# "A Terrible Opera And A Tragic Waste"



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

> What is the verdict? From where I sit there can only be one sad conclusion. Roger Sessions has written a terrible opera, a tragic waste of a valuable composer's precious time. After the Boston performances most people people hedged their bets - any work this complex and densely packed must surely be heard many times before yielding up its secrets. What *Montezuma* needs, it was said, is continued exposure and eventually the world will come around"
> 
> "Possibly; but even the most challenging opera must exert an immediate visceral appeal and possess some element to draw people back until the grand design becomes clear. After seeing 2 productions and spending many dogged hours with the score I can find nothing in *Montezuma* that offers this crucial attraction. The argument that *Wozzeck* seemed equally inscrutable to audiences in 1925 and had to wait its time does not hold. Berg's opera, despite its formidable complexities, exercised a primal fascination right from the first performance. Shortly after its premiere, *Wozzeck* received 16 productions in Germany alone, was staged in 9 other countries, and gradually became a repertory piece. No such happy fate seems in store for *Montezuma*; the opera's flaws become more apparent and aggravating with each hearing"
> 
> *-- Peter G. Davis (New York magazine, February 1982)*



To see veteran opera critic Peter Davis express such intense dislike of any opera is very atypical…. Wow!

Here now is a total opposite reaction by Andrew Porter then the music critic for _New Yorker_ magazine.



> "The great American opera… A magnificent epic… *Montezuma* captures the scale, the seriousness, and the romance of the subject in music that is powerful, splendid, colorful, and generous. But it is not an opera made for easy public success. The case of Berlioz *Les Troyens* is perhaps not irrelevant. That epic, too, had its champions from the start but was by many not unintelligent people long deemed a clumsily made, noisily ill-scored, impracticably long, and even amateurish opera - at best, a masterpiece by intention maimed by inexpert execution.
> 
> "Sessions is a great lyricist with a full and virile melodic sweep. And there is extraordinary sensuous beauty in the choral scenes"
> 
> ...



Three questions:

*1)* Does anybody here remember anything about the *Montezuma* premiere in Berlin (1964) or the New York premiere at Juilliard in 1982?

*2)* How eager are you now to explore this piece after reading such wildly divergent opinions by two very fine opera critics?

*3)* Whose critical judgment and understanding of this opera do you feel is closest to reality? First, here is a little background on Andrew Porter:



> A soft-spoken Englishman, Andrew Porter, whose prose was elegant and lyrical and who used his bully pulpit to hold high *the banner of Modernism*, often devoting lengthy pieces to encomiums of Milton Babbitt, Charles Wuorinen, Harrison Birtwistle, Peter Maxwell Davies, Pierre Boulez and, most of all, Elliott Carter. Porter was fortunately catholic enough in his interests to eventually acknowledge "Satyagraha," "Music for 18 Musicians" and even "Nixon in China," but it was the Modernists, and particularly Carter, who got his juices flowing and made his pen purple.



Are you a little more skeptical now? I mean he did call it "The Great American Opera" and even brought up *Les Troyens.*

Alas, there is not a single recording of *Montezuma* (only a few extremely hard to find pirate CD's of the Boston 1976 performance)


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Xavier said:


> *2)* How eager are you now to explore this piece after reading such wildly divergent opinions by two very fine opera critics?
> 
> [...]
> 
> Alas, there is not a single recording of *Montezuma* (only a few extremely hard to find pirate CD's of the Boston 1976 performance)


I am always eager to see what the fuss is about when such strong language is used, if only to point and laugh. But bummer on the second bit. Here's hoping somebody will stage it again in the future so we can see how whatever it is.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I have heard that live recording of _Montezuma_ mentioned above. Surely, I don't think this is "terrible" or a "tragic waste". On the other hand, I wouldn't call it either "The great American opera...". It's an interesting piece, but somehow also a failed one. Certainly not in _Wozzeck_'s class, to me. However, about the 'visceral appeal' missed by the first reviewer, we need to remember Session's vision and goals as a composer. In his own words:

_But communication is two-sided - vital and profound communication makes demands also on those who are to receive it... demands in the sense of concentration, of genuine effort to receive what is being communicated._

_What we ask of music, first and last, is that it communicate experience - experience of all kinds, vital and profound at its greatest, amusing or entertaining at another level.

_His music was more oriented to the intellect of the listener, than to raw emotional appeal, in my view.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

What an interesting post. I think I'd want to read the libretto first, to see if there's anything really interesting about it, and then if it seems wonderful, well, a new production would be an interesting challenge.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

My ears are highly subjective. They would like to here the music and make up there own mind.


----------

