# Did Callas lead us into the era of the ‘name’ Director?



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Just a thought but before the 1950’s were there Directors in Opera as famous as Visconti and Zefferelli? Most theatres would have had their staff Directors known to the cognoscenti and perhaps a house style? Occasionally a theatre director would make a name for themselves eg. Max Reinhart and Hollywood did attract the best of Broadway. Before then there were the great Actor Managers, like Garrick but in Opera it was always the Singers and the Conductors who became famous. 


(There was a similar movement in Theatre at the same time with Peter's Brook and Hall etc., so maybe its just historical coincidence?)

Maybe I’m way off base here and apologise if this inflames the partisans, but just musing out loud…


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> Just a thought but before the 1950's were there Directors in Opera as famous as Visconti and Zefferelli? Most theatres would have had their staff Directors known to the cognoscenti and perhaps a house style? Occasionally a theatre director would make a name for themselves eg. Max Reinhart and Hollywood did attract the best of Broadway. Before then there were the great Actor Managers, like Garrick but in Opera it was always the Singers and the Conductors who became famous.
> 
> (There was a similar movement in Theatre at the same time with Peter's Brook and Hall etc., so maybe its just historical coincidence?)
> 
> Maybe I'm way off base here and apologise if this inflames the partisans, but just musing out loud…


Well there was Wieland Wagner at Bayreuth, often credited as being the initiator of Regietheater.

In Italian opera it was certainly Callas who lured Visconti into the opera house. That said, Visconti was not some movie director wandering into an alien land, as many of them are these days. He had lived and breathed opera since he was a boy, as had Zeffirelli. He was a fan of Callas before she lost weight, and had suggested working with her some years before they finally got together for their first production together at La Scala, *La Vestale*.

Visconti and Zeffirelli both truly understood music, and took their cues from the composer, not imposing some "concept" and then trying to make it fit. When Visconti produced Callas in *Anna Bolena*, he said that people had assumed the sets and costumes were authentically Tudor, but that they were in fact Tudor as filtered through the eyes of the Romantics, because *Anna Bolena* was a Romantic opera. Such minor details are so telling.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I don't know. But before the era of the director came the era of the conductor, inaugurated by Toscanini (?) circa 1900 (?). Once the focus moved away from singers, decline was swift and inevitable. What we have in the director-centric era of rat Lohengrins and the like is a sort of perverted creativity: singers are no longer permitted to be autonomously creative (is that a tautology?) yet a performance devoid of any creativity anywhere isn't worth watching, so if the music cannot be 'interpreted' in any meaningful sense, then the production side remains the only avenue of opportunity for the creative skills proscribed elsewhere- even as the results are often incongruous and jarring.

Callas flourished well after the singer-centric era had ended, when the freedom enjoyed by singers at the beginning of the era of sound recording had long gone. This is perhaps why (_pace_ the Callas fans on here) I don't find her singing as expressive as I'm instructed to find it, at least compared with that of her early predecessors: trying to sing expressively in the era of conductor-centric, _come-scritto _ performances is like trying to play tennis with your hands tied behind your back. Callas may be the Wimbledon ladies' champion of handcuffed tennis, but it's not a sport I can muster much enthusiasm for. The fact that Callas belongs to that decadent era is perhaps why her fans like to emphasise her fidelity to the score and her status as the servant (ugh!) of the composer, as if this was the only way to justify the embarrassing and unworthy worship of a mere singer! No singing enthusiast should have to apologise for their idol in such a cringing manner, and no singer should internalise the view that they are a mere servant of the score, though of course this ignores the reality of getting work in an era where the dominant ideology is that 'the singer should be the servant of the score'. It's a nonsensical concept anyway: the music doesn't exist unless performed, and there's no performance without interpretation, however self-effacing. Composers of the nineteenth century and earlier fully expected singers to use rubato, ornamentation, messa di voce etc, even if they didn't always approve of the results in any given case. So the singer of Callas' era, hamstrung by the contemporary insistence on a circumscribed, unidiomatic standard of 'musicianship', had relatively few tools at her disposal, but she did have some. In Callas' own case, she managed to restore some measure of expressivity by acting skilfully with her face and body, which along with charisma and temperament allowed her to evince enough individuality to become a 'star' and avoid the generic dullness of the devalued singer in an age of decline, while simultaneously complying with the ridiculous demands of that era's standards of 'musicianship'. How and whether the Callas phenomenon led to the age of the director I have no idea- I see it as simply the next stage of decline after the musical focus had moved away from star singers. I expect the next stage to consist of robot voices (singing satnavs?) in humanoid exoskeletons, allowing singers' physical idiosyncrasies to be eliminated along with their personalities. I'm only half joking.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

But musicians, singers included, _are_, or should be, servants of the score. They should look to find out the composers's intentions. Of course those intentions are open to interpretation, but the score should be paramount, not the performer's ego.

Incidentally, have you ever listened to an entire Callas performance from beginning to end and followed it in the score? I'm curious.

I'm also curious to know how "skilfully acting with her face and body" accounts for the millions who still listen (as in sound only) to her today. Compared to even the singers who came immediately after her, we actually have very little video evidence of what she was like on stage, though what we do have is pretty galvanising.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

My impression is that Callas prefigured rather than ushered in the age of the "name" director, as her era (the 1950's) seems to have been followed by the "age of the name conductor" (1960's-1980's, roughly), and _then_ by the age of the "name" director (1990's to the present day).

As someone who comes from a background in the "legitimate" theatre, I agree completely with GregMitchell's first paragraph in the post directly above mine. Personally, I see opera as not all that much different from other types of theatre; whatever went on in the pre-Toscanini years -- and I'm sure they were glorious in many ways -- I want to see, when I go to an opera, a production, a "show" (however vulgar that might sound) rather than a singers' concert. I realize that the danger of this approach is that the singers can be reduced to interchangeable "cogs in a machine," but it needn't be that way; in other words, it's possible to achieve a balance between showcasing individual singers' strengths and serving the work as a whole.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I don't know. But before the era of the director came the era of the conductor, inaugurated by Toscanini (?) circa 1900 (?). Once the focus moved away from singers, decline was swift and inevitable. What we have in the director-centric era of rat Lohengrins and the like is a sort of perverted creativity: singers are no longer permitted to be autonomously creative (is that a tautology?) yet a performance devoid of any creativity anywhere isn't worth watching, so if the music cannot be 'interpreted' in any meaningful sense, then the production side remains the only avenue of opportunity for the creative skills proscribed elsewhere- even as the results are often incongruous and jarring.
> 
> Callas flourished well after the singer-centric era had ended, when the freedom enjoyed by singers at the beginning of the era of sound recording had long gone. This is perhaps why (_pace_ the Callas fans on here) I don't find her singing as expressive as I'm instructed to find it, at least compared with that of her early predecessors: trying to sing expressively in the era of conductor-centric, _come-scritto _ performances is like trying to play tennis with your hands tied behind your back. Callas may be the Wimbledon ladies' champion of handcuffed tennis, but it's not a sport I can muster much enthusiasm for. The fact that Callas belongs to that decadent era is perhaps why her fans like to emphasise her fidelity to the score and her status as the servant (ugh!) of the composer, as if this was the only way to justify the embarrassing and unworthy worship of a mere singer! No singing enthusiast should have to apologise for their idol in such a cringing manner, and no singer should internalise the view that they are a mere servant of the score, though of course this ignores the reality of getting work in an era where the dominant ideology is that 'the singer should be the servant of the score'. It's a nonsensical concept anyway: the music doesn't exist unless performed, and there's no performance without interpretation, however self-effacing. Composers of the nineteenth century and earlier fully expected singers to use rubato, ornamentation, messa di voce etc, even if they didn't always approve of the results in any given case. So the singer of Callas' era, hamstrung by the contemporary insistence on a circumscribed, unidiomatic standard of 'musicianship', had relatively few tools at her disposal, but she did have some. In Callas' own case, she managed to restore some measure of expressivity by acting skilfully with her face and body, which along with charisma and temperament allowed her to evince enough individuality to become a 'star' and avoid the generic dullness of the devalued singer in an age of decline, while simultaneously complying with the ridiculous demands of that era's standards of 'musicianship'. How and whether the Callas phenomenon led to the age of the director I have no idea- I see it as simply the next stage of decline after the musical focus had moved away from star singers. I expect the next stage to consist of robot voices (singing satnavs?) in humanoid exoskeletons, allowing singers' physical idiosyncrasies to be eliminated along with their personalities. I'm only half joking.


I can't imagine a Callas-encounter more counter-experiential to my own- and I imagine to just about anyone else who loves _'listening'_ to Callas over and over again.

It was the unrivaled color, shading, and dramatic vocal inflections in Callas' _singing_ that first arrested me- singing that was infinitely more varied and subtle than anything I've ever heard before. . . . . . . . . or since.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I don't know. But before the era of the director came the era of the conductor, inaugurated by Toscanini (?) circa 1900 (?). Once the focus moved away from singers, decline was swift and inevitable. What we have in the director-centric era of rat Lohengrins and the like is a sort of perverted creativity: singers are no longer permitted to be autonomously creative (is that a tautology?) yet a performance devoid of any creativity anywhere isn't worth watching, so if the music cannot be 'interpreted' in any meaningful sense, then the production side remains the only avenue of opportunity for the creative skills proscribed elsewhere- even as the results are often incongruous and jarring.
> 
> Callas flourished well after the singer-centric era had ended, when the freedom enjoyed by singers at the beginning of the era of sound recording had long gone. This is perhaps why (_pace_ the Callas fans on here) I don't find her singing as expressive as I'm instructed to find it, at least compared with that of her early predecessors: trying to sing expressively in the era of conductor-centric, _come-scritto _ performances is like trying to play tennis with your hands tied behind your back. Callas may be the Wimbledon ladies' champion of handcuffed tennis, but it's not a sport I can muster much enthusiasm for. The fact that Callas belongs to that decadent era is perhaps why her fans like to emphasise her fidelity to the score and her status as the servant (ugh!) of the composer, as if this was the only way to justify the embarrassing and unworthy worship of a mere singer! No singing enthusiast should have to apologise for their idol in such a cringing manner, and no singer should internalise the view that they are a mere servant of the score, though of course this ignores the reality of getting work in an era where the dominant ideology is that 'the singer should be the servant of the score'. It's a nonsensical concept anyway: the music doesn't exist unless performed, and there's no performance without interpretation, however self-effacing. Composers of the nineteenth century and earlier fully expected singers to use rubato, ornamentation, messa di voce etc, even if they didn't always approve of the results in any given case. So the singer of Callas' era, hamstrung by the contemporary insistence on a circumscribed, unidiomatic standard of 'musicianship', had relatively few tools at her disposal, but she did have some. In Callas' own case, she managed to restore some measure of expressivity by acting skilfully with her face and body, which along with charisma and temperament allowed her to evince enough individuality to become a 'star' and avoid the generic dullness of the devalued singer in an age of decline, while simultaneously complying with the ridiculous demands of that era's standards of 'musicianship'. How and whether the Callas phenomenon led to the age of the director I have no idea- I see it as simply the next stage of decline after the musical focus had moved away from star singers. I expect the next stage to consist of robot voices (singing satnavs?) in humanoid exoskeletons, allowing singers' physical idiosyncrasies to be eliminated along with their personalities. I'm only half joking.


This off-topic screed deserves a response. Your animus against Callas could hardly be clearer. It also appears to me that you are criticizing a concept you have of the art of Callas rather than the actual art of Callas.

It is true that singers of her era no longer improvised significantly as did singers in the 19th century. But "significantly" is a relative term - and, as you yourself have pointed out, composers were often merely tolerant of, rather than pleased by, the often arbitrary alterations singers made to their carefully wrought vocal lines. This was true even in Handel's day; it was certainly true in Rossini's, and it became more and more true as time went on, until by the late nineteenth century, with the influence of Wagner and the mature works of Verdi, most such alterations were really unthinkable.

If your actual concern is _music_, rather than singing as some sort of sport, exhibition, or ego trip, the question must always be asked whether the spirit of the music is served by a given interpretive choice - the _spirit_ of the music, please note. In the case of improvisation the question becomes, specifically, whether anything is gained - whether the spirit of the music is best conveyed - by changing what is written in the score, or adding to it what is unwritten. For many singers before the modern era, that may not have been a relevant question, but it would be wrong to assume that it is not therefore a legitimate question of musicianship, or that it is not, or was not in any era, relevant to the people who actually put the notes on paper. The first question for any performer of integrity is: what is this music trying to express, and how can I realize that expressive intent? You are free to sneer contemptuously at this as "enslavement" to the score or the composer. Musicians, however, view it simply as doing their work - unless, of course, those musicians are more interested in self-aggrandizement than in making music.

Maria Callas was, for all the glamor which attaches to her name, first and foremost an artist of the highest integrity, and a possessor of not only powerful and precise dramatic instincts but the most refined insight into the qualities and requirements of music - music itself, not music as a vehicle for something else. As a musician, she did not regard singing as categorically different from music-making of any kind, in any medium. In her particular field of music, this is a distinction, and it has always been recognized as such by others in that field and by professional musicians of every sort. The greatest practitioners of the art of musical performance have always looked first and last to the score for instruction and inspiration, have always regarded themselves as servants of their art, and have always approached the composers with whose work they are entrusted with the greatest respect. If opera singers are not noted for approaching their art in this way, it is hard to see why this should be considered any sort of credit to them.

Anyone is free not to enjoy the work of any musical performer, and to prefer the voice or style of any singer. As you know very well, my loyalties tend predominantly to the singers whose remarkable vocal accomplishments are preserved on recordings made before the middle of the twentieth century. I greatly admire also the musical style of many of the early singers, at least when their rhythmic freedom and graces are applied with taste to appropriate repertoire (which is most definitely not always the case!). There are nuances of the art which have, assuredly, been lost. But none of this in any way prevents me from recognizing greatness in the art of any singer of more recent times who may be working with different stylistic parameters.

Callas was obviously an artist of a later era than Patti, despite her thorough grounding in the techniques of bel canto. Flights of fancy on the part of singers, impulsive playing with rhythm and the written notes, were no longer prized or even understood. But the artistic significance of this fact, particularly with regard to Callas, is not to be characterized in such simplistic terms as you have done. The fact of ultimate significance about Callas is that she was _sui generis_: a musical artist of the first quality in a field too obviously not noted for them, and one without any demonstrable precedent and no true successor. The unique insights she was able to bring to those notes on the page, notes which she regarded with rare reverence, were from the very start a revelation to the musicians and the public alike, who knew they were hearing something of the greatest artistic importance. And the subtlety and depth of those insights will continue to astonish those capable of hearing and comprehending them.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck wrote:*

_If your actual concern is music, rather than singing as some sort of sport, exhibition, or ego trip, the question must always be asked whether the spirit of the music is served by a given interpretive choice - the spirit of the music, please note. In the case of improvisation the question becomes, specifically, whether anything is gained - whether the spirit of the music is best conveyed - by changing what is written in the score, or adding to it what is unwritten. For many singers before the modern era, that may not have been a relevant question, but it would be wrong to assume that it is not therefore a legitimate question of musicianship, or that it is not, or was not in any era, relevant to the people who actually put the notes on paper. The first question for any performer of integrity is: what is this music trying to express, and how can I realize that expressive intent? You are free to sneer contemptuously at this as "enslavement" to the score or the composer. Musicians, however, view it simply as doing their work - unless, of course, those musicians are more interested in self-aggrandizement than in making music.

Maria Callas was, for all the glamor which attaches to her name, first and foremost an artist of the highest integrity, and a possessor of not only powerful and precise dramatic instincts but the most refined insight into the qualities and requirements of music - music itself, not music as a vehicle for something else. As a musician, she did not regard singing as categorically different from music-making of any kind, in any medium. In her particular field of music, this is a distinction, and it has always been recognized as such by others in that field and by professional musicians of every sort. The greatest practitioners of the art of musical performance have always looked first and last to the score for instruction and inspiration, have always regarded themselves as servants of their art, and have always approached the composers with whose work they are entrusted with the greatest respect. If opera singers are not noted for approaching their art in this way, it is hard to see why this should be considered any sort of credit to them._

Some relevant statements that come to mind were made by the singing expert Richard Miller in his book_ On the Art of Singing_ (I'll paraphrase them as I don't have the book in front of me right now): 'The singer who, in aiming to be "artistic," changes the composer's work into something never envisioned by the composer is not an artist, but a fraud...The aim of performance should never be to prove how artistic one is but to communicate the essence of the music the audience.'


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> This off-topic screed deserves a response. Your animus against Callas could hardly be clearer. It also appears to me that you are criticizing a concept you have of the art of Callas rather than the actual art of Callas.
> 
> It is true that singers of her era no longer improvised significantly as did singers in the 19th century. But "significantly" is a relative term - and, as you yourself have pointed out, composers were often merely tolerant of, rather than pleased by, the often arbitrary alterations singers made to their carefully wrought vocal lines. This was true even in Handel's day; it was certainly true in Rossini's, and it became more and more true as time went on, until by the late nineteenth century, with the influence of Wagner and the mature works of Verdi, most such alterations were really unthinkable.
> 
> ...


What a beautiful read. Elegantly presented and eloquently expressed- <_sotto voce_> _thank you_. _;D_


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> This off-topic screed deserves a response. Your animus against Callas could hardly be clearer. It also appears to me that you are criticizing a concept you have of the art of Callas rather than the actual art of Callas.
> 
> It is true that singers of her era no longer improvised significantly as did singers in the 19th century. But "significantly" is a relative term - and, as you yourself have pointed out, composers were often merely tolerant of, rather than pleased by, the often arbitrary alterations singers made to their carefully wrought vocal lines. This was true even in Handel's day; it was certainly true in Rossini's, and it became more and more true as time went on, until by the late nineteenth century, with the influence of Wagner and the mature works of Verdi, most such alterations were really unthinkable.
> 
> ...


I don't merely like this post, I love it. Thank you.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Maria Callas was, for all the glamor which attaches to her name, first and foremost an artist of the highest integrity, and a possessor of not only powerful and precise dramatic instincts but the most refined insight into the qualities and requirements of music - music itself, not music as a vehicle for something else. As a musician, she did not regard singing as categorically different from music-making of any kind, in any medium. In her particular field of music, this is a distinction, and it has always been recognized as such by others in that field and by professional musicians of every sort. *The greatest practitioners of the art of musical performance have always looked first and last to the score for instruction and inspiration*, have always regarded themselves as servants of their art, and have always approached the composers with whose work they are entrusted with the greatest respect. If opera singers are not noted for approaching their art in this way, it is hard to see why this should be considered any sort of credit to them.


To quote the immortal Claudio Arrau: 
"You have to start with an absolute faithfulness or loyalty to what the composer wanted by studying the early editions, the manuscripts and the facsimiles. If the composer noted that a passage should be played _fortissimo_, the it should be played _fortissimo_, not pianissimo. On the other hand, this fidelity and loyalty to what the composer wanted is only a basis on which the artist builds his own vision, his own idea of the work. But the vision must not jeopardize his respect for the text, or what he might know about the intentions of the composer. Some pianists "use" the original music and change it into a form of self-expression only. This is wrong. Others seem to be so awed by the composer that they do the opposite; They play nothing but notes. This is wrong, too. A good artist goes into a flight of imagination on his own, but he never destroys the integrity of the work as the composer saw it".

Great minds think alike, don't they? Who else are in that list? IMO, Artur Schnabel, Joseph Szigeti, Christian Ferras, the prime Wilhelm Furtwängler, Dame Elisabeth Schwarzkopf etc.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

silentio said:


> To quote the immortal Claudio Arrau:
> "You have to start with an absolute faithfulness or loyalty to what the composer wanted by studying the early editions, the manuscripts and the facsimiles. If the composer noted that a passage should be played _fortissimo_, the it should be played _fortissimo_, not pianissimo. On the other hand, this fidelity and loyalty to what the composer wanted is only a basis on which the artist builds his own vision, his own idea of the work. But the vision must not jeopardize his respect for the text, or what he might know about the intentions of the composer. Some pianists "use" the original music and change it into a form of self-expression only. This is wrong. Others seem to be so awed by the composer that they do the opposite; They play nothing but notes. This is wrong, too. A good artist goes into a flight of imagination on his own, but he never destroys the integrity of the work as the composer saw it".
> 
> Great minds think alike, don't they? Who else are in that list? IMO, Artur Schnabel, Joseph Szigeti, Christian Ferras, the prime Wilhelm Furtwängler, Dame Elisabeth Schwarzkopf etc.


Some of the greatest names there, silentio. A mood of reverence falls over the room as I read them. Thanks.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

silentio said:


> To quote the immortal Claudio Arrau:
> "You have to start with an absolute faithfulness or loyalty to what the composer wanted by studying the early editions, the manuscripts and the facsimiles. If the composer noted that a passage should be played _fortissimo_, the it should be played _fortissimo_, not pianissimo. On the other hand, this fidelity and loyalty to what the composer wanted is only a basis on which the artist builds his own vision, his own idea of the work. But the vision must not jeopardize his respect for the text, or what he might know about the intentions of the composer. Some pianists "use" the original music and change it into a form of self-expression only. This is wrong. Others seem to be so awed by the composer that they do the opposite; They play nothing but notes. This is wrong, too. A good artist goes into a flight of imagination on his own, but he never destroys the integrity of the work as the composer saw it".
> 
> Great minds think alike, don't they? Who else are in that list? IMO, Artur Schnabel, Joseph Szigeti, Christian Ferras, the prime Wilhelm Furtwängler, Dame Elisabeth Schwarzkopf etc.


This thread has spun off in a new direction.

Dare I suggest the fascination with playing only the newly researched score will one day been seen as a fashion dating from the 1950's and that we will return to the days when leading Conductors like Toscanini and "Leopold" made cuts. This move to authenticity and composers intent was as much a reaction to a thousand lazy performances with unwritten high C's and bastardized scores being circulated by Ricordi etc. The vast body of recorded music and critical literature makes it harder to depart from the norm these days. Some, like the authentic instrument gang, will keep up their ways but before too long someone will dare to make cuts again. Then at some future point when a myriad of new 'traditions' introduced to save time/money/artists voices, become the new norm the cry for authenticity will be heard loudly again.

I for one cannot understand why all CD's have to include every note that researchers have found was ever written for the piece . (That's bound to make me a few enemies here.)

Let me start. Mastersingers is a glorious work, but if 45 mins 'disappeared' I'd like it even more. I realise it all depends who does the editing, but I'm not against it in principal.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Figleaf said:


> I don't know.


That was the most succinct answer to the question asked! Does anyone?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> That was the most succinct answer to the question asked! Does anyone?


No. ......................


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Incidentally, have you ever listened to an entire Callas performance from beginning to end and followed it in the score? I'm curious.


No- yes with the libretto, no with the score. I've always been quite open about the fact that I can't read music, so your 'gotcha' doesn't really work, if that's what it was. If, on the other hand, you are saying that only a trained musician has a right to an opinion on musical matters, I respect that- though it's slightly odd to find that attitude on a public forum whose members are mostly lay people like me.



Woodduck said:


> This off-topic screed deserves a response. Your animus against Callas could hardly be clearer.


These remarks are completely untrue and inappropriate.



Woodduck said:


> true that singers of her era no longer improvised significantly as did singers in the 19th century. But "significantly" is a relative term - and, as you yourself have pointed out, composers were often merely tolerant of, rather than pleased by, the often arbitrary alterations singers made to their carefully wrought vocal lines. This was true even in Handel's day; it was certainly true in Rossini's, and it became more and more true as time went on, until* by the late nineteenth century, with the influence of Wagner and the mature works of Verdi, most such alterations were really unthinkable.*


Not really. Have you read Will Crutchfield's paper 'Vocal Ornamentation in Verdi: the Phonographic Evidence'? It's very interesting, though of course even if one bypasses Crutchfield and goes straight to the recordings themselves, it's clear that the expressive freedoms enjoyed by singers didn't immediately wither under the onslaught of what Karen Henson has termed the 'anti-performer rhetoric' of Verdi and his contemporaries- and thank God for that!

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/746545?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106212980981



Woodduck said:


> If your actual concern is*music, rather than singing as some sort of sport, exhibition, or ego trip, the question must always be asked whether the spirit of the music is served by a given interpretive choice - the*spirit*of the music, please note. In the case of improvisation the question becomes, specifically, whether anything is gained - whether the spirit of the music is best conveyed - by changing what is written in the score, or adding to it what is unwritten. For many singers before the modern era, that may not have been a relevant question, but it would be wrong to assume that it is not therefore a legitimate question of musicianship, or that it is not, or was not in any era, relevant to the people who actually put the notes on paper. The first question for any performer of integrity is: what is this music trying to express, and how can I realize that expressive intent? You are free to sneer contemptuously at this as "enslavement" to the score or the composer. Musicians, however, view it simply as doing their work - unless, of course, those musicians are more interested in self-aggrandizement than in making music.*


Why do you think that singers before the modern era were unconcerned by whether their interpretative choices, including but not limited to ornamentation, were helping or hindering the spirit of the music, as they understood it? Have you heard recorded examples of this, and if so (this is a harder question) can you show, or do you suspect, that these inappropriate deviations from the score were typical, or at least widespread? We can all point to examples from any era of pure exhibitionism- high notes held for longer than strictly necessary, etc- but by using words such as ego and self-aggrandizement you are perhaps conflating this type of straightforward exhibitionism with the altogether more subtle and complex (and entirely idiomatic) interpretative freedom enjoyed by singers in the nineteenth century. Of course such freedom may well have coexisted with a certain amount of vanity, often though not always: how many people at the top of their professions are entirely free of ego? It's not a problem until it gets in the way.



Woodduck said:


> Anyone is free not to enjoy the work of any musical performer, and to prefer the voice or style of any singer. As you know very well, my loyalties tend predominantly to the singers whose remarkable vocal accomplishments are preserved on recordings made before the middle of the twentieth century. I greatly admire also the musical style of many of the early singers, at least when their rhythmic freedom and graces are applied with taste to appropriate repertoire (which is most definitely not always the case!). There are nuances of the art which have, assuredly, been lost. But none of this in any way prevents me from recognizing greatness in the art of any singer of more recent times who may be working with different stylistic parameters.*


The 'nuances' are not some unimportant detail, but an intrinsic part of what is now a lost art. For that reason I would be reluctant to acclaim 'greatness in the _art_ [my italics] of any singer of more recent times who may be working with different stylistic parameters.' Greatness of voice, raw talent, and many other things, no doubt: but the _art of singing_ as the composers of the nineteenth century and earlier knew and expected to hear it is gone. At the risk of overexplaining, this is not the same as saying that no artistry of any kind has been found in singers during the modern era: to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed this.


Woodduck said:


> Callas was obviously an artist of a later era than Patti, despite her thorough grounding in the techniques of bel canto. Flights of fancy on the part of singers, impulsive playing with rhythm and the written notes, were no longer prized or even understood. But the artistic significance of this fact, particularly with regard to Callas, is not to be characterized in such simplistic terms as you have done. The fact of ultimate significance about Callas is that she was*sui generis: a musical artist of the first quality in a field too obviously not noted for them, and one without any demonstrable precedent and no true successor. The unique insights she was able to bring to those notes on the page, notes which she regarded with rare reverence, were from the very start a revelation to the musicians and the public alike, who knew they were hearing something of the greatest artistic importance. And the subtlety and depth of those insights will continue to astonish those capable of hearing and comprehending them.


The fact that you mention Patti indicates that you understand the point I am making, even though you trivialise the entirely appropriate and legitimate creativity of a Patti as 'flights of fancy'. Your other points have no relevance that I can see to this discussion: was any unusually talented artist ever _not_ sui generis? Why is opera not noted for 'musical artists of the first quality' and why does it matter? There have been great performers who struggled with sight reading and so forth, but this impediment is not as serious to a singer who cannot carry their vocal score about the stage with them in any case as it would be to an orchestral musician in the pit. I suspect you are invoking the rather silly caricature of the opera singer with more vocal brawn than brains, standing at the footlights resplendent in horned helmet and metal bra, in order to provide a contrast which is flattering to Callas, but I don't find that convincing. The musicianship of a Patti or de Lucia involves more rigorous training and tougher judgement calls- no automatic deferring to the guy with the baton!- than anything heard in the world of operatic singing since.

Now, how's this for an off topic screed: Woodduck, you can surround yourself with a cheering claque and tell yourself that it's a real debate, but one day you're going to look around this forum and wonder where all the interesting people went.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Belowpar said:


> Just a thought but before the 1950's were there Directors in Opera as famous as Visconti and Zefferelli? Most theatres would have had their staff Directors known to the cognoscenti and perhaps a house style? Occasionally a theatre director would make a name for themselves eg. Max Reinhart and Hollywood did attract the best of Broadway. Before then there were the great Actor Managers, like Garrick but in Opera it was always the Singers and the Conductors who became famous.
> 
> (There was a similar movement in Theatre at the same time with Peter's Brook and Hall etc., so maybe its just historical coincidence?)
> 
> Maybe I'm way off base here and apologise if this inflames the partisans, but just musing out loud…


Speaking of which, I am really digging Haneke's forays into directing opera productions. That dude is sheer genius.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> No- yes with the libretto, no with the score. I've always been quite open about the fact that I can't read music, so your 'gotcha' doesn't really work, if that's what it was. If, on the other hand, you are saying that only a trained musician has a right to an opinion on musical matters, I respect that- though it's slightly odd to find that attitude on a public forum whose members are mostly lay people like me.
> 
> These remarks are completely untrue and inappropriate.
> 
> ...


Well put. I love Callas don't get me wrong but there are no such things as goddesses with the exception of my daughter.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> It's clear that the expressive freedoms enjoyed by singers didn't immediately wither under the onslaught of what Karen Henson has termed the 'anti-performer rhetoric' of Verdi and his contemporaries- and thank God for that!
> 
> Why do you think that singers before the modern era were unconcerned by whether their interpretative choices, including but not limited to ornamentation, were helping or hindering the spirit of the music, as they understood it? Have you heard recorded examples of this, and if so (this is a harder question) can you show, or do you suspect, that these inappropriate deviations from the score were typical, or at least widespread? We can all point to examples from any era of pure exhibitionism- high notes held for longer than strictly necessary, etc- but by using words such as ego and self-aggrandizement you are perhaps conflating this type of straightforward exhibitionism with the altogether more subtle and complex (and entirely idiomatic) interpretative freedom enjoyed by singers in the nineteenth century. Of course such freedom may well have coexisted with a certain amount of vanity, often though not always: how many people at the top of their professions are entirely free of ego? It's not a problem until it gets in the way.
> 
> ...


The question of how much deviation from the written score an opera singer should permit herself, and the larger question of the position of the singer in relation to the other elements of the form of musical drama known as opera, are not questions that were raised just yesterday - or in the era of Maria Callas. The former question is charmingly embodied in the story of Adelina Patti's meeting with Rossini, which Wikipedia relates this way:

_ It is related that when Patti's mentor (and brother-in-law), Strakosch, presented her to Rossini at one of his fashionable receptions during the 1860s, she was prevailed upon to sing "Una voce poco fa", from Rossini's The Barber of Seville-with embellishments added by Strakosch to show off the soprano's voice. "What composition was that?", asked the prickly Rossini. "Why, maestro, your own" replied Strakosch. "Oh no, that is not my composition, that is Strakoschonnerie", Rossini retorted. ('Cochonnerie' is a strong French idiom indicating "garbage" and literally meaning "that which is characteristic of or fit for pigs.")_

The latter question, that of the nature of sung drama itself, is of the greatest historical importance, as we see in the reforms of Gluck, Wagner, and Verdi, reforms directed toward bringing to opera the integrity of a serious dramatic art, as opposed to an entertainment focused largely on the virtuosity and personae of star singers. So long as the latter view prevailed, composers were at the mercy of the egos and whims of their supposed interpreters, and the musical liberties singers permitted themselves were limited mainly by their individual skill and taste. The fact that composers, as well as other artistically discriminating listeners, were not delighted with what often resulted is a matter of record.

In the recorded documentation of singing which has come down to us, we recognize the decreasing role of improvisation and embellishment in the performing style of opera singers. This is a direct reflection of the changing style of operatic music during the century just preceding, which reflects in turn the concern of the composers of that century that music should serve the drama, not the performer. This change in artistic priorities necessitated that the singer subordinate her desire to indulge her own musical and vocal whims to the service of the music and its specific dramatic intent. I stated that in the music of Wagner and the late operas of Verdi (as well as other composers contemporary with them), there is little if any opportunity for significant embellishment of the vocal line. I could have cited even the operatic works of Beethoven and Weber, from the beginning of the 19th century, and of course those of Gluck from still earlier, to strengthen this point. The existence of this historical trend, and the serious ideas behind it, is not controversial. And it suggests, in conjunction with your claim to understand "the art of singing as the composers of the nineteenth century and earlier knew and expected to hear it," that your implicit conclusion that what these composers knew and expected was in any straightforward way what they most wanted to hear done to their music, needs careful qualification.

It is to be expected that the stylistic approach of performers will lag behind what composers are doing and what they would ideally like to hear in the interpretation of their music. In the case of singing, we are fortunate that that is the case; in the first generation of singers to have made recordings, we have an opportunity to gain some idea of singing styles which may have prevailed a few decades earlier. That I have taken much pleasure in some of these early singers ought to be clear to you from many earlier conversations and posts. But that does not mean that I must give blanket approval and swoon with delight over every liberty taken by every singer I hear. Even aside from the matters of historical interest and controversy over a composer's intentions, the truth is that many deviations from the score committed by singers are musically arbitrary, do not spring from any expressive necessity, and serve mainly to exhibit the singer's vocal skills. This doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy them for what they are; it means only that we should _recognize_ them for what they are.

Maria Callas, whom you have (oddly) chosen to make an example of in your condemnation of what you consider a decline in the art of opera (and I will not contend that there has not been a decline in the standard of vocalism as such), lived at a time when the ornamental style of singing practiced by survivors of the 19th century was virtually extinct. We may personally regret its passing. But Callas is a poor illustration of a supposed decline of the art form. For one thing, she was well aware that ornamentation was practiced by singers of the bel canto era, was not opposed to it in principle, and did use a very modest amount of it in music of that era. She was, however, explicitly devoted to the ideal which motivated the reforms of Gluck, Wagner, and Verdi: the ideal of music as a vehicle of drama. The thought that pursuit of this ideal involves careful attention to what these composers wrote seems beyond the need of argument; faced with a musical score, the serious artist's first concern is to see what is actually in it, and to understand how its content has been devised by the composer to convey the dramatic idea he intends. Knowledge of the score is, certainly, only the first step in forming a musical interpretation. But it is also, at every step of the process, a guide to, and a limitation upon, what may be done in the way of interpretation. No composer imagines or wishes that what is on the page represents the actual realization of his music. Composers do, however, expect - or at least hope - that what they write be treated with conscientious attention and respect. What a performer does with a work of music after that is up to her, but a conscientious performing artist does nothing until she feels she understands the necessity and purpose of every detail of the score. And what Callas found, in pursuing that understanding, was that in almost every instance the notes as written by the composer justified themselves, musically and dramatically, and needed no "editing" from her.

In the light of these principles, of their virtually universal acceptance in the actual world of musical performance, and of the widespread and enduring respect for Maria Callas as a powerful embodiment of their validity, anyone who understands the achievements of Callas as a musician and artist can only find such statements as the following (from your initial post) incomprehensible and absurd:

_Trying to sing expressively in the era of conductor-centric, come-scritto performances is like trying to play tennis with your hands tied behind your back. Callas may be the Wimbledon ladies' champion of handcuffed tennis, but it's not a sport I can muster much enthusiasm for.* The fact that Callas belongs to that decadent era is perhaps why her fans like to emphasise her fidelity to the score and her status as the servant (ugh!) of the composer, as if this was the only way to justify the embarrassing and unworthy worship of a mere singer! No singing enthusiast should have to apologise for their idol in such a cringing manner, and no singer should internalise the view that they are a mere servant of the score*, though of course this ignores the reality of getting work in an era where the dominant ideology is that 'the singer should be the servant of the score'. It's a nonsensical concept anyway: the music doesn't exist unless performed, and there's no performance without interpretation, however self-effacing._

I do hope you realize that you are conflating a number of issues here. To deal with all of them would make this post intolerably long. But, now that I've offered remarks intended to balance your views on the matters of the aesthetics of singing styles and the requirements of musical interpretation, it seems I need to point out to you your belittling of an inestimably great artist's achievement, and the plain insult you have leveled at those who admire her work. Frankly, the main reason I chose to take exception to what I (correctly) called your "off-topic screed" was primarily not to argue the aesthetic of singing styles - we are actually in considerable agreement in our tastes, if not our historical perspective - but to object to this serious incomprehension and flippant mistreatment of Callas, her artistic legacy, and her admirers. Speaking not only for myself but for others I know who love her art, we do not "idolize" Maria Callas, we do not "worship" a "mere singer," we do not need to "apologize in a cringing manner" for her, and we do not praise her ideal of fidelity to a composer's intentions in order to "justify" our taste for a representative of "decadence" in the art of opera.

I don't know at precisely whom you are aiming these disparaging remarks. But the fact that you choose to do it on this forum, and under a thread which does not ask for an opinion on this subject, may very reasonably be taken as offensive by other members here. Your artistic preferences are entitled to respect. But so are those of people whose enthusiasm for a great artist whom you cannot appreciate happens, for reasons of your own, to annoy you.

As for my "claque," they, if they exist, will certainly testify that they have never received any solicitations from me.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The question of how much deviation from the written score an opera singer should permit herself, and the larger question of the position of the singer in relation to the other elements of the form of musical drama known as opera, are not questions that were raised just yesterday - or in the era of Maria Callas. The former question is charmingly embodied in the story of Adelina Patti's meeting with Rossini, which Wikipedia relates this way:
> 
> _ It is related that when Patti's mentor (and brother-in-law), Strakosch, presented her to Rossini at one of his fashionable receptions during the 1860s, she was prevailed upon to sing "Una voce poco fa", from Rossini's The Barber of Seville-with embellishments added by Strakosch to show off the soprano's voice. "What composition was that?", asked the prickly Rossini. "Why, maestro, your own" replied Strakosch. "Oh no, that is not my composition, that is Strakoschonnerie", Rossini retorted. ('Cochonnerie' is a strong French idiom indicating "garbage" and literally meaning "that which is characteristic of or fit for pigs.")_
> 
> ...


As if eagles and divas flocked together.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> As if eagles and divas flocked together.


Yes, they can.






The question is whether Callas led the trend into what became Regietheater in today's opera world but it is quite evident that Wagner was the forerunner for that concept decades before.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Albert7 said:


> The question is whether Callas led the trend into what became Regietheater in today's opera world but it is quite evident that Wagner was the forerunner for that concept decades before.


In what way was Wagner the forerunner of regietheater?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Albert7 said:


> The question is whether Callas led the trend into what became Regietheater in today's opera world but it is quite evident that Wagner was the forerunner for that concept decades before.


That's not the question I asked unless you consider Zeferelli a "Regie". Speaking from London the Opera companies make a big thing when they lure a Director from the world of Cinema e.g Mike Figgis, Terry Gilliam or John Schlesinger and I understand Woody Allen has directed at La Fenice. This is the reverse of the way things use to happened as I outlined in my original post. And it is the continuation of a trend which makes the Director more important than I believe they were prior to ..? Regietheatre may have enjoyed a similar lifespan and that is interesting, but it's not the Question I asked.


----------

