# Opera as Drama



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

I have been watching some videos of the recent Metropolitan Opera season over the past hour and one of the things I have come to realize, apart from the fact that the wobbling pandemic at the Met is here to stay, is that most of the performances I have looked at have not moved me one bit, and some I have even found to be rather corny, closer to a parody than to the real thing. Here is a sample of what I watched:





















The acting performances are rather stale and introverted. Some singer just stand there, doing the old parking-and-barking thing, while some prefer to use famous operatic movements (like bringing both hands to their chest). Now I believe a lot of things can be excused when the vocal performance is magnetic and transcending, as many golden age and silver age singers have showed us, but otherwise, everything can easily and rapidly become silly. And this is the impression I get from most of the videos. Without well-schooled voices, most operatic performances look rather... silly. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore opera as a genre. But when I look at Philippe's face in the Don Carlo excerpt, serious and full of suffering, whilst a thin, collapsed sound is coming out of his throat, then.... I just don't feel any drama. I am bored, and I understand why others would be. The scene with the Inquisitor and Kelsey's performance as Rigoletto suffer from the same thing. Both the music and the words are full of drama and we expect the voices to make this drama real and palpable, but the vocal performances are not up to par and the whole dramatic tension falls apart, and I feel we are left with what looks more like a parody of opera. I know these artists are giving their 100%, which is why I am saddened to see them trying to infuse drama into performances which, nonetheless, become lifeless. I might be too critical, or maybe I am blind and deaf to the dramatic qualities of some of theses performances. If so, then I would gladly like to know what I am missing.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Bravo Parsifal!!
In every single opera there are scenes that are less than appealing and you certainly carefully scrutinized them and chose the worst scenes in those operas as an example of how horrible the Met productions really are.
Too bad that you overlooked a superb new bass doing Sparafucile (Andrea Mastroni) or the fine performance of the Duke given by Piotr Beczala in the less than acceptable director Bartlett Sher _Rigoletto_ production. Too bad that you decided to hone in on an under-par performance of Eric Owens' King Phillipe instead of hearing the superb rendition of "O Don Fatale" as done by Jamie Barton, or a "Tu che la vanita" as sung by Sonya Yoncheva, and a performance of Posa which everyone is talking about from Etienne Dupuis in_ Don Carlos_.
Too bad that you chose not to mention an incredible performance of _Boris Godunov_ or given a shout out to a new dramatic soprano, Lise Davidsen who was a highlight as Ariadne.
So would you please, at least grant us the privilege of putting these scenes for all to see and get a fair opinion instead of choosing the dregs from a typical Bartlett Sher production. Or explaining that Groissbeck was the chosen Phillipe but was replaced by a less than acceptable Owens instead.


----------



## Parsifal98 (Apr 29, 2020)

nina foresti said:


> Bravo Parsifal!!
> In every single opera there are scenes that are less than appealing and you certainly carefully scrutinized them and chose the worst scenes in those operas as an example of how horrible the Met productions really are.
> Too bad that you overlooked a superb new bass doing Sparafucile (Andrea Mastroni) or the fine performance of the Duke given by Piotr Beczala in the less than acceptable director Bartlett Sher _Rigoletto_ production. Too bad that you decided to hone in on an under-par performance of Eric Owens' King Phillipe instead of hearing the superb rendition of "O Don Fatale" as done by Judy Barton, or a "Tu che la vanita" as sung by Sonya Yoncheva, and a performance of Posa which everyone is talking about from Etienne Dupuis in_ Don Carlos_.
> Too bad that you chose not to mention an incredible performance of _Boris Godunov_ or given a shout out to a new dramatic soprano, Lise Davidsen who was a highlight as Ariadne.
> So would you please, at least grant us the privilege of putting these scenes for all to see and get a fair opinion instead of choosing the dregs from a typical Bartlett Sher production. Or explaining that Groissbeck was the chosen Phillipe but was replaced by a less than acceptable Owens instead.


Well I didn't as much overlook them as I could not put them in my post because there is a limit of 5 videos. But I will gladly share them here:


























I could not find Yoncheva's _Tu Che le Vanita_ so I chose instead her duet with Don Carlos. As for the other performances you've mentioned, I couldn't find videos of them. Now, I am not as enthusiastic as you are about what can be heard above. I believe my main criticism stands: vocal performances are sub-par and the acting is not enough to save the opera from losing its dramatic tension (which is already stretch to the maximum in some operas) and therefore becoming silly. You may find silly too strong a word, but it is the only one that comes to my mind. I use it to refer to the feeling of watching something that is suppose to be highly dramatic and not being able to believe in it because some ingredients are missing or because something is constantly taking you away from the world of drama and back to reality. In our case, the element which is always bringing us back to reality would be the inadequacy of the vocal performances. How can I believe Eboli's plight when the singer doesn't have the heft and the strong declamatory power (only possible with a well-developed chest voice) to meet the aria's demand, but also the level of intensity that the dramatic situation demands. If the character doesn't react properly to the situation he faces, then the suspension of disbelief falls apart. In the theater, actors necessarily use their chest voice, and it gives them the necessary declamatory power to meet the demands of all dramatic situations and to be heard everywhere. Where are the chest voices in the videos above? Nowhere, or slighty peeking their heads from under the stratum of tension which blocks the throat of most modern singers. But of course all of this is only my opinion.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

This stuff can get all over the place. Nina liked Boris and I'm a huge fan of the opera and the chosen version but was very disappointed. Kelsey didn't sound like this clip in the house and generally his acting was extremely good, best in the tender moments and Rigoletto HAS to have that. Davidsen was awesome to the max and the production of Ariadne is one of my absolute favorite nights in 50 years at that house. 

I believe that directors are often getting in the way of things but the quality of operatic acting between now and when I started going in '69....not even a discussion! I don't agree that they are dramatically at sea. Some good, some not. And the camera is not always an opera singers friend.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Thank you Parsifal, I appreciate you for being fair whether or not we agree on a singer's performance or not. At least, perhaps, you might agree that even though you were not enamored of the ones I suggested, they were far better examples than the ones you chose.
I do not disagree with you that the majority of singers we have today do not compare with The Golden Age but I love opera so much that I do not have the time to sit around and bemoan like a baby the fact that those days are gone.
I simply pick the wheat from the chaff and I am satisfied.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

ScottK said:


> This stuff can get all over the place. Nina liked Boris and I'm a huge fan of the opera and the chosen version but was very disappointed. Kelsey didn't sound like this clip in the house and generally his acting was extremely good, best in the tender moments and Rigoletto HAS to have that. Davidsen was awesome to the max and the production of Ariadne is one of my absolute favorite nights in 50 years at that house.
> 
> I believe that directors are often getting in the way of things but the quality of operatic acting between now and when I started going in '69....not even a discussion! I don't agree that they are dramatically at sea. Some good, some not. And the camera is not always an opera singers friend.


The camera is not every singer's friend, but the closeups are definitely inimical - no singer can look good straining to get a note out, or opening wide to emit a high note, or a _forte_ one; nor can their teeth sustain that much attention except to their dentists. At *Ariadne auf Naxos * how can one enjoy seeing saliva fly from the beautiful Ariadne's mouth?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

"Opera as Drama" is a vast subject. What interests me here is the idea that the dramatic effectiveness of opera is greatly dependent on the projection of the music, of which the singing is generally the most critical part. Opera is, fundamentally, drama _through_ music, and I find that every single one of the above videos provides sad evidence of this. But the physical acting in opera is also subject to musical requirements. Convincing acting in opera is not identical to convincing acting in straight theater, just as the acting requirements of theater are not identical to those of film. Operatic acting is, I think, an art of its own, and music is its director. Opera's dramatic demands are best met when interpreters know how to translate the content of the score into both vocal performance and physical movement in a way that makes the two seem integral and inseparable. The great operatic artist acts with the voice and sings with the body. Watch Callas and Gobbi in _Tosca!_

We're presently (still) in the age of the director, and singers in opera are encouraged to think of themselves as servants, not of the composer and his music, but of the director whose "conception" is what audiences are expected to consider. Under the circumstances it may be that the inability of singers to do justice to their music is considered by many to be quite tolerable - if they're even aware of it - since the dramatic focus of the productions before them resides somewhere other than in what the singer-actors are able to contribute as individuals having unique powers and ideas of their own. The directorial fancies we're presented with may be "interesting," even fascinating and enjoyable as theatrical experiences (though they may be none of the above), but if we're really moved it's the singers and conductor who are most likely responsible. Dip into some of the RAI opera films from the 1950s and you may appreciate what's missing in recent years.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Parsifal98 said:


>


Are those pajamas and a leather belt he's wearing?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Parsifal98 said:


> the wobbling pandemic at the Met


Don't you feel like telling them, "If you're going to wobble, at least wobble with a mask on!"


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> "Opera as Drama" is a vast subject. What interests me here is the idea that the dramatic effectiveness of opera is greatly dependent on the projection of the music, of which the singing is generally the most critical part. Opera is, fundamentally, drama _through_ music, and I find that every single one of the above videos provides sad evidence of this. But the physical acting in opera is also subject to musical requirements. Convincing acting in opera is not identical to convincing acting in straight theater, just as the acting requirements of theater are not identical to those of film. Operatic acting is, I think, an art of its own, and music is its director. Opera's dramatic demands are best met when interpreters know how to translate the content of the score into both vocal performance and physical movement in a way that makes the two seem integral and inseparable. The great operatic artist acts with the voice and sings with the body. Watch Callas and Gobbi in _Tosca!_
> 
> We're presently (still) in the age of the director, and singers in opera are encouraged to think of themselves as servants, not of the composer and his music, but of the director whose "conception" is what audiences are expected to consider. Under the circumstances it may be that the inability of singers to do justice to their music is considered by many to be quite tolerable - if they're even aware of it - since the dramatic focus of the productions before them resides somewhere other than in what the singer-actors are able to contribute as individuals having unique powers and ideas of their own. The directorial fancies we're presented with may be "interesting," even fascinating and enjoyable as theatrical experiences (though they may be none of the above), but if we're really moved it's the singers and conductor who are most likely responsible. Dip into some of the RAI opera films from the 1950s and you may appreciate what's missing in recent years.


Operatic acting, as you say, should be dictated by the music and too often these days it is applied from without, which is why I often find the "acting" of her Nebs rather vulgar. Apparently Serafin once said to Callas, "If you want to know how to act on stage, just listen to the music because the composer has already taken care of that." Obviously there is a great deal more to it than that, but the nugget is true. Too often I see singers doing something on stage that goes completely counter to what the music is saying. Sometimes it's the fault of the director, who quite often these days won't have a musical bone in his or her body.Take as an example the end of *Fidelio*. I maintain you can hear in the music the exact moment Leonore releases Florestan from his shackles, but I rarely see it happen on stage.

Those who saw Callas on stage attest to the fact that her acting was always a response to the music. Just watch her emote through the long orchestral prelude to the Mad Scene from Bellini's *Il Pirata* or sing _Oh se una volta sola_ into _Ah non credea_ from *La Sonnambula*. Admittedly these are in concert, but she does more real acting by not moving off the spot than many sopranos do in a whole opera.






And this is before she even starts to sing!


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> "Opera as Drama" is a vast subject. What interests me here is the idea that the dramatic effectiveness of opera is greatly dependent on the projection of the music, of which the singing is generally the most critical part. Opera is, fundamentally, drama _through_ music, and I find that every single one of the above videos provides sad evidence of this. But the physical acting in opera is also subject to musical requirements. Convincing acting in opera is not identical to convincing acting in straight theater, just as the acting requirements of theater are not identical to those of film. Operatic acting is, I think, an art of its own, and music is its director. Opera's dramatic demands are best met when interpreters know how to translate the content of the score into both vocal performance and physical movement in a way that makes the two seem integral and inseparable. The great operatic artist acts with the voice and sings with the body. Watch Callas and Gobbi in _Tosca!_
> 
> We're presently (still) in the age of the director, and singers in opera are encouraged to think of themselves as servants, not of the composer and his music, but of the director whose "conception" is what audiences are expected to consider. Under the circumstances it may be that the inability of singers to do justice to their music is considered by many to be quite tolerable - if they're even aware of it - since the dramatic focus of the productions before them resides somewhere other than in what the singer-actors are able to contribute as individuals having unique powers and ideas of their own. The directorial fancies we're presented with may be "interesting," even fascinating and enjoyable as theatrical experiences (though they may be none of the above), but if we're really moved it's the singers and conductor who are most likely responsible. Dip into some of the RAI opera films from the 1950s and you may appreciate what's missing in recent years.


Woody: Your reasoning is quite sound because without the drama what you would have is a concert piece; yet without the music what you would have is a theater piece. 
Opera is theater through music. That is why I believe that one cannot make a true choice of which one is better -- music or drama, because both are a part of the other.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Woody: Your reasoning is quite sound because without the drama what you would have is a concert piece; yet without the music what you would have is a theater piece.
> Opera is theater through music. That is why I believe that one cannot make a true choice of which one is better -- music or drama, because both are a part of the other.


It seems to me that you may be contradicting yourself, and may be mistaking my position, though I'm not certain of either. It isn't a question of which aspect of opera is "better," but of which controls the form and execution of the others. I'm asserting that the controlling power in opera is music.

The debate about opera as drama with or through music, and how its elements relate to one another, goes all the way back to the Florentine Camerata, who set out to restore what they believed was the right relationship of music and poetry and so created opera. The effort to balance the elements of musical drama was continued most famously by Gluck and Wagner, the latter of whom spilled more words on the subject than anyone. His thinking evolved from a theory similar to that of the Camerata - that operatic music had become too independent and had lost touch with its essential dramatic function, and that music's proper position was to follow and illuminate the drama as shaped by the "poem," or libretto - to the insight that music's structural needs and its capacity to express what words and actions could not had to make it the dominant power in the artistic collaboration which is opera. That he came, through the experience of observing his own development as a composer, to the correct conclusion is probably best demonstrated by the simple, universal experience of listening to an opera at home, with or without a full comprehension of the words of the libretto. Doing that can't give us the full experience of an opera, but it can give us an essential experience of it that we wouldn't have even watching a full theatrical presentation of the work minus its music.

_La Traviata_ is an opera by Verdi, not by Dumas, Piave, Visconti, Giulini or Callas. At every step of its creation and presentation, the contributions of those people, whatever their importance in bringing us our total experience of the work, were shaped and given their deepest meaning by the world of feeling found in the music made by the composer. There is nothing as critical as the proper execution of that music to giving us a complete experience and understanding of _La Traviata_ as a work of art, and nothing as critical to the effective presentation of the work as the determination of everyone concerned with producing the opera to hear, understand and project what is found in the score.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> ....the insight that music's structural needs and its capacity to express what words and actions could not had to make it the dominant power in the artistic collaboration which is opera.


Not sure I recognize the importance, at this level of appreciation, of music's structural needs. But "it's capacity to express what words and actions could not"... that HAS to be it!

I'm forever being about to purchase Conrad Osborne's "Opera as Opera", but based on other readings of his and the title, I'd guess that this would be the core of the thinking.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ScottK said:


> Not sure I recognize the importance, at this level of appreciation, of music's structural needs. But "it's capacity to express what words and actions could not"... that HAS to be it!
> 
> I'm forever being about to purchase Conrad Osborne's "Opera as Opera", but based on other readings of his and the title, I'd guess that this would be the core of the thinking.


Osborne and I appear to agree on everything, as far as I can tell from his sometimes wordy but always knowledgeable and insightful writings. I've thought about getting his book, but so far I'm content with his monthly blog.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> _La Traviata_ is an opera by Verdi, not by Dumas, Piave, Visconti, Giulini or Callas. At every step of its creation and presentation, the contributions of those people, whatever their importance in bringing us our total experience of the work, were shaped and given their deepest meaning by the world of feeling found in the music made by the composer. There is nothing as critical as the proper execution of that music to giving us a complete experience and understanding of _La Traviata_ as a work of art, and nothing as critical to the effective presentation of the work as the determination of everyone concerned with producing the opera to hear, understand and project what is found in the score.


Something with which Visconti, Giulini and Callas would all have agreed, I feel sure. Indeed Callas is quoted on many occasions, saying that the music must come first and the task of the interpreter is to reveal, as best as they can, the vision of the composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Something with which Visconti, Giulini and Callas would all have agreed, I feel sure. Indeed Callas is quoted on many occasions, saying that the music must come first and the task of the interpreter is to reveal, as best as they can, the vision of the composer.


Verdi would have been ecstatic over how seriously they approached his work a century after its premiere. I wonder what he would have said about slinky Anna Netrebko throwing wine glasses around, hanging off the hands of a clock, looking quite healthy for three hours and then collapsing on the floor of a room without a bed?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Verdi would have been ecstatic over how seriously they approached his work a century after its premiere. I wonder what he would have said about slinky Anna Netrebko throwing wine glasses around, hanging off the hands of a clock, looking quite healthy for three hours and then collapsing on the floor of a room without a bed?


He might well have hated it. For that matter, Wagner might well have hated the stark, abstract Bayreuth stagings of his grandsons, which were seminal in the whole Regietheater movement. It seems to me, though, that the last seventy-odd years have at least raised questions about just what it can mean to put the music first and reveal the vision of the composer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> He might well have hated it. For that matter, Wagner might well have hated the stark, abstract Bayreuth stagings of his grandsons, which were seminal in the whole Regietheater movement. It seems to me, though, that the last seventy-odd years have at least raised questions about just what it can mean to put the music first and reveal the vision of the composer.


I don't believe Wieland Wagner's ideas had anything to do with regietheater. He didn't try to impose alien meanings on his granddad's works, or contradict what was in the music or texts. In the main, he was stripping away realistic props and "period" qualities in search of a quality of universality, merely expressing Wagner's basic dramatic ideas through an updated aesthetic. He wasn't the first; the trend toward simplified, abstract stagings relying more and more on light was already under way early in the 20th century, and Wieland owed much to the theories of Adolphe Appia and the productions of Alfred Roller, whose simple 1903 staging of _Tristan_ for Mahler in Vienna is noteworthy.

There's plenty of room for creativity within the boundaries of respect for a composer's work. In countless recent productions the idea seems to be, at best, an attempt to create a sort of provocative "dialogue" between the work and someone's ideas about it. I think it's a fine line to walk, and that few directors have the genius to preserve the greatness of operatic masterpieces while offering something radically new.


----------



## ScottK (Dec 23, 2021)

p


Woodduck said:


> I
> There's plenty of room for creativity within the boundaries of respect for a composer's work.


A case in point, for me. I always thought of Ariadne as a lovable, beautiful mess. The Present production blended the two opposing elements in an easy way I never expected nor would have thought possible. I found the show I watched to be infinitely clear - as though telling THAT STORY was the simplest thing in the world. I was not able, at shows end, to state clearly any take away message or put a label on what I'd seen. I had a sense of experiencing glorious sound, radiant and unexpectedly creative visuals and genuine laugh out loud comedy. That's my idea of a hit!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I don't believe Wieland Wagner's ideas had anything to do with regietheater. He didn't try to impose alien meanings on his granddad's works, or contradict what was in the music or texts. In the main, he was stripping away realistic props and "period" qualities in search of a quality of universality, merely expressing Wagner's basic dramatic ideas through an updated aesthetic. He wasn't the first; the trend toward simplified, abstract stagings relying more and more on light was already under way early in the 20th century, and Wieland owed much to the theories of Adolphe Appia and the productions of Alfred Roller, whose simple 1903 staging of _Tristan_ for Mahler in Vienna is noteworthy.
> 
> There's plenty of room for creativity within the boundaries of respect for a composer's work. In countless recent productions the idea seems to be, at best, an attempt to create a sort of provocative "dialogue" between the work and someone's ideas about it. I think it's a fine line to walk, and that few directors have the genius to preserve the greatness of operatic masterpieces while offering something radically new.


You needn't see Wieland Wagner's work as regietheater, but in that case your dispute is less with me than with Wikipedia. We don't all have to adhere to exactly the same definition, of course, but I've sometimes had the frustrating feeling that people load their argument by defining regietheater as only what they _don't_ like.

That said, by way of full disclosure I'll admit that, while I'm not opposed to directorial innovation in principle, I'm frequently put off by the result. Apparently, my tastes aren't as advanced (or corrupted) as I like to believe. Nonetheless, every now and then I'll see a non-traditional production that's exciting or illuminating enough to make me keep an open mind.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> You needn't see Wieland Wagner's work as regietheater, but in that case your dispute is less with me than with Wikipedia. We don't all have to adhere to exactly the same definition, of course, but I've sometimes had the frustrating feeling that people load their argument by defining regietheater as only what they _don't_ like.
> 
> That said, by way of full disclosure I'll admit that, while I'm not opposed to directorial innovation in principle, I'm frequently put off by the result. Apparently, my tastes aren't as advanced (or corrupted) as I like to believe. Nonetheless, every now and then I'll see a non-traditional production that's exciting or illuminating enough to make me keep an open mind.


I don't feel any need to define the boundaries of regietheater, but neither do I feel a need to address the concept at all except when a production obviously negates, contradicts or undermines the obvious nature and meaning of an opera. I suppose clearing away traditional props such as helmets, animals and furniture struck people as doing that in 1951, so I don't really want to argue with anyone who feels that way. I'd only say that from my perspective in 2022, having seen assault rifles and swastikas on the set of _Parsifal_ and hordes of choristers in pink and yellow mouse suits on the set of _Lohengrin,_ an empty stage filled with colored light creating abstract designs on scrims looks (and by now actually is) quite traditional.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

amfortas said:


> You needn't see Wieland Wagner's work as regietheater, but in that case your dispute is less with me than with Wikipedia. We don't all have to adhere to exactly the same definition, of course, but I've sometimes had the frustrating feeling that people load their argument by defining regietheater as only what they _don't_ like.
> 
> That said, by way of full disclosure I'll admit that, while I'm not opposed to directorial innovation in principle, I'm frequently put off by the result. Apparently, my tastes aren't as advanced (or corrupted) as I like to believe. Nonetheless, every now and then I'll see a non-traditional production that's exciting or illuminating enough to make me keep an open mind.


There is no question that the work by Weiland Wagne4 was viewed as 'regietheatre' (although the term wasn't then in vogue) by the traditionalists. Knappersbusch called him a 'scoundrel' and refused to conduct the Ring! Of course, Wagner'swork was seen elsewhere too in the work of composers other than his grandfather.
I enjoyed directorial innovation when it serves the conception of the work concerned and doesn't just pander to a director's vanity or serve his political ideas.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

marlow said:


> There is no question that the work by Weiland Wagne4 was viewed as 'regietheatre' (although the term wasn't then in vogue) by the traditionalists. Knappersbusch called him a 'scoundrel' and refused to conduct the Ring! Of course, Wagner'swork was seen elsewhere too in the work of composers other than his grandfather.


There's the story (wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsifal#Post-war_performances) that Kna wouldn't do _Parsifal_ without a dove appearing at the end, so Wieland had a dove come down on a string that was just long enough so that Knappertsbusch could see it, but short enough so that nobody else could! But Knappertsbusch did conduct the _Ring_ a few times at Bayreuth, including the first postwar _Ring_ in '51 (Karajan did the second cycle that year). https://www.bayreuther-festspiele.de/en/fsdb/performers/hans-knappertsbusch/


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Monsalvat said:


> There's the story (wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsifal#Post-war_performances) that Kna wouldn't do _Parsifal_ without a dove appearing at the end, so Wieland had a dove come down on a string that was just long enough so that Knappertsbusch could see it, but short enough so that nobody else could! But Knappertsbusch did conduct the _Ring_ a few times at Bayreuth, including the first postwar _Ring_ in '51 (Karajan did the second cycle that year). https://www.bayreuther-festspiele.de/en/fsdb/performers/hans-knappertsbusch/


Kna refused to conduct it after a few years he disagreed with the production. There is the story when someone ask him about how he could conduct such a thing that he said that when he conducted the dress rehearsal he thought the props were still to arrive!


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

marlow said:


> Ina refused to conduct it after the first year as he disagreed with the production.


That makes sense, thanks!


----------



## ColdGenius (9 mo ago)

It's Vladislav Sulimsky, leading baritone if Mariinsky theater. Unfortunately there are not so many recordings and videos. How do you find his Rigoletto?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Operatic acting, as you say, should be dictated by the music and too often these days it is applied from without, which is why I often find the "acting" of her Nebs rather vulgar. Apparently Serafin once said to Callas, "If you want to know how to act on stage, just listen to the music because the composer has already taken care of that." Obviously there is a great deal more to it than that, but the nugget is true. Too often I see singers doing something on stage that goes completely counter to what the music is saying. Sometimes it's the fault of the director, who quite often these days won't have a musical bone in his or her body.Take as an example the end of *Fidelio*. I maintain you can hear in the music the exact moment Leonore releases Florestan from his shackles, but I rarely see it happen on stage.
> 
> Those who saw Callas on stage attest to the fact that her acting was always a response to the music. Just watch her emote through the long orchestral prelude to the Mad Scene from Bellini's *Il Pirata* or sing _Oh se una volta sola_ into _Ah non credea_ from *La Sonnambula*. Admittedly these are in concert, but she does more real acting by not moving off the spot than many sopranos do in a whole opera.
> 
> ...


That has to be the most exquisite face of all the fancy, glamorous pics of La Divina I have ever seen. The pain of her own life bleeds right through the character.


----------

