# Seeing vs listening to opera, 2 opinions, what's yours?



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

We recently in another thread had a discussion regarding Parsifal, and listening to it vs. seeing it got some of our members to express opposing views.

I thought it would be fun to dig into this question in more detail - basically, the question of stage directing.

There is one famous opinion about it, from George Bernard Shaw, and most of us here probably have heard it before. However, many may not have heard what Patrice Chereau said to counter Shaw's opinion.

Shaw:

"The best way to go to opera is to sit in the back of a box, put your feet up a chair, and close your eyes. If your own imagination can't do at least as well as any scene painter, you shouldn't go to opera."

Chereau:

"Sure, but you can turn that around. You can say that if the director isn't capable of doing better than the imagination of the spectators, he's useless. Maybe that's just my personal pride, but that's how I see it. Sure, we can listen to an opera eyes closed. But that would make the stage meaningless, it would mean there would be no point in having a live orchestra and live singers. If we go to an opera, it means we want to see theater. We want to see this thing that exists nowhere else, the thing you can only find in the theater: people living on stage who represent an action and who tell us a story with sentiments and emotion."

So, which side is yours?

(Mine is Chereau's).


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I'd have to go with Chereau here. It seems almost ironic that Shaw tries to undermine the entire idea of gesamtkunstwerk that Wagner strove for, and as I recall he was as big a Wagner fan as the next guy. So to say that staging is useless would kill the whole use of trying for gesamtkunstwerk.

Besides, if we should just imagine the staging, maybe we should just "imagine" the music also? Why do we go to concerts/operas if we could just imagine the music in our minds?

I like Chereau's opinion because 1) it provides answers to all the questions Shaw brings up, 2) he's challenging himself and other stage artists to transcend the bounds of human imagination, and 3) he's doing a darn good job of defending his profession. Shaw is not.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

World Violist said:


> I'd have to go with Chereau here. It seems almost ironic that Shaw tries to undermine the entire idea of gesamtkunstwerk that Wagner strove for, and as I recall he was as big a Wagner fan as the next guy. So to say that staging is useless would kill the whole use of trying for gesamtkunstwerk.
> 
> Besides, if we should just imagine the staging, maybe we should just "imagine" the music also? Why do we go to concerts/operas if we could just imagine the music in our minds?
> 
> I like Chereau's opinion because 1) it provides answers to all the questions Shaw brings up, 2) he's challenging himself and other stage artists to transcend the bounds of human imagination, and 3) he's doing a darn good job of defending his profession. Shaw is not.


Exactly. But then, if we want to discuss stage directing in depth, we need to also consider other controversial points: regietheater, and updating.

About the latter, I read another very interesting opinion from another stage director, Robert Carsen. Recently in the Six Essential Opera DVDs thread I listed the Salzburg La Traviata as one of my favorites. It's in modern dress. Some users were turned off by it (not necessarily because of the update), and the comparison between the Glyndebourne Cosi and the Salzburg Cosi (the latter in modern dress) also went the same way. Here is what Carsen said:

"... La Traviata, say - it's important to know what that work represented to the composer. Why did he bother to write it? I mention La Traviata because the story was close to Verdi's heart. It was something he was living through; this woman who was treated so appallingly, and the hypocrisy of his age [he is talking about Verdi's wife]. He was tired of writing about historical subjects and wanted to write a modern piece. In a famous letter, he said he wanted to write about "un sogeto dell'epoca." Which is why it's ironic that opera audiences sometimes forget, or are not aware of that fact when they complain about La Traviata being staged in modern dress. It's betraying that Verdi wanted to do anything else. He wanted to have the audience look at themselves on the stage."

So, I'm with him on this, I'm for tasteful updating when there is a good reason to do it, like the above.

Regietheater on the other hand I'm not fond of. The same director also says about Der Rosenkavalier, that he was struck about two details that many people don't notice (or they do, but don't grant it much importance): "She's called the Feldmarschallin. The Feldmarshal is the head of the Austrian army. ... We're only told one thing about Sophie's father, Herr von Faninal, apart from the fact that he is incredibly rich: he is an arms dealer and supplies the army which is stationed in Holland. ... And I thought, that's interesting. It's the Zeitgeist: the opera was composed two years before World War I, when Austria was arming itself. ... Hofmannsthal made her husband, this dark, threatening force who frightens everyone all the way through the opera, the head of the army. I thought, well, you can't ignore that. I pushed it very far, and the Austrians got cross because I set the whole thing at the end of the Hapsburgs, just before World War I. And when Sophie and Octavian sing at the end, "it's a dream, it can't really be" I showed, behind them, the Field Marshall leading the army into battle - so in fact the dream is about to end the next moment."

OKaaayyy... Sounds interesting... but it is indeed a bit of Regietheater. Justifed, or not?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

There are some curious ideas in the above post. However, I think that, like music at the turn of the century, all of these "regietheatre" and "eurotrash" things will have made their impact. Not to say they'll be the only thing happening in 30 years, just that their importance to the zeitgeist will have made itself known and when directors choose to move toward a more conservative, integrated style they will have a greater pool from which to thoughtfully and (hopefully) tastefully draw. Besides, for all the junk people give Schoenberg or whoever, you have to keep in the back of your mind that this was progress, and progress is almost by definition haphazard, risky, and treading the line of good taste.

So yes, I do think regietheatre and updating are all very important things, if only for 30 years down the line. As for right now, though, I mostly agree with you, although I can't keep my mind out of the "30 years down the line..." scenario. The Glyndebourne L'incoronazione di Poppea DVD is in modern dress and has people toting guns etc., but I think it was significant. I watched the little special thing and found it very well reasoned, and the effect of the opening especially was very good and pronounced etc. I haven't gotten through the whole thing yet (I really must just sit down and do it), but I imagine the rest is similar in effect.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

World Violist said:


> There are some curious ideas in the above post. However, I think that, like music at the turn of the century, all of these "regietheatre" and "eurotrash" things will have made their impact. Not to say they'll be the only thing happening in 30 years, just that their importance to the zeitgeist will have made itself known and when directors choose to move toward a more conservative, integrated style they will have a greater pool from which to thoughtfully and (hopefully) tastefully draw. Besides, for all the junk people give Schoenberg or whoever, you have to keep in the back of your mind that this was progress, and progress is almost by definition haphazard, risky, and treading the line of good taste.
> 
> So yes, I do think regietheatre and updating are all very important things, if only for 30 years down the line. As for right now, though, I mostly agree with you, although I can't keep my mind out of the "30 years down the line..." scenario. The Glyndebourne L'incoronazione di Poppea DVD is in modern dress and has people toting guns etc., but I think it was significant. I watched the little special thing and found it very well reasoned, and the effect of the opening especially was very good and pronounced etc. I haven't gotten through the whole thing yet (I really must just sit down and do it), but I imagine the rest is similar in effect.


This is an interesting way to see it, World Violist - to project ourselves 30 years ahead and see what will be left of these extreme productions.

I'm on a quoting mode today.:lol: Not that I wouldn't want to express my own views on this, but I'm willing to get into this thread the opinion of true professionals in the field, to enlighten our discussion of these issues. So here is what, this time, a conductor said - and a mightly good one, I'm looking forward to his Met debut a couple of weeks from now in Cosi, I'm talking about William Christie, and everything I've seen with his Les Arts Florissants, I simply loved!

So here is what he says about updating and regietheater:

"Can you imagine a Wagner revival with the costumes and scenerey of the 1870's and 1880's? You've seen the photos. Can you imagine the Rhinemaidens today as they were originally? We can do that, but it would be pretty horrible." :lol: I loved what he said here...

But then, on regietheater:

"Wicked, and evil sometimes, stage directors... someone who thinks he is more important, who thinks he has a better idea, or more talent, than the composer and the librettist. When someone says - This libretto is crap. We're going to change it, rewrite a few scenes. ... The whole regietheater, I mean,there are some things that are simply appallingly bad. There are things that can be quite good. But when someone says - We have to do something with these pieces, because they have to be appropriate to a modern age, they've got to say something to us - well, you can go off the deep end when you do that kind of stuff. Respect for music, respect for the singer, respect for the libretto, seem to me fundamental. I love mixing modern and old. I love Wagner in modern dress, as I love Lully or Rameau in modern dress. A production can be wild, it can offend people, but I like it to be immensely respectful of what the work is musically."

Just as an illustration, I saw a Benvenuto Cellini that had a helicopter and two robots, one of them just like Star Wars C3PO. Pushing too far... going the deep end, in my opinion.

But that Poppea that you mention, I saw it, and liked it as well, didn't think the guns were obtrusive.

By the way, Christie also rejects the label of "authentic" to his Les Arts Florissants. He defends period instruments given some specific techniques of the baroque music that are less successful if played in modern instruments, and talks about a difference in pitch, saying that Monteverdi was played at a whole tone higher than the modern pitch. But he says that there is no way to be "authentic" since we actually have no clue about how they staged, played, and sang these operas at the time - and I'd add, we don't even have castrati...


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Well, I do my best to like modern and updated productions so that I can be as cool as everyone else. Sometimes it works for me, sometimes it doesn't. I guess you have to judge each production on it's own merits.

Leaving aside the (to me anyway) obvious problems of referring to a guy who looks no different from you or me as a water goblin or finding out that people of the old Roman empire fought their wars with machine guns, musically too updating an opera can be at odds with the nature of a work and with what the composer had in mind. Take for example Der Rosenkavalier. Strauss uses a lot of waltszes in that opera because they evoke the time in which the opera is set. This is no longer the case if you update the work to the 21st century.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> "Can you imagine a Wagner revival with the costumes and scenerey of the 1870's and 1880's? You've seen the photos. Can you imagine the Rhinemaidens today as they were originally? We can do that, but it would be pretty horrible." :lol:


I've got a lot of respect for Mr.Christie, but this comment strikes me as a bit of a caricature. Nobody - not even the most convinced traditionalists would like to copy a production from 1870. Today they don't make movies anymore like they did in the 1920's either, but they might still tell the same stories with the same recognizable characters. And that's the essence of it all. The Rhinemaidens don't have to look like they did in 1870, but they still need to look like Rhinemaidens to me, and not like prostitutes.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> I've got a lot of respect for Mr.Christie, but this comment strikes me as a bit of a caricature. Nobody - not even the most convinced traditionalists would like to copy a production from 1870. Today they don't make movies anymore like they did in the 1920's either, but they might still tell the same stories with the same recognizable characters. And that's the essence of it all. The Rhinemaidens don't have to look like they did in 1870, but they still need to look like Rhinemaidens to me, and not like prostitutes.


Interesting, I did comment here that I didn't like the fact that the Rhinemaidens in the recent Met production looked like ****s.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> Take for example Der Rosenkavalier. Strauss uses a lot of waltszes in that opera because they evoke the time in which the opera is set. This is no longer the case if you update the work to the 21st century.


Gaston's put his finger on the problem that I can never get past, but for me it's a more general one that I've mentioned before. If what we're hearing doesn't match what we're seeing, the artistic unity of the opera is lost, and when that happens, 'eyes closed' or 'audio only' is the best option for me.

Christie (on whom be praise heaped for all sorts of reasons) is right when he says we can never know what the truly 'authentic' is, but the problem isn't one of authenticity in some nit-picking, scholarly sense. It's the jarring difficulty of having to reconcile music that sounds utterly redolent of its historic period with (let's say) the appearance of thugs with machine guns. It's like putting a Watteau in a modern stainless steel picture frame.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

These are all really interesting points, but being the non-opera buff I am, I'll not say anything else just yet.

I would like to add another twist, though. Has anyone here heard of Bill Viola's new (well not really new, it's a few years old) "staging" of Tristan und Isolde that Esa-Pekka Salonen has been taking around the world? It's an art video production. I would have gone to see one of the performances if it was physically possible; the performances at that time were in Britain, and they were already sold out months ahead of the actual performances.

Anyway, word has it that it is an intoxicating production, and I'm beginning to wonder if video productions might be becoming a new trend.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

World Violist said:


> These are all really interesting points, but being the non-opera buff I am, I'll not say anything else just yet.
> 
> I would like to add another twist, though. Has anyone here heard of Bill Viola's new (well not really new, it's a few years old) "staging" of Tristan und Isolde that Esa-Pekka Salonen has been taking around the world? It's an art video production. I would have gone to see one of the performances if it was physically possible; the performances at that time were in Britain, and they were already sold out months ahead of the actual performances.
> 
> Anyway, word has it that it is an intoxicating production, and I'm beginning to wonder if video productions might be becoming a new trend.


No, I haven't. It sounds scary, though...:lol:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Gaston's put his finger on the problem that I can never get past, but for me it's a more general one that I've mentioned before. If what we're hearing doesn't match what we're seeing, the artistic unity of the opera is lost, and when that happens, 'eyes closed' or 'audio only' is the best option for me.
> 
> Christie (on whom be praise heaped for all sorts of reasons) is right when he says we can never know what the truly 'authentic' is, but the problem isn't one of authenticity in some nit-picking, scholarly sense. It's the jarring difficulty of having to reconcile music that sounds utterly redolent of its historic period with (let's say) the appearance of thugs with machine guns. It's like putting a Watteau in a modern stainless steel picture frame.


Yes, it's a valid point, but one that puzzles me and I keep getting really unsure about my own opinion on it. Maybe my true opinion would be that it depends on the opera, and that's why I keep liking updates sometimes, and I don't like them at other times.

Take the modern dress La Traviata I've mentioned - it works perfectly. It doesn't detract from the music at all. That's what I think Christie has in mind when he says a production can be wild but can't disregard the music. And the argument that Verdi intended the story to connect with the current lives of the public does seem to call for modern dresses. I got the new La Traviata in Paris DVD, and was enchanted by how precisely it reproduces the demi-monde scene with the gorgeous Parisian locations and precise time-appropriate dresses. But I watched it with a sense of - "this is what it looked like in the real thing" since we know that there are hints of reality in the original story by Dumas, who wrote the piece thinking of a former mistress of his. But then, in spite of my enchantment with the perfect period characterization, it was like watching a pretty movie, but it didn't connect with me the way the Salzburg modern dress production did. I think the Salzburg had a lot more dramatic impact.

The lavishly praised Les Indes Galantes has some amazing visuals... and amazing music. The staging is modern-looking but it is basically period staging. You can have spectacular, appealing visuals for a modern public, and still set the piece in its proper time period. The only thing I didn't like was that ridiculous huge golden turkey, LOL.

On the other hand, I like my waltzes to be danced by people in waltz attire... For example, I think that Die Fledermaus in anything other than time-appropriate costumes would be a complete travesty, pun intended. That's because the specifics of the party music in that piece are so linked to a given period that they would feel completely out of place in another one. But it's not the same for La Traviata. Verdi's construction of his score has a lot to do with inner psychological states of his characters (I could go on and on about this, I studied this question a lot, but it would be too long to address here). These inner states exist unchanged it current people's minds... thus the fact that updating La Traviata is less of a problem than updating Die Fledermaus.

Cosi fan Tutte is another one that survives updates, and again, due to the same issue. Two friends end up sleeping with each others' fiancees, while manipulated by a sadistic-voyeristic-cynical older friend. You know, this stuff could happen these days (and probably does happen...). This plot is rich in conflicts that have to do with human sexuality, jealousy, man-woman power games and gender roles, class conflict, etc, who are eternal, even though some of it in the opera is time-specific with women at the time being in a less powerful position than they are nowadays. And Mozart's music is quite timeless as well, and when we see the recent Salzburg modern dress production, it's not too weird to listen to Mozart's score while looking at a modern appartment.

The Chatelet Les Troyens - that's another story. Berlioz's opera is concerned with History with a capital H. He's talking about the founding of civilizations. He's talking about the origines of the Roman empire and Aeneas' sense of historic duty overwhelming his personal life and his love for Didon. In this case, you *have* to address the piece in a time-specific setting. But then, you can have a visually modern staging, you can have mirrors, striking visuals, etc - but it is still clear that the action is set in the legendary time of the Trojan War. Then, you have soldiers in modern dress and machine guns - was this necessary, does this add anything to that production? No, I'd say. I loved that production for several reasons, but the anachronism in that detail was unnecessary. It's a touch of regietheater that I didn't like. It didn't destroy the production since it is so strong in other ways, but it just wasn't necessary. They could have stopped the updating at the strikingly visuals, no need for an anachronism.

The Poppea we've mentioned above, in fascist era dresses - well, that one worked. The oppressive nature of power just matched well the intentions of the original piece. In that one, the guns didn't disturb me.

So, again, it depends. We can't pass judgment on this in a blanket, one-size-fits-all manner.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> Yes, it's a valid point, but one that puzzles me and I keep getting really unsure about my own opinion on it.


I'm unsure too (but then I'm unsure about _everything_). But seriously, I share your sense of mystification about why it works sometimes and why it sometimes doesn't. What's more, the reasons are going to be different for each of us.

The sense of fun that pervades _Les Indes Galantes_ seemes to sweep away all objections - even when they carry anachronistic suitcases it doesn't seem to matter - it seems like a gentle wink to remind us that this is really now and not then, and aren't we lucky to be enjoying ourselves like this. But then when a similar thing is done, like the boiler suits and the fluffy bunnies in Purcell's _Fairy Queen_, it sticks in my throat and ruins everything. I honestly don't know where the line comes.

I was going to say more but have to stop!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm replying to this from another perspective. CDs v DVDs.

I started off with no DVDs at all & only ever listened to CDs. I followed the libretto if I had one & used my imagination for the characters & scenes.

Of course I do now watch DVDs but sometimes I still prefer the version I created in my mind years ago.

And in some cases I wouldn't even bother with the DVD. La battaglia di Legnano has some sublime music but this is what one reviewer said about the only DVD available.

_"January 8, 2010
By Dr. Dragoslav Aleksic (Ljubljana Slovenia)

This review is from: Verdi - La Battaglia di Legnano (DVD)
Beautiful opera but done very bad. I is cut as almost did the Nelo Santi , who obviously hate the opera as most conducters.....is is short opera and to make cuts it is shocking. There is no second second verse of Lina's Cabaletta and there is a cut in beautiful duet from act I (soprano-tenore). Ugly and dull staging. Buy the version on CD Philips- Ricciarelli, Carreras, Manuguerra and you shall see what brilliant music this opera is." _ sic

I wouldn't not buy just because someone didn't like it but after reading about the cuts, I won't bother with this.

A couple of arias


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sospiro said:


> I'm replying to this from another perspective. CDs v DVDs.
> 
> I started off with no DVDs at all & only ever listened to CDs. I followed the libretto if I had one & used my imagination for the characters & scenes.
> 
> ...


Well, it may be an example of an incompetent production, but it doesn't mean other opera productions can't go beyond the public's imagination.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Well I suspect my opinion may be an unpopular one, but...

My ideal opera experience is putting on my headphones, sitting alone in a quiet room with the libretto, and having a beer right by me. I don't want to see acting, dancing, etc - I just want to *hear* the music, the story, and how they interact with each other.

I don't care for staging - I'm not one to awe over costumes or set pieces, honestly, they don't do a thing for me. Just give me the music and story, let me follow the emotions and how they interact with each other...and yeah, a sip of beer here and there.


----------



## Grosse Fugue (Mar 3, 2010)

David58117 said:


> Well I suspect my opinion may be an unpopular one, but...
> 
> My ideal opera experience is putting on my headphones, sitting alone in a quiet room with the libretto, and having a beer right by me. I don't want to see acting, dancing, etc - I just want to *hear* the music, the story, and how they interact with each other.
> 
> I don't care for staging - I'm not one to awe over costumes or set pieces, honestly, they don't do a thing for me. Just give me the music and story, let me follow the emotions and how they interact with each other...and yeah, a sip of beer here and there.


I like staging but fair enough. The best way is the way that works for you.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

sospiro said:


> I'm replying to this from another perspective. CDs v DVDs.
> 
> I started off with no DVDs at all & only ever listened to CDs. I followed the libretto if I had one & used my imagination for the characters & scenes.
> 
> Of course I do now watch DVDs but sometimes I still prefer the version I created in my mind years ago.


I was much the same, for many, many years - and the watching of DVDs is a recent phenomenon for me (in fact I think Gaston may be almost single-handedly to be thanked (or to blame) for nudging me in that direction. But what works in the theatre doesn't always work well on a screen in the home, and some of my DVDs have proved to be not just disappointing, but have actually messed up that 'opera-in-the-imagination' that you speak of, by intruding visual memories that I'd rather forget.

Of course on the other hand, some of them have provided me with visual memories that far exceed the ones I'd imagined (the well-known _Les Indes Galantes_ and _Giulio Cesare_ productions being top-of-the-tree examples).


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Shaw:
> 
> "The best way to go to opera is to sit in the back of a box, put your feet up a chair, and *close your eyes. If your own imagination can't do at least as well as any scene painter, you shouldn't go to opera.*"
> 
> ...


How many people would just "close thier eyes" and listen to dialog and soundtrack of a movie.......just imagine the action on the screen in front of you in your head

People would say that is absurd......

Yet you are almost asking the same thing with opera examples above, music is there to support the action on opera stage not the other way around, our task is to seek out the best possible DVD, blu ray or live productions to view our favorite operas

I never really liked opera much till I could *see the action performed* in a production with subtitles then it all made much more sense, I enjoy CD versions now much more after seeing the production


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkAngel said:


> How many people would just "close thier eyes" and listen to dialog and soundtrack of a movie.......just imagine the action on the screen in front of you in your head
> 
> People would say that is absurd......
> 
> ...


Good, good. That's the point that my sig makes. The only point I'd slightly disagree with you is that I don't think music is there to support the action, I think music is the most important element, not to be relegated to a supporting role, but there are other very important elements that get lost if one pays exclusive attention to the music.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Good, good. That's the point that my sig makes. The only point I'd slightly disagree with you is that *I don't think music is there to support the action, I think music is the most important element, not to be relegated to a supporting role,* but there are other very important elements that get lost if one pays exclusive attention to tha music.


Although the music can be very beautiful and enjoyable on it own it really is composed and designed to support specific storyline and dialog occuring on stage.

*Verdi had to have a libretto with specific storyline laid out first to compose each opera, then the music and songs are composed to literally support the stage action.* Of course some music ideas maybe borrowed from previous work or have been floating around waiting for right opportunity to be used but they must support the story being told


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

DarkAngel said:


> *How many people would just "close thier eyes" and listen to dialog and soundtrack of a movie.......just imagine the action on the screen in front of you in your head
> 
> People would say that is absurd......
> 
> ...


That's not the same at all - libretto's give plenty of information on the scene, where characters are, what characters are involved, the actions that are taking place, etc. What's being imagined is *someone elses* imaginings of it.

And let's face it, anytime you bring something from imagination to real life you're going to face plenty of limitations. Don't you think turning something from imagination to a prop that fits on stage, traveling from city to city sort of cheapens it? Or turning a mountainous region into a few set pieces or a painted background?

As you can probably guess, I don't agree that music is there to support the action *on stage.* Music and the story are entwined, there's an ebb and flow of emotion...music highlighting that emotion is what is important, I think. There's nothing more beautiful than when both are in sync, symbiotically working to express some highly charged scene.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

David58117 said:


> That's not the same at all - libretto's give plenty of information on the scene, where characters are, what characters are involved, the actions that are taking place, etc. What's being imagined is *someone elses* imaginings of it.
> 
> And let's face it, anytime you bring something from imagination to real life you're going to face plenty of limitations. Don't you think turning something from imagination to a prop that fits on stage, traveling from city to city sort of cheapens it? Or turning a mountainous region into a few set pieces or a painted background?
> 
> As you can probably guess, I don't agree that music is there to support the action *on stage.* Music and the story are entwined, there's an ebb and flow of emotion...music highlighting that emotion is what is important, I think. There's nothing more beautiful than when both are in sync, symbiotically working to express some highly charged scene.


Basically what I was trying to get across in the _Parsifal_ thread, but expressed more elaborately and eloquently than I managed to do. Bravo.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

David58117 said:


> As you can probably guess, I don't agree that music is there to support the action *on stage.* Music and the story are entwined, there's an ebb and flow of emotion...music highlighting that emotion is what is important, I think. There's nothing more beautiful than when both are in sync, symbiotically working to express some highly charged scene.


Just because they are skillfully intertwined and have ebb and flow does not change the fact that in opera the story comes first and then music is composed to enhance and support the action on stage as described in story line....not the other way around. The story dictates what type of music the composer will eventually come up with


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

David58117 said:


> And let's face it, anytime you bring something from imagination to real life you're going to face plenty of limitations. Don't you think turning something from imagination to a prop that fits on stage, traveling from city to city sort of cheapens it? Or turning a mountainous region into a few set pieces or a painted background?


You could use the same logic and say why watch movies and limit the story presented instead of reading a book about it and just use your unlimited imagination to visualize things.......


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

I don't really think it's an 'arguing' kind of thing, but more of a 'perceptual' kind of thing that varies a lot from person to person. People are responsive in different degrees to the visual compared to the aural, and also, I suspect, in degrees of tolerance to what may be perceived as 'poor' on-stage presentation. I've seen DVDs that are so bad to look at that my enjoyment of the music has been ruined. I've seen live performances that weren't great to listen to but which were so interesting to watch that I had a fine old time. And some of my most memorable opera experiences have been had sitting in the garden on a sunny day with a box of CDs, a libretto and a pair of headphones. There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong about it: just what works for a given person on a given day, and what doesn't.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I don't really think it's an 'arguing' kind of thing, but more of a 'perceptual' kind of thing that varies a lot from person to person. People are responsive in different degrees to the visual compared to the aural, and also, I suspect, in degrees of tolerance to what may be perceived as 'poor' on-stage presentation. I've seen DVDs that are so bad to look at that my enjoyment of the music has been ruined. I've seen live performances that weren't great to listen to but which were so interesting to watch that I had a fine old time. And some of my most memorable opera experiences have been had sitting in the garden on a sunny day with a box of CDs, a libretto and a pair of headphones. There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong about it: just what works for a given person on a given day, and what doesn't.


What you are referring to, is a question of quality.

When you have an outstanding production that does justice to a fine opera, then you will have more pleasure watching it in the theater than listening to it in your garden on a sunny day with a box of CDs, a libretto and a pair of headphones.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkAngel said:


> Although the music can be very beautiful and enjoyable on it own it really is composed and designed to support specific storyline and dialog occuring on stage.


Not necessarily, DA. For example, I'd say that Wagner operated first and foremost from a musical idea.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Dark, did you really listen to Turandot and need the on stage performance to bring out the beauty for you? The emotion is just so incredible, the interplay between music and story is just perfect.....

To say that *the on stage performance* is what brings out that beauty is misleading, I think.

The story and the music are what draw out that emotion, not the props or the scenery or costume.

I'm not saying that staging is not important, just...when I listened to Turandot, the libretto and a beer right by me, and then afterwords looked up the youtube performance clips and saw the staging/costumes, that didn't *add* to what was already an amazing experience, at least for me. I got the emotion, the feelings, etc completely from the music/story. Same for every other opera I've listened to.

Follow the libretto, and let the music overwhelm you, is how I like my opera.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

David58117 said:


> Dark, did you really listen to Turandot and need the on stage performance to bring out the beauty for you? The emotion is just so incredible, the interplay between music and story is just perfect.....
> 
> To say that *the on stage performance* is what brings out that beauty is misleading, I think.
> 
> ...


Again, the quotes in the beginning of this thread address this question perfectly, since it is the job of a good stage director to do better than your imagination and stun you. Some do. Not all, but some do, and to stop yourself from enjoying what the good ones can do, is to limit yourself to the music/text aspects when these, as important as they are, are not all in the world of opera.

Again, opera is not lieder or a song cycle. Opera is a combined medium with elements of music, drama, text, acting, costumes, props, etc, and that's one of the reasons why it is even better than other musical genres (in the opinion of this opera lover, FWIW).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I suppose the question of whether it's best to see or only hear an opera can depend upon the work itself. Something like _Wozzeck_, in which each scene has only a couple of characters on stage at the same time, is quite easy to follow when listening to a recording. However there are some other operas where there may be less overt action, and more abstract ideas presented, like Schoenberg's _Moses und Aron_. It's probably better to be able to see works like the latter, to know exactly what's going on in the plot, and how the different bits relate to one another...


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Again, the quotes in the beginning of this thread address this question perfectly, since it is the job of a good stage director to do better than your imagination and stun you. Some do. Not all, but some do, and to stop yourself from enjoying what the good ones can do, is to limit yourself to the music/text aspects when these, as important as they are, are not all in the world of opera.
> 
> Again, opera is not lieder or a song cycle. Opera is a combined medium with elements of music, drama, text, acting, costumes, props, etc, and that's one of the reasons why it is even better than other musical genres (in the opinion of this opera lover, FWIW).


No matter how good the stage director is, they're working with severe limitations - budget, fitting something grand within the small scale space of a stage, human actors portraying something as marvelous as a God or as ugly as a dwarf (can't think what else).

It's not about having "unlimited imagination" that trumps everything else - it's about hiding *the limitations* that a live performance entails. A man dressed in elaborate costume being lifted in a wooden cloud above the stage is not exactly awe inspiring, neither would be actors parading about in a dragon costume while another one dances about it. Maybe it's just me, but all I see when I look at a live performance is people *pretending,* and that just takes me out of the experience all together.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

David58117 said:


> No matter how good the stage director is, they're working with severe limitations - budget, fitting something grand within the small scale space of a stage, human actors portraying something as marvelous as a God or as ugly as a dwarf (can't think what else).
> 
> It's not about having "unlimited imagination" that trumps everything else - it's about hiding *the limitations* that a live performance entails. A man dressed in elaborate costume being lifted in a wooden cloud above the stage is not exactly awe inspiring, neither would be actors parading about in a dragon costume while another one dances about it. Maybe it's just me, but all I see when I look at a live performance is people *pretending,* and that just takes me out of the experience all together.


This is true of all stage arts. Would you then dismiss all plays, ballets, etc., because people are pretending? You need to dismiss cinema as well, then.

The trick for good stage directing is to make do with what you have (space, machinery, props, etc), and do the best you can. This DVD may very well change your mind:










No, seriously. Watch it please, and report back if you will. I'd like to see if this spectacular production would change your mind.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> What you are referring to, is a question of quality.
> 
> When you have an outstanding production that does justice to a fine opera, then you will have more pleasure watching it in the theater than listening to it in your garden on a sunny day with a box of CDs, a libretto and a pair of headphones.


Yes, but there are exceptional circumstances. I first encountered _Manon_ in my garden on a sunny day with headphones and a libretto, and for the duration of the opera I completely inhabited an imagined world. Since then I've seen it live in a stunningly fine production, dazzlingly acted and sung, which I loved; and I've watched it several times on that superb DVD with Dessay and Villazon. Marvellous experiences, all. But that sunny day in the garden was The One. I was _there_, in Manon's world, in a way that the other experiences couldn't match.

By contrast, seeing English National Opera's _Gotterdammerung_, with Rita Hunter and Alberto Remedios in the late 70s was one of the central experiences of my entire life, which no _Ring_ recording has ever come close to.

I just don't think there are any rules about all this. Not only are we all different from each other, but we're different on different days. And the marvellous thing is that we now have new ways of experiencing opera that couldn't have been contemplated or anticipated a century ago, so we can satisfy the operatic urge almost any way we like.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Yes, but there are exceptional circumstances. I first encountered _Manon_ in my garden on a sunny day with headphones and a libretto, and for the duration of the opera I completely inhabited an imagined world. Since then I've seen it live in a stunningly fine production, dazzlingly acted and sung, which I loved; and I've watched it several times on that superb DVD with Dessay and Villazon. Marvellous experiences, all. But that sunny day in the garden was The One. I was _there_, in Manon's world, in a way that the other experiences couldn't match.
> 
> By contrast, seeing English National Opera's _Gotterdammerung_, with Rita Hunter and Alberto Remedios in the late 70s was one of the central experiences of my entire life, which no _Ring_ recording has ever come close to.
> 
> I just don't think there are any rules about all this. Not only are we all different from each other, but we're different on different days. And the marvellous thing is that we now have new ways of experiencing opera that couldn't have been contemplated or anticipated a century ago, so we can satisfy the operatic urge almost any way we like.


Excellent points, you pretty much offered closure to the issue at stake here. Just one observation about your Manon: that's because you watched it with Dessay instead of my Anna... She is so sexy and pretty in that production that I'm sure she would have smashed your sunny day garden experience to bits.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

The value of imagination is that that you change things and make them as you please in your mind, endlessly manipulate every aspect however..........

I can never imagine something as completely and in the same endless detail as seeing/touching it in real life, that is the value of reality and seeing a real performance as oppose to imagining it for me. I can live with the limitations of real people performing because they are really there for me to experience.....


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

A lot of opera composers relied on visual stimulus too as a source of inspiration. Handel often relied on imagery and could paint with music the total darkness surrounding worlds in despair, and Wagner was mad keen on his own staging.

But like any great operas, its music can be enjoyed without staging. I have CD recordings (i.e. no visual) of works close to heart often as the first experiences of these masterpices, and in some cases, the only experiences.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

L'opéra c'est par définition du théâtre chanté. Opera is by definition sung theatre.

no philosophy here, just true life.

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> L'opéra c'est par définition du théâtre chanté. Opera is by definition sung theatre.
> 
> no philosophy here, just true life.
> 
> Martin Pitchon


Tout à fait. Je suis completement d'accord!


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> A lot of opera composers relied on visual stimulus too as a source of inspiration. Handel often relied on imagery and could paint with music the total darkness surrounding worlds in despair, and Wagner was mad keen on his own staging.


Puccini used to visit opera houses all over Europe to see if his operas were staged according to his wishes and he was very upset over any detail that they got 'wrong.' It's rather absurd that in the era of the HIP movement where conductors, musicians and singers labour over every minute detail in an effort to 'get it right' there's simultaneously an attitude of anything goes when it comes to the visual aspects of a performance.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

David58117 said:


> Well I suspect my opinion may be an unpopular one, but...
> 
> My ideal opera experience is putting on my headphones, sitting alone in a quiet room with the libretto, and having a beer right by me. I don't want to see acting, dancing, etc - I just want to *hear* the music, the story, and how they interact with each other.
> 
> I don't care for staging - I'm not one to awe over costumes or set pieces, honestly, they don't do a thing for me. Just give me the music and story, let me follow the emotions and how they interact with each other...and yeah, a sip of beer here and there.


Same here. To me, opera is purely music, and music requires no visual element to be successful. When there is visual material it is always very distracting - then I'm thinking about how pretty or ugly the lead female is, how the staging looks, etc. There is a certain amount of drama and plot to every opera that might be aided with visual props, but they are not required for the music to have the necessary effect. I have listened to every Wagner opera on CD and I always find the experience to be enthralling..


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Same here. To me, opera is purely music, and music requires no visual element to be successful. When there is visual material it is always very distracting - then I'm thinking about how pretty or ugly the lead female is, how the staging looks, etc. There is a certain amount of drama and plot to every opera that might be aided with visual props, but they are not required for the music to have the necessary effect. I have listened to every Wagner opera on CD and I always find the experience to be enthralling..


I must respect your opinion, but I'll have to say that I'll never understand this kind of take. Opera just *isn't* purely music. Wagner himself didn't consider it like this at all, as proven by his detailed stage instructions.

One thing is to say that you don't like any of the visual aspects of opera and you only like the music of opera, sure, who am I to question your taste? But you just can't say (with any hope of being accurate) that opera is purely music, because it just isn't. Sorry, I know you said "to me," but still!

A phrase like this: "To me, the visual aspects of opera don't do anything and I prefer to do away with them" I can understand. But "To me, opera is purely music" I can't. There is a reason why operas are staged instead of just being presented in concert form.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Alma, you are probably right... Opera is music AND drama. I just find the visual elements distracting and unnecessary as far as following the story is concerned. If I can read a book and imagine what's going on, it's not very difficult to listen to an opera and imagine the story, which is usually much similar than what happens in a book.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Alma, you are probably right... Opera is music AND drama. I just find the visual elements distracting and unnecessary as far as following the story is concerned. If I can read a book and imagine what's going on, it's not very difficult to listen to an opera and imagine the story, which is usually much similar than what happens in a book.


OK, better now.
Yes, I do that too when I listen to an opera on CD with a libretto. But relatively frequently there are great productions that are better than what I can do with my imagination. Maybe your imagination is more fertile than mine. While some productions may ruin an opera, others add enjoyment to it.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth (Apr 14, 2010)

Almost always listen to opera recordings; rarely watch opera performances.

Of course, to get the most out of abstract listening, one must know the characters and plot.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*nothing against anything*

Same here. To me, opera is purely music, and music requires no visual element to be successful. When there is visual material it is always very distracting - then I'm thinking about how pretty or ugly the lead female is, how the staging looks, etc. There is a certain amount of drama and plot to every opera that might be aided with visual props, but they are not required for the music to have the necessary effect. I have listened to every Wagner opera on CD and I always find the experience to be enthralling.. 
======================================================
I respect every opinion..if you like opera, that's the main thing!

I bought many operas on DVD, my theatre in Montreal is awful and I like to follow operas while seeing and reading (subtitles) what the say. I enjoy this deeply and I can listen without viewing...I go to the gym 4 times a week and I listen to my Ipod while lifting weights! That is great too.

Martin Pitchon

:lol:


----------



## danslenoir (Nov 24, 2010)

For me, the visual spectacle adds greatly to the enjoyment of the music, especially for chorus numbers where there are plenty of singers on stage. 

On the flip side of the coin though, the music will rarely be to the level of one's favourite recorded performance/performers.

I'm going to see Die Zauberflote at the ROH in February/March 2011 and am greatly looking forward to it, but I know it is highly likely that I will find myself wishing it was Diana Damrau singing the Queen of the Night, rather than whoever it actually is.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

danslenoir said:


> ... I'm going to see Die Zauberflote at the ROH in February/March 2011 and am greatly looking forward to it, but I know it is highly likely that I will find myself wishing it was Diana Damrau singing the Queen of the Night, rather than whoever it actually is.


I hope you have a fantastic time but I know what you mean. Unless it's got Simon Keenlyside as Papageno and Diana Damrau I wouldn't go. In a way their interpretation on the DVD is so good it's spoiled it for me.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

danslenoir said:


> On the flip side of the coin though, the music will rarely be to the level of one's favourite recorded performance/performers.


If I'm not mistaken you have mentioned for the first time in this thread the biggest objection to my own approach.

I like, if possible, to approach a new opera (for me) in a fully staged production, be it live or on DVD or blu-ray. But like you said, it will be rarely (actually almost never) the best version in terms of singing.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> If I'm not mistaken you have mentioned for the first time in this thread the biggest objection to my own approach.
> 
> I like, if possible, to approach a new opera (for me) in a fully staged production, be it live or on DVD or blu-ray. But like you said, it will be rarely (actually almost never) the best version in terms of singing.


The playing field isn't level though, thankfully. When you're _there_, there's a buzz before it all starts, and in the intervals; and the people around you are buzzing too; and some young kids are asking their parents if this is the one with Nessun Dorma in it and their parents are trying not to disappoint them when they say 'no'; and then everything starts and this is a real orchestra and these are real people, and there's this amazing sound that's wafting up to your ears ('up' for me because we're nearly always way up there in the cheap seats) that makes your expensive hifi sound so hopelessly inadequate at conveying what it's like actually to _be_ here.

And there's this amazing thing going on down there on the stage, and it's a piece of _real life_ because nobody actually knows what the next moment will bring because _This Is Not a Recording_ and there's no safety net.

And if in the middle of all this, if someone were to say 'Ah, but it's not Natalie Dessay, is it?', you would gently push them over the edge of the balcony for so totally missing the point that they don't deserve anything better.

And that's why there's really no valid objection to Almaviva's approach. All the objectors are (rightly) chucked over the balcony sooner or later. It's Natural Selection at work in the opera house.

Q.E.D.

Next conundrum, please?


----------



## danslenoir (Nov 24, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> The playing field isn't level though, thankfully. When you're _there_, there's a buzz before it all starts, and in the intervals; and the people around you are buzzing too; and some young kids are asking their parents if this is the one with Nessun Dorma in it and their parents are trying not to disappoint them when they say 'no'; and then everything starts and this is a real orchestra and these are real people, and there's this amazing sound that's wafting up to your ears ('up' for me because we're nearly always way up there in the cheap seats) that makes your expensive hifi sound so hopelessly inadequate at conveying what it's like actually to _be_ here.
> 
> And there's this amazing thing going on down there on the stage, and it's a piece of _real life_ because nobody actually knows what the next moment will bring because _This Is Not a Recording_ and there's no safety net.
> 
> ...


You're right; the _experience_ as a whole, for all the reasons you outlined, does more than outweigh any negatives compared to a recorded performance. I'd *much* rather go to see a less than perfect live performance than listen to my favourite recording for the zillionth time. Also, such is the level of technical skill required for professional opera singing that I'm sure it's pretty rare that a singer (at one of the big opera houses anyway) is going to be so much poorer than what you are used to from your favourite recordings that it is going to have anything more than a negligible impact on your enjoyment of the opera as a whole.

Have you never been to a live opera and found yourself in the back of your mind comparing something about the performance, however small, unfavourably with a recorded version you have, though?

It's a small niggle, but a niggle nonetheless, and when weighing up the pros and cons of live v.s. recorded I feel it's one that should be considered.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

danslenoir said:


> Have you never been to a live opera and found yourself in the back of your mind comparing something about the performance, however small, unfavourably with a recorded version you have, though?


Yes of course. (You knew I'd say that!) But it's a matter of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Yes, Natalie Dessay on the DVD is a better Manon than Anne Sophie Duprels was, when I saw her at Scottish Opera last year. But ask me to choose between my Natalie Dessay DVD and a ticket to see Mme Duprels's _Manon_ again (cheapest seat with the worst possible view), and the DVD option would be _instantly_ disregarded.

Of course if possible, I'd like both....


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> The playing field isn't level though, thankfully. When you're _there_, there's a buzz before it all starts, and in the intervals; and the people around you are buzzing too; and some young kids are asking their parents if this is the one with Nessun Dorma in it and their parents are trying not to disappoint them when they say 'no'; and then everything starts and this is a real orchestra and these are real people, and there's this amazing sound that's wafting up to your ears ('up' for me because we're nearly always way up there in the cheap seats) that makes your expensive hifi sound so hopelessly inadequate at conveying what it's like actually to _be_ here.
> 
> And there's this amazing thing going on down there on the stage, and it's a piece of _real life_ because nobody actually knows what the next moment will bring because _This Is Not a Recording_ and there's no safety net.
> 
> ...


Outstanding, Alan!!!:tiphat:

You need to write a book about opera. I'd buy it.

You've described to perfection the thrilling experience of being there at the opera house for a live performance. I'd add to this the build-up of expectation. Every time I go to the opera house (which has unfortunately been a rare occasion for me since I moved out of New York City) I dream about it in advance, I get all excited that morning, I count down the hours, my heart is beating fast during the last few minutes while I listen to the orchestra tune-up, and then the maestro comes in, the overture starts, the curtains go up, and I'm dragged into the fascinating universe of opera for three hours of pure magic.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

danslenoir said:


> Also, such is the level of technical skill required for professional opera singing that I'm sure it's pretty rare that a singer (at one of the big opera houses anyway) is going to be so much poorer than what you are used to from your favourite recordings


Unfortunately I can't agree with this statement. My main venue for live opera is the Met, and I must confess that while I'm very thankful that we do have the Met (appropriate for Thanksgiving) and I support them financially not only with my ticket buying but also with donations, I've been in various occasions through the unpleasant experience of attending rather weak productions there. Most of the time it's like you say, but unfortunately, not always. Even the major opera houses screw up from time to time. La Scala is another example. So is the Mariinsky. These places have their share of uninspired performances. Of course they also have outstanding performances, but like I said, not always. I wouldn't say that it is pretty rare to have mediocre singers in the main opera houses. It happens with alarming frequency.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> The playing field isn't level though, thankfully. When you're _there_, there's a buzz before it all starts, and in the intervals; and the people around you are buzzing too; and some young kids are asking their parents if this is the one with Nessun Dorma in it and their parents are trying not to disappoint them when they say 'no'; and then everything starts and this is a real orchestra and these are real people, and there's this amazing sound that's wafting up to your ears ('up' for me because we're nearly always way up there in the cheap seats) that makes your expensive hifi sound so hopelessly inadequate at conveying what it's like actually to _be_ here.
> 
> And there's this amazing thing going on down there on the stage, and it's a piece of _real life_ because nobody actually knows what the next moment will bring because _This Is Not a Recording_ and there's no safety net.
> 
> ...

















Alan!!

Exactly!! What a fantastic description.


----------

