatto_, that goes into great detail about her marriage, motivations, and so forth. Not bad at all.
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2220204/


Ken - What is the best way to see that movie in the US? I see it can be seen on streaming video on Amazon UK, but not Amazon US. I also saw the DVD for sale for $20, but didn't think it was quite worth it, though I'm a fan of Alfred Molina.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

fluteman said:


> Ken - What is the best way to see that movie in the US? I see it can be seen on streaming video on Amazon UK, but not Amazon US. I also saw the DVD for sale for $20, but didn't think it was quite worth it, though I'm a fan of Alfred Molina.


Sorry, I can't remember how I came to see it (on the TV) and don't know where to find it. Netflix maybe?


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Never mind. Move on. Nothing to see.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Sorry, I can't remember how I came to see it (on the TV) and don't know where to find it. Netflix maybe?


Nope, not on Netflix. But while I was looking for it, I found a 1970 movie called "Loving" starring George Segal as a freelance illustrator whose life is going down the toilet; I'm renting that one. I love self-destruct films.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Never heard of her before but why do it? She had been performing in public and had made genuine recordings like this  no need to make fake recordings. Not everyone can be the most celebrated pianist.


It appears to have been here husband's idea. They definitely loved one another and were absolutely dotty. He'd been in prison for fraud but he was certainly a capable record producer. During the 60s he produced very cheap LPs that were recordings from Eastern Europe with fictitious names. Of course he tried the same thing by attaching his wife's name to recordings by leading pianists, having digitally altered the recordings. Quite masterly really. But the people most at fault were the critics who supported Hatto. Was it possible that a mediocre (concert) pianist could produce such masterly recordings in such quantity in old age? They were conned. I'm pretty sure he wanted to con them because he thought they had never given recognition to his wife. But the critics sure made complete fools of themselves.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It appears to have been here husband's idea. They definitely loved one another and were absolutely dotty. He'd been in prison for fraud but he was certainly a capable record producer. During the 60s he produced very cheap LPs that were recordings from Eastern Europe with fictitious names. Of course he tried the same thing by attaching his wife's name to recordings by leading pianists, having digitally altered the recordings. Quite masterly really. But the people most at fault were the critics who supported Hatto. Was it possible that a mediocre (concert) pianist could produce such masterly recordings in such quantity in old age? They were conned.


Now the reputation Hatto had as a pianist is forever destroyed.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DavidA said:


> It appears to have been here husband's idea. They definitely loved one another and were absolutely dotty. He'd been in prison for fraud but he was certainly a capable record producer. During the 60s he produced very cheap LPs that were recordings from Eastern Europe with fictitious names. Of course he tried the same thing by attaching his wife's name to recordings by leading pianists, having digitally altered the recordings. Quite masterly really. But the people most at fault were the critics who supported Hatto. Was it possible that a mediocre (concert) pianist could produce such masterly recordings in such quantity in old age? They were conned. I'm pretty sure he wanted to con them because he thought they had never given recognition to his wife. But the critics sure made complete fools of themselves.


Yes, that's the basic story, but anyone who is interested should track down the New Yorker article, it's well worth reading. There is also a website maintained by Farhan Malik that lists most of the actual pianists whose work was, ahem, borrowed by Hatto and her husband on a total of about 113 CDs. I don't know if Mr. Malik is receiving additions to his list any longer, as people understandably seem to have lost interest in hunting down the actual recordings, which isn't as easy to do as it may seem. William Barrington-Coupe, Hatto's husband and record producer, refused to identify the recordings he used, and Joyce Hatto herself passed away before the fraud was discovered. The list can be found here:

http://www.farhanmalik.com/hatto/pianistslist.html


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Now the reputation Hatto had as a pianist is forever destroyed.


Hatto had very little reputation as a concert pianist up to the point her husband began plagiarising other performances in her name. 
This is how the Hatto news broke in the Gramophone

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/editor...akes-the-joyce-hatto-scandal-february-15-2007

Herald and Tribune

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/opinion/25iht-edutton.4712389.html

The fuller story in the New Yorker. Incredible!

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/09/17/fantasia-for-piano

When the thing broke I did write to the editor of the Gramophone suggesting one or two of his reviewers might consider their positions. No reply!


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Phillip Kennicott's answer is that it's Wagner's fault.
> 
> Bleah.
> 
> A defense of Meyerbeer's work that begins with a hysterical a screed against anti-semitism and big bad Wagner is not going to end well.


Obviously, for the purposes of maintaining the possibilities of a dialectic, I'd say that I didn't read the article that way. I didn't find either 'hysterical' or 'big, bad Wagner'. Quite the opposite. It's clear that he has a high regard for the work of Wagner, though reading his articles elsewhere, he is not uncritical and he seems "conflicted" - hence the reason for the article about Meyerbeer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Obviously, for the purposes of maintaining the possibilities of a dialectic, I'd say that I didn't read the article that way. I didn't find either 'hysterical' or 'big, bad Wagner'. Quite the opposite. It's clear that he has a high regard for the work of Wagner, though reading his articles elsewhere, he is not uncritical and he seems "conflicted" - hence the reason for the article about Meyerbeer.


The opposite? Really? I don't want to have to go back and reread the thing at this late date (it was bad enough the first time), but as I recall he is taking a position not borne out by much evidence: that Meyerbeer's works have much greater depth and artistic integrity than they're now generally thought to have, that they would hold the stage today if it were not for Wagner, and that we need to wake up and realize how powerful and damaging, to our perceptions and to the operatic repertoire, a long-dead composer's prejudices can still be in 2018.

Perhaps hysteria is not exactly what such a critique is suffering from, but to feel that Wagner's bad character has so much influence on our present perceptions and choices is evidence of something regarding which quibbling over psychiatric terms may be beside the point. Kennicott is entitled to love Meyerbeer, but if he thinks Meyerbeer isn't good enough to have recovered by now from Wagner's ranting, he hasn't much confidence in the thing he loves.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I just read the article and found it pretty good, though not on a subject I care much about. Certainly it's critical of Wagner's treatment of Meyerbeer in his infamous pamphlet, but the criticism seems well-deserved.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The opposite? Really? I don't want to have to go back and reread the thing at this late date (it was bad enough the first time), but as I recall he is taking a position not borne out by much evidence: that Meyerbeer's works have much greater depth and artistic integrity than they're now generally thought to have, that they would hold the stage today if it were not for Wagner, and that we need to wake up and realize how powerful and damaging, to our perceptions and to the operatic repertoire, a long-dead composer's prejudices can still be in 2018.
> 
> Perhaps hysteria is not exactly what such a critique is suffering from, but to feel that Wagner's bad character has so much influence on our present perceptions and choices is evidence of something regarding which quibbling over psychiatric terms may be beside the point. Kennicott is entitled to love Meyerbeer, but if he thinks Meyerbeer isn't good enough to have recovered by now from Wagner's ranting, he hasn't much confidence in the thing he loves.


By "the opposite", I meant that Kennicott was not hysterical in his opening about anti-semitism, and that while he did point the finger at Wagner's writings, he took care to spend more time considering the anti-semitism of the 19th C more generally, and he acknowledged in passing the greatness of Wagner's works - so, not 'big bad Wagner either.

I can't comment on Meyerbeer - I've never heard any.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> By "the opposite", I meant that Kennicott was not hysterical in his opening about anti-semitism, and that while he did point the finger at Wagner's writings, he took care to spend more time considering the anti-semitism of the 19th C more generally, and he acknowledged in passing the greatness of Wagner's works - so, not 'big bad Wagner either.
> 
> I can't comment on Meyerbeer - I've never heard any.


I see. I guess I've read so many screeds blaming Wagner's anti-semitism for everything that it all seems to have merged into one huge shrieking cacophony of victimhood. It's time to get over it! Meyerbeer's just going to have to be a big boy and take responsibility for himself now.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The Wiki article on Mendelssohn claims that his popularity is limited today because his music was banned by German-controlled countries in WWII. I called out the primary author of the article, asking for some third-party support for this (which Wiki is supposed to have). But he wouldn’t supply any.

Similarly, the author of this article claims that Wagner’s baleful influence is responsible for Meyerbeer’s absence from the operatic canon today. But he offers no evidence of this. I enjoyed the article, but that I’m not buying.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KenOC said:


> The Wiki article on Mendelssohn claims that his popularity is limited today because his music was banned by German-controlled countries in WWII. I called out the primary author of the article, asking for some third-party support for this (which Wiki is supposed to have). But he wouldn't supply any.


Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Handel, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky and Verdi are the only composers on the arkivmusic.com Most Popular Composers list with more in print recordings than Mendelssohn. Debussy and Chopin are just behind him. Not a precise scientific test, but close enough. To say that Mendelssohn's popularity is "limited today" is laughable. I'm sorry for posting so many negative critical comments in this thread, but where do people get these ideas? Sheesh.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

fluteman said:


> Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Handel, Mozart, Schubert, Schumann, Tchaikovsky and Verdi are the only composers on the arkivmusic.com Most Popular Composers list with more in print recordings than Mendelssohn. Debussy and Chopin are just behind him. Not a precise scientific test, but close enough. To say that Mendelssohn's popularity is "limited today" is laughable. I'm sorry for posting so many negative critical comments in this thread, but *where do people get these ideas? *Sheesh.


They get them from the cultural fad of the moment. The fad for referring everything back - or, in the case of Wagner, forward - to Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust is occupying a very long moment. Apparently you can still use it to earn cred as a scholar, critic, or forum troll.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> They get them from the cultural fad of the moment. The fad for referring everything back - or, in the case of Wagner, forward - to Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust is occupying a very long moment. Apparently you can still use it to earn cred as a scholar, critic, or forum troll.


If so, that's too bad, because the net result of distorting history is to lessen our understanding of Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust, not to mention Meyerbeer or Mendelssohn. At least music basically speaks for itself, so a careful listener can eventually get to the bottom of it with little help even from good scholars.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> They get them from the cultural fad of the moment. The fad for referring everything back - or, in the case of Wagner, forward - to Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust is occupying a very long moment. Apparently you can still use it to earn cred as a scholar, critic, or forum troll.


Also, not wanting to flog a dead horse, and again this is not scientifically precise, but according to arkivmusic.com, Herbert von Karajan, the celebrated Nazi, has 18 Mendelssohn and 13 Mahler recordings in print. And though no doubt Wagner and Brucker are performed more often in Germany than in other European countries, I strongly suspect Elgar and Holst are more often performed in England, Johann Strauss is more often performed in Austria, Gershwin and Copland are more often performed in the US, Massenet and Gounod are more often performed in France, etc. You can't attribute all this nationalist bias to the Nazis, even if anti-Jewish prejudice is involved in some instances.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Wagner's music survived a damning association with Hitler and the holocaust, but Meyerbeer's couldn't survive Wagner saying a few bad things. I think that speaks for itself.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Hello, folks! I've been caught up in other things for the last month - a virus that had me bedbound and woozy for a fortnight, and then nursing a paper in another town while the journo's away. I've also - finally! - got the internet set up, rather than tapping on my mobile phone.

I've just read the last eight pages of post threads. It's 12.42am; I'll try to be cogent.

Kennicott's article is part of the increasing tendency to take Meyerbeer seriously. Recent years have seen a major Meyerbeer cycle in Berlin, while _Huguenots_, as Conte mentioned, will be staged in Paris later this year. (See also Shirley Apthorp's review of the Berlin _Prophète_ in the FT.)

"Far from being a trivial entertainment aimed at jaded consumers, as Wagner and other critics alleged, Meyerbeerian grand opera took up the subject and theme of history. ... Opera aimed at depicting moral complexity through conflicted characters driven by larger historical forces."

This is the view of many scholars and musicologists. For instance:

He turned opera from "a vehicle of emotions into a vehicle of ideas" (Döhring).
"Opera became a platform for the expression of metaphysical and philosophical ideas" (Brzoska).
Brzoska again: "His historical operas are not operas on historical subjects, but operas taking the historical process itself as their subject."
"His operas are tremendous rebuttals against ethnic, religious and racial bigotry. They champion history over myth, cosmopolitanism over nationalism, tolerance over bigotry, and balance individuality with community…" (Pencak)
Far from being the facile products of a populist showman, Meyerbeer's dramatic oeuvre shows musical consistency and high seriousness, and provides an invitation to reflect on the processes of history and some of the most moving issues of human experience. Faith, exile and integration, partisanship and universality, hatred and sacrificial love are ever-recurrent issues informing his choices of subject and text. (Letellier)

K is also right to compare Meyerbeerian grand opera to Shakespeare in its kaleidoscopic variety and changing mood and tone. Like other Continental Romantic works, it's historical fiction that mixes high and low characters, tragedy and comedy, and discusses social ideas. The manifesto for the movement is Hugo's Preface to _Cromwell_. C.f. Verdi.

A few other notes:

Post #17: Conte: I'd say that Meyerbeer's operas contain complex personalities, inventive harmonies, and a wide spectrum of tonal colour!
Yes, M's orchestration is more creative and dramatic; no, the melody isn't less inspired than bel canto composers. I find Meyerbeer's music amazingly tuneful; it sticks in the ear, but reveals new colours and ideas on subsequent listening.
The Paris Opéra was famous for its spectacle - but Meyerbeer's operas were performed in provincial houses that _didn't_ have lavish resources, as well as around the world!
I take it you saw Laurent Pelly's _Robert le Diable_ at Covent Garden? It was an ill-advised choice of work, and a dreadful production. (I stopped watching at the end of Act II, and forced myself to see the last acts a week or so later.) _Robert_ is a transitional work; it's from the period of Rossini's French operas, Auber's _Muette de Portici_, and Herold's _Zampa_. The difference between it and the later works is, roughly, that between _Nabucco_ or _Ernani_ (early popular works with some good tunes) and _Don Carlos_ (mature, complex work).

Post #30: Silentio: Yes, Wagner was a big Halévy fan - he held him up as a model for German composers to follow - and, yes, Halévy should be rediscovered! But I'll post about _La reine de Chypre_ separately.
The Cornélie Falcon? More likely Nourrit / Duprez! Can I suggest Michael Spyres?

Post #51: Woodduck: Did Meyerbeer "own" the Opéra? We're talking about six (!) operas over nearly 35 years, with a 5-year gap between _Robert_ (1831) and _Huguenots_ (1836), and a 13-year gap between _Huguenots_ and _Prophète_ (1849). Meyerbeer's last grand opera was performed after his death, in 1865. In that period, Halévy, Auber, Donizetti, Verdi, and Gounod, among others, had works produced at the Opéra. For much of that time, Meyerbeer was in Germany, at the Prussian court. Being staged at the Opéra was difficult for young composers, well into the late 19th century.
We'll disagree about the merits of _Le prophète_ - but you recognise that there's some fine music in Meyerbeer. 

Berlioz and Wagner had misgivings about Meyerbeer. So, for the record, did Schumann and Debussy.
On the other hand:

Verdi thought him a better musical dramatist than Mozart
Tchaikovsky: "An artist of genius…"
Bizet: "I place Beethoven above the greatest, the most renowned… Neither Mozart, with his divine form, nor Weber, with his powerful, colossal originality, nor Meyerbeer, with his overwhelming, dramatic genius, can, in my opinion, contend for the crown of the 'Titan', the 'Prometheus' of music."
Ravel preferred him to Wagner
Writers:
Mazzini: "Meyerbeer moralized the drama, making it an echo of the world and its eternal vital problem. He is not a votary of the l'art pour l'art music; he is a prophet of the music with a mission, the music standing immediately below religion." He also compared Meyerbeer to Michelangelo, Beethoven and Shakespeare.
Eduard Hanslick: "An extraordinary musical imagination and an equally extraordinary artistic understanding…"
Camille Bellaigue: "One of the greatest of all the musicians of the theatre, and the chief of the musicians of history…"
More recently, Barrymore Laurence Scherer called him "the most revolutionary dramatic composer of the nineteenth century before Richard Wagner"

As for Meyerbeer's disappearance from the repertoire:
Like many mid-19th century composers, the performance tradition was broken after the wars - but, unlike the Italian bel canto composers, Meyerbeer never recovered. He fell between national schools, because he was cosmopolitan. He was born in Germany, his major operas were produced in Italy and France, for a world-wide audience, and incorporated French, German and Italian musical styles. In the first half of the 19th century, his universality was praised; he was seen as uniting nations (see, for instance, speeches made at his funeral). In the second half of the 19th century, his cosmopolitanism was held against him; this was the age of resurgent nationalism, of the unification of Germany and Italy, and of the Franco-Prussian War. Verdi and Wagner were hailed as national composers, whereas Meyerbeer, who could not be so easily categorised, fell between the cracks. Accompanying the rise in nationalism was virulent anti-Semitism, which would reach its horrible climax in the Holocaust.

Meyerbeer was Jewish, so was vilified by Wagner and Schumann, and his operas were banned by the Nazis.

Meyerbeer was considered disreputable. In the later half of the 19th century, Wagnerism dominated the arts, and became the benchmark by which opera was judged. Wagner had attacked Meyerbeer's aesthetics, so M. was beyond the pale. (C.f. Bernard van Dieren.) To be fair, it was probably Wagner's 
adherents; Wagner himself said that he liked the fourth act of _Huguenots_ - but don't tell his Wagnerites that! As late as the immediate post-WWII period, when productions of Meyerbeer's operas were staged in Germany and Austria to popular acclaim, the critics protested, crying that something was wrong with public taste. This attitude still prevails; there's objection to Meyerbeer from (in the US) the Met and Opera Colorado.

The late Tom Kaufman also suggests:
- Wagner and others' (Mendelssohn, Scumann, Berlioz) opinions became received wisdom
- opera became an intellectual, highbrow pursuit, rather than popular entertainment, and audiences were more likely to be influenced by musical "elite"
- too few performances or recordings of the works to challenge earlier misstatements
- singers couldn't sing the works; expensive to stage

So: complex! But the pendulum is slowly swinging back.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

An admirable presentation, Nick. Some of those contemporary encomiums are really over the roof! Still, I can't but feel that if Meyerbeer actually possessed all the virtues they're suggesting he does, he would never have fallen so completely out of fashion. If his work had effectively turned opera from "a vehicle of emotions into a vehicle of ideas" and made it an effective "platform for the expression of metaphysical and philosophical ideas," would we now be so utterly ignorant of the fact? Not that he may not have aspired to such things, but the key word here is "effective": those are difficult and rare things for opera to do, because, being an essentially musical art, it has to find a depth and strength of musical expression that makes us care about whatever "metaphysical" and "philosophical" ideas are on offer. It isn't in the nature of opera to present philosophy on an intellectual level as spoken drama can; even Wagner, the most philosophical of composers, knew that, and emphasized that the audience must "understand through feeling." Whether Meyerbeer had the gift of distilling his presumed profundities into compelling musical expression seems more than doubtful to me, given the music I've heard. Such greatness as that implies - a greatness such as even the truly great Verdi waited most of his career to attain, and such as most composers never do - doesn't drop so ignominiously out of sight, no matter what Wagner or Berlioz had to say about it. I don't doubt that Meyerbeer has some good things in store for those unacquainted with him - and yes, as everyone seems to agree, the fourth act of _Les Huguenots_ has beauty and power! But I heard nothing of comparable force in _Le Prophete,_ which struck me as a rather shapeless string of variably attractive numbers. A title like "The Prophet" would seem at least to hint at some of those "metaphysical ideas," but I heard nothing in the music or the dramaturgy to suggest that any were lurking in the wings.

So, if the pendulum is swinging back, what is it swinging back to? Will Meyerbeer ever regain anything close to the prominence among opera composers he had in his lifetime? He now has to compete with Verdi, Wagner, Bizet, Puccini, Strauss, Mussorgsky, Debussy, et al., who are still going strong on the world's stages, as strong as when they were alive. The tastes of Meyerbeer's time and place will never be replicated; his culture is gone for good, and the art of the past slowly recedes from us. Even in our museum culture, where everything is sooner or later dug up and put on display, much of that art occupies only its special niche. No doubt Meyerbeer will find his niche, if he hasn't already, but whether his music will be found compelling enough to sell his dramatic ideas to the future awaits demonstration. I don't expect to live that long.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

bz3 said:


> My frame of reference can be summed:
> 
> Henry James, George Eliot = Profound
> Charles Dickens, John Steinbeck = not profound
> ...


I'm inclined to swap Henry James and Charles Dickens on those lists. I like all four authors, but when it comes to James I'm reminded of HG Wells who called him a "hippopotamus laboriously attempting to pick up a pea that had got into a corner of its cage." To me, what makes James is his style more than his profundity; the more "plain" he writes, the more I find him rather empty. Dickens is an equally accomplished stylist, but there's far more emotion, human interest, social consciousness, etc. there.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Clearly we are using the word "profound" to mean different things. It is one of those words, isn't it? I suppose the last scene of _La Boheme_ could be called "profoundly sad," but that still wouldn't make the opera profound. Profound things give me pause and make me feel the need to reorient myself in some way. Rodolfo and Mimi just make me pull out my hankie, dab a few tears, blow my nose, curse Puccini for his skill at manipulating me, and go back to arguing with people on TC.


I agree about La Boheme, but I think it's the most shallow and mawkish of Puccini's operas. It works superficially in the way that Figaro works in that its humor and lightness is used a contrast to its sad elements; but the problem with Boheme is that the sad elements have no real connection to character or action, it's just a meaningless twist of fate executed by its author for its calculated effect on the audience.

Madama Butterfly has a bit more connection between its tragedy and its characters/situations. There's a context of the East/West culture clash and the differing psychological portraits of love, devotion, sacrifice, and responsibility. Its problem is due to it being so one-sided and dimensional; Pinkerton is just a superficial lout with no real characterization to speak of, and even Butterfly, who's on stage throughout most of the opera, has no real evolution. Once her family denounces her for leaving her religion, and she has the rapturous night with Pinkerton, it's mostly just sadness/tragedy from there on out, minus her naive delusions of a happy future.

I think Tosca is where Puccini finally gets a libretto that could be called profound, and I think it's been terribly underrated in this respect. There's a lot of interesting layers to it. The opening act we get an interesting connection forged between art, religion, and love. Then Scarpia shows up looking for a political prisoner, and we add politics into the mix. In act 2 we have the contrast between Tosca's cantata in the background with Scarpia scheming and eventual torture of Mario. Tosca's Visi D'arte reveals the opera's connection of art, love, and religion explicitly; but it feels naive as it reveals Tosca's ignorance of the political power, the invisible hand, that has influenced both. Tosca's murder of Scarpia is so refreshing for Puccini because it's the first time up until then that one of his female characters has shown some sense of agency rather than just being a passive victim of circumstances. The final act is interesting in that one can read it as a kind of metaphorical clash between the "real world" and the "escapist" world of art and acting. Tosca is no longer an Eve living in her Eden of art, love, and God, but she's still naive about the real world. Mario is much more jaded, and his E lucevan le stelle is so moving in part because it's a postlapsarian elegy to an unrecoverable innocence. Tosca still believes that if he/they still "act the part" then they can recover their Eden, but the real world wins in the end, and the loss of innocence is complete with Mario's execution and Tosca's suicide.

My one reservation with Tosca is that I'm not sure what Puccini's music really adds to this that's not already there in the libretto. Certainly his music is in turn rapturously gorgeous, intensely dramatic, wistfully melancholic, deeply sad... but I'm not sure if there's a moment where it says anything beyond the libretto the way that Mozart's "Contessa Perdono" finds this exquisite moment of profound grace to a few lines that would otherwise be pretty superficial on the page. The only comparable moment in Tosca is perhaps the end of Act I where Scarpia's presence "colors" the church music into something unmistakably sinister. Still, there's no denying that Puccini's music enhances the emotional impact of everything that's already there, and that's a fine accomplishment in itself.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

bz3 said:


> Nor does the word 'profundity' come to mind when I think of Spielberg or, as much as I love his work, Wyler. Maybe DavidA was thinking of a different word.


I would've agreed about Spielberg until AI, which I think is one of the most thought-provoking films of this century. Though Kubrick's hand in the script maybe the largest reason for that. The film is a fascinating clash of their two unique--nearly polar--sensibilities.

Surely, though, if we're talking of popularity and profundity in film the top two names to be mentioned should be Hitchcock and Kubrick.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think Tosca is where Puccini finally gets a libretto that could be called profound, and I think it's been terribly underrated in this respect. There's a lot of interesting layers to it. The opening act we get an interesting connection forged between art, religion, and love. Then Scarpia shows up looking for a political prisoner, and we add politics into the mix. In act 2 we have the contrast between Tosca's cantata in the background with Scarpia scheming and eventual torture of Mario. Tosca's Visi D'arte reveals the opera's connection of art, love, and religion explicitly; but it feels naive as it reveals Tosca's ignorance of the political power, the invisible hand, that has influenced both. Tosca's murder of Scarpia is so refreshing for Puccini because it's the first time up until then that one of his female characters has shown some sense of agency rather than just being a passive victim of circumstances. The final act is interesting in that one can read it as a kind of metaphorical clash between the "real world" and the "escapist" world of art and acting. Tosca is no longer an Eve living in her Eden of art, love, and God, but she's still naive about the real world. Mario is much more jaded, and his E lucevan le stelle is so moving in part because it's a postlapsarian elegy to an unrecoverable innocence. Tosca still believes that if he/they still "act the part" then they can recover their Eden, but the real world wins in the end, and the loss of innocence is complete with Mario's execution and Tosca's suicide.
> 
> My one reservation with Tosca is that I'm not sure what Puccini's music really adds to this that's not already there in the libretto. Certainly his music is in turn rapturously gorgeous, intensely dramatic, wistfully melancholic, deeply sad... but I'm not sure if there's a moment where it says anything beyond the libretto the way that Mozart's "Contessa Perdono" finds this exquisite moment of profound grace to a few lines that would otherwise be pretty superficial on the page. The only comparable moment in Tosca is perhaps the end of Act I where Scarpia's presence "colors" the church music into something unmistakably sinister. Still, there's no denying that Puccini's music enhances the emotional impact of everything that's already there, and that's a fine accomplishment in itself.


Tosca profound? You do make quite the silk purse out of the old sow's ear, but I see no "interesting connections" between art, religion and love arising from the mere presence of those elements, even though they're vividly juxtaposed and combined. Puccini is all about passions, not metaphysics, sociology, or even deep psychology. Politics? Nah. Verdi - or even Meyerbeer, to keep this thread stitched together - would have made more out of that, probably by making Cavaradossi a character with actual ideas in his head. Tosca herself isn't all that compelling except when she suffers and then picks up that knife. Callas, despite the greatness of her performance, found her a bit stupid.

No,Tosca is about love, jealousy, and sadism, and Scarpia is the only interesting character on the stage and the heart of the drama. The rest is just the machinery that moves the characters into place for maximum impact.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

fluteman said:


> Also, not wanting to flog a dead horse, and again this is not scientifically precise, but according to arkivmusic.com, *Herbert von Karajan, the celebrated Nazi, has 18 Mendelssohn* and 13 Mahler recordings in print. And though no doubt Wagner and Brucker are performed more often in Germany than in other European countries, I strongly suspect Elgar and Holst are more often performed in England, Johann Strauss is more often performed in Austria, Gershwin and Copland are more often performed in the US, Massenet and Gounod are more often performed in France, etc. You can't attribute all this nationalist bias to the Nazis, even if anti-Jewish prejudice is involved in some instances.


Karajan had scores of banned Mendelssohn symphonies hidden away during the war which he used to study. He obviously didn't share all the nazi view of music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Karajan had scores of banned Mendelssohn symphonies hidden away during the war which he used to study. He obviously didn't share all the nazi view of music.


Question: Were Mendelssohn's scores banned, or only performances?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Question: Were Mendelssohn's scores banned, or only performances?


Well, he kept the fact he had his scores of Mendelssohn secret. He also listened to Kulenkampff's Mendelssohn violin concerto when one wasn't supposed to own such a record let alone play it.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> An admirable presentation, Nick. Some of those contemporary encomiums are really over the roof! Still, I can't but feel that if Meyerbeer actually possessed all the virtues they're suggesting he does, he would never have fallen so completely out of fashion. If his work had effectively turned opera from "a vehicle of emotions into a vehicle of ideas" and made it an effective "platform for the expression of metaphysical and philosophical ideas," would we now be so utterly ignorant of the fact? Not that he may not have aspired to such things, but the key word here is "effective": those are difficult and rare things for opera to do, because, being an essentially musical art, it has to find a depth and strength of musical expression that makes us care about whatever "metaphysical" and "philosophical" ideas are on offer. It isn't in the nature of opera to present philosophy on an intellectual level as spoken drama can; even Wagner, the most philosophical of composers, knew that, and emphasized that the audience must "understand through feeling." Whether Meyerbeer had the gift of distilling his presumed profundities into compelling musical expression seems more than doubtful to me, given the music I've heard. Such greatness as that implies - a greatness such as even the truly great Verdi waited most of his career to attain, and such as most composers never do - doesn't drop so ignominiously out of sight, no matter what Wagner or Berlioz had to say about it. I don't doubt that Meyerbeer has some good things in store for those unacquainted with him - and yes, as everyone seems to agree, the fourth act of _Les Huguenots_ has beauty and power! But I heard nothing of comparable force in _Le Prophete,_ which struck me as a rather shapeless string of variably attractive numbers. A title like "The Prophet" would seem at least to hint at some of those "metaphysical ideas," but I heard nothing in the music or the dramaturgy to suggest that any were lurking in the wings.
> 
> So, if the pendulum is swinging back, what is it swinging back to? Will Meyerbeer ever regain anything close to the prominence among opera composers he had in his lifetime? He now has to compete with Verdi, Wagner, Bizet, Puccini, Strauss, Mussorgsky, Debussy, et al., who are still going strong on the world's stages, as strong as when they were alive. The tastes of Meyerbeer's time and place will never be replicated; his culture is gone for good, and the art of the past slowly recedes from us. Even in our museum culture, where everything is sooner or later dug up and put on display, much of that art occupies only its special niche. No doubt Meyerbeer will find his niche, if he hasn't already, but whether his music will be found compelling enough to sell his dramatic ideas to the future awaits demonstration. I don't expect to live that long.


Thanks! I'm optimistic!

Critical consensus has changed; Meyerbeer operas are performed more regularly, and in more prestigious venues; audiences (listening to live recordings, and reading comments online) enjoy them; and there are singers like Michael Spyres, Bryan Hymel, and Diana Damrau who want to sing them. French opera, too, is having a comeback, thanks to organizations like the Palazzetto Bru Zane and the Opéra Comique.

Composers come back into fashion - like Handel, for instance. Who'd have thought that opera seria (talking about tastes of dead times and places) would be as well loved as it is today?

Italian bel canto, too; Verdi and Donizetti were considered slightly disreputable mid-century, and Rossini downright unperformable. I've seen some silly mid-century criticism: Rossini was a gifted comic musician, an entertainer, who made the mistake of trying to write serious operas (Harding, 1971). "He had among his many gifts a genius for triviality… To hear the overture to William Tell is always an exciting experience; to strum through half a dozen of Rossini's forgotten operas is wearisome and monotonous" (Dent, Opera, 1949).

If you're interested, good articles discussing the ideas in Meyerbeer's work, and his conception of the historical opera are:
Sieghart Döhring, "Giacomo Meyerbeer and the Opera of the Nineteenth Century"

Matthias Brzoska, "Remarks about Meyerbeer's Le Prophète" (talks about the central philosophical ideas of Meyerbeer's conception of historical Grand Opera and especially Le Prophète)

Robert Letellier, "The Thematic Nexus of Religion, Power, Politics and Love in the Operas of Giacomo Meyerbeer"


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Tosca profound? You do make quite the silk purse out of the old sow's ear, but I see no "interesting connections" between art, religion and love arising from the mere presence of those elements, even though they're vividly juxtaposed and combined. Puccini is all about passions, not metaphysics, sociology, or even deep psychology. Politics? Nah. Verdi - or even Meyerbeer, to keep this thread stitched together - would have made more out of that, probably by making Cavaradossi a character with actual ideas in his head. Tosca herself isn't all that compelling except when she suffers and then picks up that knife. Callas, despite the greatness of her performance, found her a bit stupid.
> 
> No,Tosca is about love, jealousy, and sadism, and Scarpia is the only interesting character on the stage and the heart of the drama. The rest is just the machinery that moves the characters into place for maximum impact.


Much like you suggested of Zauberflote a few pages back, it entirely depends on whether one reads it superficially as being about love, jealousy, and sadism; or whether one reads it archetypally. I think Tosca welcomes the latter as much as the former, and probably works on this level more coherently than does Flute. The "interesting connection" between art, religion, and love is the kind of Edenic triumvirate they create. Much like in Gotterdammerung, it's the sinister outside world driven by the selfish will that destroys it. By "politics" I don't mean any particular politics, but like in Wagner the "political" is merely symbolic of the outside "world of men" and the "will to power" that threatens the purity of art/religion/love. Tosca (and perhaps Mario) are "a bit stupid" because of her/their naivety; I don't see this as a flaw.

Puccini may be about passions, but I don't see passions as being antithetical to profundity, and when given a libretto that had more substance he made it so that they were felt passionately. I think this is what blinds people with Puccini and Tosca, because it does work so well as just drama, making us feel the love and jealousy and sadism, that people refuse or have no interest in looking deeper. Speaking of sociology, is any opera more relevant to the #MeToo movement?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Much like you suggested of Zauberflote a few pages back, it entirely depends on whether one reads it superficially as being about love, jealousy, and sadism; or whether one reads it archetypally. I think Tosca welcomes the latter as much as the former, and probably works on this level more coherently than does Flute. The "interesting connection" between art, religion, and love is the kind of Edenic triumvirate they create. Much like in Gotterdammerung, it's the sinister outside world driven by the selfish will that destroys it. By "politics" I don't mean any particular politics, but like in Wagner the "political" is merely symbolic of the outside "world of men" and the "will to power" that threatens the purity of art/religion/love. Tosca (and perhaps Mario) are "a bit stupid" because of her/their naivety; I don't see this as a flaw.
> 
> Puccini may be about passions, but I don't see passions as being antithetical to profundity, and when given a libretto that had more substance he made it so that they were felt passionately. I think this is what blinds people with Puccini and Tosca, because it does work so well as just drama, making us feel the love and jealousy and sadism, that people refuse or have no interest in looking deeper. Speaking of sociology, is any opera more relevant to the #MeToo movement?


I suppose one can read any number of stories "archetypally"; we have modern myths as well as ancient ones. But in opera the story is not the primary locus of meaning: by the nature of the medium, that must be the music. _Zauberflote_'s libretto tells a fanciful, even silly story, but there's something about the music that lights up its seemingly naive imagery with a glow from the beyond. _Tristan und Isolde_ amounts to little as a tale; a pair of doomed lovers in a hostile world is pretty much a cliche, but the score creates a world of meaning capable of embracing and then drowning the political, sexual, and moral dimensions of life in an ecstatic flood of subtle harmony that unearths dark and often uncomfortable secrets of the soul. Likewise _Parsifal,_ which looks to many like a weird conglomeration of pseudo-religious, and possibly penicious, fantasies, is revealed by the unparalleled eloquence of Wagner's music as a profound parable of human psychological and moral growth, giving lacerating utterance to some of the utmost extremes of existential agony and spiritual transcendence.

These comparisons may be unfair (and Puccini, a devoted Wagnerite, would probably be the first to say so), but I'm not persuaded that _Tosca, _or any Puccini opera, comes anywhere close to these works in plumbing the potential depths of its subject matter by means of music. Joseph Kerman was too severe in calling _Tosca_ a "shabby little shocker, but he correctly pointed out that the final bit of music in the score, a quotation from "E lucevan le stelle," makes a fine theatrical effect but tells us absolutely nothing about any deeper meaning the work might be thought to have. I myself think Puccini should have ended with the "Scarpia" motif, which would at least have acknowledged the victory of evil over both religion and love - a dreadful message, but surely the one we discover if we look into the work's dark heart. Maybe _Tosca_ could have made a greater claim to profundity if Puccini had been less of a sentimentalist by nature, or less of a theater animal. He was a bit too satisfied with Sardou's formula for a sure-fire hit, "torture the woman."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I suppose one can read any number of stories "archetypally"; we have modern myths as well as ancient ones. But in opera the story is not the primary locus of meaning: by the nature of the medium, that must be the music. _Zauberflote_'s libretto tells a fanciful, even silly story, but there's something about the music that lights up its seemingly naive imagery with a glow from the beyond. _Tristan und Isolde_ amounts to little as a tale; a pair of doomed lovers in a hostile world is pretty much a cliche, but the score creates a world of meaning capable of embracing and then drowning the political, sexual, and moral dimensions of life in an ecstatic flood of subtle harmony that unearths dark and often uncomfortable secrets of the soul. Likewise _Parsifal,_ which looks to many like a weird conglomeration of pseudo-religious, and possibly penicious, fantasies, is revealed by the unparalleled eloquence of Wagner's music as a profound parable of human psychological and moral growth, giving lacerating utterance to some of the utmost extremes of existential agony and spiritual transcendence.
> 
> These comparisons may be unfair (and Puccini, a devoted Wagnerite, would probably be the first to say so), but I'm not persuaded that _Tosca, _or any Puccini opera, comes anywhere close to these works in plumbing the potential depths of its subject matter by means of music. Joseph Kerman was too severe in calling _Tosca_ a "shabby little shocker, but he correctly pointed out that the final bit of music in the score, a quotation from "E lucevan le stelle," makes a fine theatrical effect but tells us absolutely nothing about any deeper meaning the work might be thought to have. I myself think Puccini should have ended with the "Scarpia" motif, which would at least have acknowledged the victory of evil over both religion and love - a dreadful message, but surely the one we discover if we look into the work's dark heart. Maybe _Tosca_ could have made a greater claim to profundity if Puccini had been less of a sentimentalist by nature, or less of a theater animal. He was a bit too satisfied with Sardou's formula for a sure-fire hit, "torture the woman."


It depends on the definition of 'profound'. There are speakers and philosophers who people deem 'profound' mainly because they can't understand what they are saying. Puccini never tried to be terribly profound in that sense of philosophical baloney, but Tosca is a 'profound' study of what has been a real life situation for many people standing up to tyranny and state oppression. I must confess the profundities of Tristan are lost on me as I can't identify with the characters and their long winded build up to a climax that never happens.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It depends on the definition of 'profound'. There are speakers and philosophers who people deem 'profound' mainly because they can't understand what they are saying. Puccini never tried to be terribly profound in that sense of philosophical baloney, but Tosca is a 'profound' study of what has been a real life situation for many people standing up to tyranny and state oppression. I must confess the profundities of Tristan are lost on me as I can't identify with the characters and their long winded build up to a climax that never happens.


So "it depends on the definition of profundity" - and you start by offering a definition of it that isn't one? Gee, that helps.

Well, we know that Wagner in general is lost on you, so why bother "confessing" it yet again? Whether you can "identify" with his characters is beside any point being made here (or anywhere); it shows only that his kind of art is not a kind you're personally in sympathy with, a fact of no consequence to people who do possess the requisite sympathy and understanding. And if you missed the climax in _Tristan_ you were evidently asleep when it arrived. (I realize it's a long evening and that after-dinner events can be difficult for us oldsters. I take my Wagner early in the day now, or an act at a time.)

Profundity is not a matter of "real-life situations." _Tosca_ is a vivid portrayal of a sexual pervert who gets off on trapping women like butterflies (no pun intended) and sticking pins (or something else) into them while they're still alive. The only thing "profound" (quote, unquote) in it, the only thing it's a "study" of, is the one-dimensional, apparently unmotivated, mustache-twirling nastiness of Scarpia, one of opera's most effective villains. Effective, yes; Puccini is relentlessly effective. But profound? He doesn't really explore the potential of any of his dramatic motifs: love, politics, religion. It isn't a thought-provoking work, or one that suggests any fresh perspectives. The characters are superficial, and their goodness and badness are presented in black and white, without subtlety or complexity. I've seen TV sitcoms with more psychological light and shade. Nobody is likely to come out of _Tosca_ thinking differently about anything, unless they've been living under a rock and hadn't noticed that some people are really, really bad. Why is Scarpia so bad? Who knows - but who cares? It's great theater.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> So "it depends on the definition of profundity" - and you start by offering a definition of it that isn't one? Gee, that helps.
> 
> Well, we know that Wagner in general is lost on you, so why bother "confessing" it yet again? Whether you can "identify" with his characters is beside any point being made here (or anywhere); it shows only that his kind of art is not a kind you're personally in sympathy with, a fact of no consequence to people who do possess the requisite sympathy and understanding. *And if you missed the climax in Tristan you were evidently asleep when it arrived.* (I realize it's a long evening and that after-dinner events can be difficult for us oldsters. I take my Wagner early in the day now, or an act at a time.)
> 
> Profundity is not a matter of "real-life situations." _Tosca_ is a vivid portrayal of a sexual pervert who gets off on trapping women like butterflies (no pun intended) and sticking pins (or something else) into them while they're still alive. The only thing "profound" (quote, unquote) in it, the only thing it's a "study" of, is the one-dimensional, apparently unmotivated, mustache-twirling nastiness of Scarpia, one of opera's most effective villains. Effective, yes; Puccini is relentlessly effective. But profound? He doesn't really explore the potential of any of his dramatic motifs: love, politics, religion. It isn't a thought-provoking work, or one that suggests any fresh perspectives. The characters are superficial, and their goodness and badness are presented in black and white, without subtlety or complexity. I've seen TV sitcoms with more psychological light and shade. Nobody is likely to come out of _Tosca_ thinking differently about anything, unless they've been living under a rock and hadn't noticed that some people are really, really bad. Why is Scarpia so bad? Who knows - but who cares? It's great theater.


I probably was at the last Met Tristan I saw. Partly Wagner's fault for being long winded but also that of the production.


----------

