# Corrections by others to the original score



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Following on from forum member _albertfallickwang_'s excellent thread on cuts in opera, I was wondering what others thought about corrections to perceived errors and weaknesses by composers and conductors?

The one which is most familiar to me is Mussorgsky's _Boris Godunov_ which was 'corrected' by both Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich although performances of orchestrations by these other composers are not as popular as they once were.

I recently purchased the Claudio Cavina version (2102) of _Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria_.










In the libretto booklet Cavina writes:

" ... numerous sections from the score make me doubt that Monteverdi was the only composer involved in writing this opera... " " ... in view of these considerations, I have taken the liberty of *correcting* (my bold) in the original score many notes, numerous harmonies and arranging some parts, basing my decisions on the style of the Cremonese composer and furthermore on _Orfeo_ which is from his Mantuan period but is also pure Monteverdi. "

Although some used to doubt the work's authenticity, from what I've read the work is now considered to be mostly Monteverdi. I appreciate that Claudio Cavina is an expert on Monteverdi but I don't agree with his view that the original score should be 'corrected'.

I wonder what others think?


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

I would say the proof is in the eating of the pudding. I've got the complete Carmen (Abbado + Domingo) with all the in-between talk and perhaps the voice actors didn't do a good job: sooooooooo dragging. Because of this experience I definitely prefer the crisp Carmen without the crap. Bizet's original full version really is a mistake. 

As to Boris Godunov I like both the original & the redone versions; both have grown on me. Rimsky changed the order of the scenes intelligently, but also Modest's original makes sense. 

With Baroque operas I'm an unscrupulous sinner, because I skip & jump from aria to aria. Doing so I actively 'correct' the score for my personal enjoyment... 

Should all prescribed repeats in a composition be observed by an interpreter? Sometimes I'm convinced in an interpretation by the dogmatic  the composer's work is sacred) approach, sometimes the undogmatic approach does it for me.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

It amused me that after all the hacking around Cord Garben did on Wagner's _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ to come up with the so called "Colón _Ring_," he screamed like a banshee when those performing this truncated mishmash dared to restore some of the cuts he'd made, and swore he'd ensure that such a thing never occurred again. Evidently, Herr Garben saw nothing objectionable in his butchery of Wagner's compositions, but was incensed that anyone would dare to touch his "masterpiece."


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

MAuer said:


> It amused me that after all the hacking around Cord Garben did on Wagner's _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ to come up with the so called "Colón _Ring_," he screamed like a banshee when those performing this truncated mishmash dared to restore some of the cuts he'd made, and swore he'd ensure that such a thing never occurred again. Evidently, Herr Garben saw nothing objectionable in his butchery of Wagner's compositions, but was incensed that anyone would dare to touch his "masterpiece."




I've heard of the (in)famous Colón Ring but didn't know that!


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Somewhat related is what has happened to _Prince Igor_ by Alexander Borodin. It was unfinished at Borodin's death and was finished by Glazunov and Rimsky-Korsakov. Less than a third of the opera was composed and orchestrated by Borodin; most of it was orchestrated by Rimsky-Korsakov or Glazunov and some of it - such as the overture - was composed by Glazunov.

The recent production by the Metropolitan Opera and the De Nationale Opera (Amsterdam) by Tcherniakov was based on an edition put together with Noseda and Smelkov, excising as much as possible not composed by Borodin. They re-did some of the orchestration and even interpolated a few other Borodin pieces to try and make it work.



mountmccabe said:


> Pavel Smelkov (who conducted the performance I attended) also did additional orchestration, which I believe was for other Borodin pieces interpolated in to the final act. This is more questionable especially since, in my mind, it didn't fit. Nothing went together, the libretto, the music, the action on the stage all seemed at odds with each other (and I have no reason to believe that that was on purpose).


I don't think this version was entirely successful but it was a very interesting exercise.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

TxllxT said:


> I would say the proof is in the eating of the pudding. I've got the complete Carmen (Abbado + Domingo) with all the in-between talk and perhaps the voice actors didn't do a good job: sooooooooo dragging. Because of this experience I definitely prefer the crisp Carmen without the crap. Bizet's original full version really is a mistake.


I think that the 'crap' stems directly from the use of actors. The very first French language Carmen recording suffers from the same problem. If the singers spoke the dialogue themselves the performance would flow better IMO. And if actors are used because the non-French singers are too ill at ease in that language to act in French, then what the heck are those singers doing performing French opera at all?


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Give me a _Don Carlo_ with every single thing as is (okay I could do without Eboli's Veil scene), but just be sure that the Fontainebleau scene is kept intact. The excuse given is that it's just too long. Well, I never saw 5 hours fly by as fast as this one does.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Figleaf said:


> I think that the 'crap' stems directly from the use of actors. The very first French language Carmen recording suffers from the same problem. If the singers spoke the dialogue themselves the performance would flow better IMO. And if actors are used because the non-French singers are too ill at ease in that language to act in French, then what the heck are those singers doing performing French opera at all?


I agree with pointing towards the actors and I'm for certain interested if there would (come to) exist a magically convincing fully complete Carmen. But the whole concept (singing - talking - singing - talking etc.) seems so strangely outdated to me. I bet Friedrich Nietzsche fell in love with the cut-out-the-talk Carmen and hailed it as a revolution...


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

TxllxT said:


> I agree with pointing towards the actors and I'm for certain interested if there would (come to) exist a magically convincing fully complete Carmen. But the whole concept (singing - talking - singing - talking etc.) seems so strangely outdated to me. I bet Friedrich Nietzsche fell in love with the cut-out-the-talk Carmen and hailed it as a revolution...


It's probably too late for a convincing (which also implies idiomatic) performance of anything in the 19th century French repertoire, and I also agree that nowadays we're not used to hearing the dialogue, which would automatically make it sound odd anyway. I've posted a few thoughts on the 1911 Carmen here:

http://www.talkclassical.com/36709-carmen-la-boh-me-4.html


----------

