# Will The First 3 Masterpieces Ever Become Popular?



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Here is an excerpt from the book _Opera's First Master - The Musical Dramas of Claudio Monteverdi_:



> Over the years performers and critics have likened Monteverdi's operatic genius to that of Mozart, Wagner and Verdi, the supreme masters of the genre. Nevertheless, the respect Monteverdi's operas enjoy is far removed from the near universal love those later masters receive. In the opera houses of the United States and even Europe, Monteverdi remains a chilly icon more than a beloved figure. One noted critic has stated that:
> 
> _"Monteverdi has still, nearly a century after his first modern performances, to establish his centrality for those calling themselves opera goers. By no stretch of the imagination can one speak of Monteverdi as a 'popular' composer even in the late 1990′s"_


What do you think accounts for this?

Does it have to do with the fact that _L'Orfeo_, _The Return of Ulysses_ and _The Coronation of Poppea_ are largely based on extended *recitative*, the sparest, most sophisticated of forms?

Is this the main reason his operas haven't really gained wider currency or is it something else?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I think that if you came into opera the 19th century route, as many do (I did), the musical idiom of Monteverdi takes some adapting to. I wouldn't call it by that terribly loaded word "sophisticated", but rather different from a more familiar aria-recit progression. I think if you give Monteverdi time, and enjoy the dramatic aspects as well - they are tragic AND funny and explore the heart of the human condition and human frailty - you will come to appreciate the great beauty of these pieces.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

To be harsher, the general public, including those called both informed and knowledgeable, still really really tend to prefer the more overtly dramatic, the tune, etc. (and that is not just in the area of opera.) I.e. that is why the later classical and romantic models and ways are the most preferred.

There is far less overt big-gesture mama-drama in Monteverdi, while as Mama Scarlatti has already said, the operas do have a gamut of the deeper emotions in them, and "express" those beautifully.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Music of the early Baroque is, with its modal/tonal admixtures, as alien sounding to some as music of the Renaissance. For some, music really only began with Corelli.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I find the latter two pieces very dramatic, but perhaps not melodramatic. There are some very "modern" scenes in L'incoronazione: the soldiers gossiping and moaning about their superiors, Ottavia's despair at being traded in for a younger model, Seneca's followers saying "But WE don't want to die!", Arnalta's delight at her newly exalted position, the very sexy last duet (lust not love there, methinks).


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I think Monteverdi is more popular than ever!. Arguably, even more popular than back in the 17th century. 

I remember a recent production at Teatro Real of "L'Incoronazione" with a full house, and enthusiastic applauses at the end, during quite a long time (at least, quite a long time as measured by Teatro Real's standards).

Many of the younger Opera fans I know are pretty keen on Monteverdi.

So, future's bright for this "sophisticated" early opera composer.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Schigolch,



> I think Monteverdi is more popular than ever!. Arguably, even more popular than back in the 17th century.


It's interesting how everyone sees this so differently.

Last week I sent my query above to a very well known musicologist and historian. His response:



> There are a lot of reasons for the comparative unpopularity of Monteverdi's operas, including the one you mention -- that recitative is dominant. Hence there are very few striking melodies. Pur ti miro, pur ti godo from Poppea delights the audience because of the sheer relief of a beautiful melody and a properly worked out duet - and causes them to overlook the loathsomeness of the characters who are singing it. And in comparison, of course, *Orfeo* is not only austere, but also imbued with a ritualistic quality that modern audiences find difficult to digest.
> 
> It is also the case that Monteverdi didn't in any way go overboard in scoring the operas, and left much of them with a figured bass accompaniment: so they need a certain amount of reconstruction. He clearly didn't intend the massive effects that he provides for his sacred music, but intended them for an intimate setting.
> 
> ...


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, I think Monteverdi just needs to keep the momentum!. 

How many people have ever listened to "L'Incoronazione" fifty years ago, not to mention watch it live in a theater?. Today, there are many recordings, it's scheduled somewhere every season, and it seems every five minutes there is a new DVD in the market. 

Hey, I have seen with my own eyes more than one thousand people applauding madly a performance of "L'Incoranazione". With my own eyes.

So, it will ever be as popular as "La Traviata"?. Who knows?. I'm not a prophet. But it looks like this opera (L'Incoronazione) relevance to the operatic audience is growing, and growing fast. And especially to the young operatic audience.

Sure, "Il ritorno d'Ulisse" and "L'Orfeo" are a little bit more difficult for the average operagoer. But time will tell.

I'm optimistic.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Schigolch,
> 
> It's interesting how everyone sees this so differently.
> 
> ...


I still agree there is now a larger audience for Monteverdi now, but your acquaintance's reasons are the list of subtleties, or 'less flamboyant qualities' I believe will keep these operas forever less popular than those of his successors.

One could say similar about Prokofiev's wonderful but lean and neoclassical 4th piano concerto compared with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th piano concerti, i.e. unless the wide general public shifts tastes to the less 'obviously dramatic / overtly emotional' of art in general -- pieces in the realm of His 4th piano concerto will continue to have the smaller audience


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I think Monteverdi simply belongs to the antiquated side, together with all baroque and much of classical opera. With proper staging and acting, most of post-Mozart opera can be presented in a way that will reach the audience naturally (despite the famous absurdities of some styles), but there is no staging or acting that can do it with Monteverdi, as well as most of his direct followers. It's extremely idiomatic drama, with all those side-characters commenting the action as if they were part of the audience and other such things. The difference here is like between Boccaccio and Balzac - both great prosaists of eras long-gone, it's simply that there is a line somewhere in each genre of art beyond which works carry degree of archaism far greater and pronounced than the others and which becomes obstacle in their way to wider popularity.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> I think Monteverdi simply belongs to the antiquated side, together with all baroque and much of classical opera. With proper staging and acting, most of post-Mozart opera can be presented in a way that will reach the audience naturally (despite the famous absurdities of some styles), but there is no staging or acting that can do it with Monteverdi, as well as most of his direct followers. It's extremely idiomatic drama, with all those side-characters commenting the action as if they were part of the audience and other such things. The difference here is like between Boccaccio and Balzac - both great prosaists of eras long-gone, it's simply that there is a line somewhere in each genre of art beyond which works carry degree of archaism far greater and pronounced than the others and which becomes obstacle in their way to wider popularity.


_You're quite right: on a shorter time line, highly stylized and mannered black and white films from the 1930's and 40's are_, like the Monteverdi, much of Baroque opera -- just like this saying about some other music genres -- "Jazz and Chamber music are _not for everybody_."

Get through that, the stylization and the mannerisms, and find real depth of character and drama. But many do have a near reflexive barrier when it comes to 'the older stuff,' which I don't think will change much.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I don't get it. I find L'incoronazione far LESS stylised (and the characters more real) than say, some bel canto opera seria. Same actually with Il ritorno.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

mamascarlatti said:


> I don't get it. I find L'incoronazione far LESS stylised (and the characters more real) than say, some bel canto opera seria. Same actually with Il ritorno.


Think of how modern sensitivities are shaped by cinema. And then think of, for example, that scene in Il Ritorno when Ulisse kills the suitors. The deaths of Lensky, Fafner, Violetta, Edgardo etc. speak to people who were raised in our contemporary reality, they are very cinematic - even the "gets stabbed and sings" thing gets swallowed (unless very badly performed), because the music meets the expectations and sense of drama - it's loud and depicts the action as we're used to. Now you get that Monteverdi scene and it's watched by person who saw 300 and Troy with Brad Pitt and is waiting for Ulisse to finally show them who's the boss here, expecting kind of "madness?! This... is... Ithaca...!" <epic massacre> stuff to take place. I don't think I even need to write the conclusion. Being experienced listener in the ancient music, you might not perceive all of it that much. But if we're talking about lighter breed of opera buffs/opera newcomers, such differences are essential.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Think of how modern sensitivities are shaped by cinema. And then think of, for example, that scene in Il Ritorno when Ulisse kills the suitors. The deaths of Lensky, Fafner, Violetta, Edgardo etc. speak to people who were raised in our contemporary reality, they are very cinematic - even the "gets stabbed and sings" thing gets swallowed (unless very badly performed), because the music meets the expectations and sense of drama - it's loud and depicts the action as we're used to. Now you get that Monteverdi scene and it's watched by person who saw 300 and Troy with Brad Pitt and is waiting for Ulisse to finally show them who's the boss here, expecting kind of "madness?! This... is... Ithaca...!" <epic massacre> stuff to take place. I don't think I even need to write the conclusion. Being experienced listener in the ancient music, you might not perceive all of it that much. But if we're talking about lighter breed of opera buffs/opera newcomers, such differences are essential.


This delivers the "slay all the suitors," episode but in a proportionate scale (it is still truly awful, as it is meant to be)... but who, accustomed to the wham bang of more mainstream cinema and theater, is going to give this really fine film of the Odyssey the time it takes to watch it all? Not many, I think!




Another link of the same, if quality is perhaps better one to the other....


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Monteverdi is the best opera composer imo, or at least on par with Mozart and Wagner.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aramis said:


> Think of how modern sensitivities are shaped by cinema. And then think of, for example, that scene in Il Ritorno when Ulisse kills the suitors. The deaths of Lensky, Fafner, Violetta, Edgardo etc. speak to people who were raised in our contemporary reality, they are very cinematic - even the "gets stabbed and sings" thing gets swallowed (unless very badly performed), because the music meets the expectations and sense of drama - it's loud and depicts the action as we're used to. Now you get that Monteverdi scene and it's watched by person who saw 300 and Troy with Brad Pitt and is waiting for Ulisse to finally show them who's the boss here, expecting kind of "madness?! This... is... Ithaca...!" <epic massacre> stuff to take place. I don't think I even need to write the conclusion. Being experienced listener in the ancient music, you might not perceive all of it that much. But if we're talking about lighter breed of opera buffs/opera newcomers, such differences are essential.


Perhaps you are right. I always got the impression (from the book, haven't seen any movie versions) that Odysseus is wily rather than a superhero - he gets by more on wits than brawn, so I have no such expectations.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

I'm mesmerized by that 'archaic ritual' of L'Orfeo, to the point that I've collected numerous versions in cd and dvd/blu-ray.

I hope that the click-and-drag-don't-look-back generation just sits down and watch Bill Christie's second taped production of Il Ritorno d'Ulisse in Patria, as such stagings will speed up the navigation out of Monteverdi's strangeness to modern ears and speed up the growing recognition of his genius and unique, irreplaceable contribution to music drama. I find his dramma in musica concepts and execution strangely similar to some of Wagner's concepts. No interminably repetitive aria flights. I recently finished reading that book, Opera's First Master, and it is an excellent and very useful description and analysis of his art, with careful references.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I don't think they will. I think they seem dry and tedious to the average listener.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I don't think they will. I think they seem dry and tedious to the average listener.


_*Are we Average? No! We are Devo.*_


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I don't think they will. I think they seem dry and tedious to the average listener.


Then the average listener has a real problem, and not just about Monteverdi I'd wager. Strange how they decided to record so many versions of L'Orfeo and LIdP, not to mention the numerous stage productions of the three operas, without depending on the interest of that average listener. Lucky me!


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

In terms of simply giving an answer to the question in the OP:
they have gained in popularity in the last 30 years or so, also because the renewed interest in the 17-18c music (played on period instruments, with period techniques, and so on), but, although they are true masterpieces (IMO they deserve higher places in the TC Top 272 list) they will most unlikely reach the popularity of, let's say, Mozart's, Verdi's, Puccini's or Wagner's operas.
BTW this happens to some of the late 19-20c masterpieces as well, just think of Pelleas et Melisande or Wozzeck for instance.
Very unlikely you'll meet someone in the street whispering a Monteverdi tune...


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Admittedly this is not from Monteverdi himself, but it's included in his opera, and I have met people in the streets (well, to be honest people in the streets around Teatro Real) humming it: 






Frankly, I can't see why "L'Incoronazione" is not a clear candidate to be an operatic staple for the (operatic) masses. Times change, and even if Romantic opera is still paramount for many listeners, this is not engraved on stone. "L'incoronazione" has it all, from a musical and dramatic point of view, to address the wider audience.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I don't think they will. I think they seem dry and tedious to the average listener.


who's the average opera listener? (honest question) I consider myself average (I couldn't think of any "rare opera" I would go far to see) and I like Monteverdi. Maybe I'm wrong and the average listener is the one who only goes to/listens to Traviata, La Boheme, Figaro and splashes on a Ring Cycle once every 10 years. We still need to establish if this is who we're talking about, otherwise you'll get a bunch of people coming into this thread and saying how they can't live without Poppea and so critics must be dead wrong. I saw L'Orfeo last October and the house was full (of very old people, I must add, but of rather varied ethnic backgrounds, if that helps).


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

English Touring Opera put on _Poppaea_ last autumn. We could only get to one of the three operas they were doing, so we chose Handel (_Agrippina_), and found the production traditional - dramatic - and funny. Probably if we had gone to the Monteverdi, we'd have found the same thing, but we were put off by looking at YouTube features and finding that they were staged in a modern, brash, in your face sort of way, presumably to be 'cool'. We had never been to an ETO production at that stage so plumped for an obviously traditional production. 
If we get another chance to see a Monteverdi opera, and can be sure that we won't be irritated by a gimmicky production, we will go. So - from my limited single-anecdote experience, Monteverdi is enjoying a small resurgence, but could some productions be 'trying too hard' & attracting neither your middle-of-the-road type nor your young hip audience? 
 Waiting in some trepidation for answers from PetrB and others...


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Aramis said:


> Now you get that Monteverdi scene and it's watched by person who saw 300 and Troy with Brad Pitt and is waiting for Ulisse to finally show them who's the boss here, expecting kind of "madness?! This... is... Ithaca...!" <epic massacre> stuff to take place. I don't think I even need to write the conclusion. Being experienced listener in the ancient music, you might not perceive all of it that much. But if we're talking about lighter breed of opera buffs/opera newcomers, such differences are essential.


When I think of "L'incoronazione di Poppea" as a Hollywood movie, the tone reminds me of "Prizzi's Honor". You have a lot of intrigue, sex and crime, but it's actually kind of laconic too. People have their passions. Some will win (a minimum of scruples does help) and some will lose. "Whatcha gonna do." Stuff happens. So what.

There's a great amount of black humor in that. It's not "realistic", but truthful. If presented right, I think it works greatly.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

GioCar said:


> In terms of simply giving an answer to the question in the OP:
> they have gained in popularity in the last 30 years or so, also because the renewed interest in the 17-18c music (played on period instruments, with period techniques, and so on), but, although they are true masterpieces (IMO they deserve higher places in the TC Top 272 list) they will most unlikely reach the popularity of, let's say, Mozart's, Verdi's, Puccini's or Wagner's operas.
> BTW this happens to some of the late 19-20c masterpieces as well, just think of Pelleas et Melisande or Wozzeck for instance.
> *Very unlikely you'll meet someone in the street whispering a Monteverdi tune*...


And we must be thankful for that... Since no one else, even Rossini, has reached the popularity of Mozart, Verdi, Puccini and Wagner, Monteverdi would still be in fairly good company. Let us always remember that the favorite ice cream flavor, the one preferred most widely, is vanilla. That's a real statistic right there.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Well, schigolch recently posted that he has heard people humming Monteverdi in the street. So he's had The Experience.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Folks,

Another look at how professionals, musicologists and historians disagree in their assessment of Monteverdi's _Ulisse_



> Monteverdi's late two operas are very different as works. In the case of Poppea he took a historical subject, which in itself was a sensation at the time, and turned it into a modern psychological drama, whereas Il ritorno di Ulisse is a musical epic.
> 
> The music of Ulisse is the *summation* of all of Monteverdi's experiences as a composer. There are pastoral elements, great recitatives, buffo-like scherzos, ensembles and arioso scenes. This variety is explored by Harnoncourt with the whole range of Baroque instruments, be they strings, plucked instruments or winds"




And now look at what the music historians Donald Grout and Hermine Williams wrote in the classic text A Short History of Opera



> The high points of the opera are undoubtedly the monologue of Penelope in the first scene of Act 1 and the opening solo of Ulysses in the seventh scene of the same act. At the beginning of Act 3 there is a comic lament, a clever parody of this favorite type of scene. Some of the little strophic sings in popular style, such as Minerva's "Cara, cara e lieta" (Act 1, scene 8) are very attractive.
> 
> On the whole, however, Ulisse, is not to be compared with Monteverdi's last opera, Poppea




Sigh... 

Nope, I totally disagree. I personally can't speak of 'high points' in Ulisse this way. As I said before I find the entire work riveting and of such high quality (with only a couple dull spots as I mentioned above).

BUT.... since they brought up the topic of 'highlights' let me just say that it's crazy not to mention the brilliant 23 minute final scene in Act 2 at the court of Ithaca... with all the different and awesome recitatives, Iro's moments and stuttering, the concitato sections, the suitors ceremony, the triple bow sinfonia, the battle symphony, Ulisse's chants etc.

As for Ulisse not being on a par with Poppea, of course I disagree.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

So far, Orpheo is the only opera I ever really enjoyed totally, so Im curious of the other two too


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, between L'Orfeo and the other two operas there are not only more than 30 years, but also a whole world of distance. From the palaces of Mantua to the Venetian teathers, from the composer at the service of the Duke of Mantua, to the priest and maestro di cappella of San Marco.

Personally, I prefer Poppea, then Ulisse, then L'Orfeo. Ultimately, this is a matter of taste, of course, all three are great operas, and among the first really outstanding pieces created in the art form.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Revenant said:


> Well, schigolch recently posted that he has heard people humming Monteverdi in the street. So he's had The Experience.


Not quite Monteverdi, I fear, but close enough.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Not quite Monteverdi, I fear, but close enough.


I bet! Whistling can be murder on that _stile concitato _I guess.


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> I think that if you came into opera the 19th century route, as many do (I did), the musical idiom of Monteverdi takes some adapting to.


Then they could start from Respighi's Orfeo version:


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Bardamu said:


> Then they could start from Respighi's Orfeo version:


Hmm, yes, I could see that might appeal.

Personally it just sounds WRONG!


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, we need to take into account that what we have today from many works of the period are just the vocal lines, and the notated bass. Sometimes also the particular instruments involved in a particular performance... Based on this, all the rest need to be created.

Even in the case of the Incoronazione, we don't even know for certain it's Monterverdi's to start with. . Yes, there are 17th century sources pointing in that direction, but the two existing copies didn't mention the composer (that's normal, because in the period it was usual to give more importance to the poet writing the libretto). To make things worse, both copies differ in important details, of every type.

As there is other evidence linking several composers to the score, like Cavalli, Ferrari, Laurenzi, Sacrati, Manelli.... perhaps the right title for the Incoronazione would be something like _Il Nerone ovvero l'incoronazione di Poppea _by Monteverdi and friends._ 

_So, the option to orchestrate using their personal artistic criteria (instead of the usual one of trying to recreate the musical world of 17th century Venice or Mantua) of composers like Respighi with L'Orfeo mentioned above, or the very interesting of Philippe Boesman with L'Incoronazione (there are other examples) are not really that off he mark.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Well, we need to take into account that what we have today from many works of the period are just the vocal lines, and the notated bass. Sometimes also the particular instruments involved in a particular performance... Based on this, all the rest need to be created.
> 
> Even in the case of the Incoronazione, we don't even know for certain it's Monterverdi's to start with. . Yes, there are 17th century sources pointing in that direction, but the two existing copies didn't mention the composer (that's normal, because in the period it was usual to give more importance to the poet writing the libretto). To make things worse, both copies differ in important details, of every type.
> 
> ...


It's widely believed, although afaik not to the point of consensus, that _Pur ti miro _was not Monteverdi's. But as you noted, there are some indicators, some of them coming to light after Monteverdi's authorship came widely into question, pointing to his hand and influence in the composition of that particular opera. I remember one theory that since Monteverdi's health was declining due to the onset of what would be his final illness, some of his younger colleagues may have either collaborated with him or completed the music once his condition grew worse, perhaps following some basic, initial plan. Who knows.

The best Orfeo cd for would be initiates, given the pace and dash of the production, is Emmanuelle Haim's version, imo. There are also some interesting dvd and blu rays of stage productions.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes, fortunately there are quite a few!.

My personal favorite is this one:


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

schigolch said:


> Yes, fortunately there are quite a few!.
> 
> My personal favorite is this one:


That's the last one that I got, and it's replaced the Gardiner and the Haim as my favorite. Mine came with a nicely bound booklet that was a pleasure to read. Somehow this versions just feels 'right' to me. But the Haim is probably a surer bet for newbies, although I'm not completely sure about that. This one could do just fine.


----------

