# What is Ariadne auf Naxos really all about?



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

I'm watching the MetOpera livestream of Strauss's "Ariadne auf Naxos" twice because I'm enjoying it that much. Since this is such a satirical and literary opera, I'd love to hear any perspectives on what the overall cultural meaning of this opera must have been to its composer and librettist. I'm guessing that they were paying tribute to their two Germanic opera heroes - Mozart in the Commedia dell'arte sections and, maybe - Wagner in the "serious" section? When I first saw a video of this opera years ago I thought the Ariadne/Dionysus influence was meant to reflect early Florentine opera. But in my latest viewing today, the moments where Ariadne sings about a potion made me realize that "Tristan und Isolde" must be in the mix here. Do any of you opera experts have any illumination you can provide here?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Saw a bit last night and couldn’t make head not tail of it! As I didn’t care for the music too much either Igave up after first act. Pity because the cast was wonderful


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariadne_auf_Naxos


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Rogerx, I always do read Wikipedia pages in detail before watching any opera! But I am trying to start a conversation about it. I'm trying to solicit people's personal takes on the meaning of this opera (even when they don't love it, like DavidA above, because all honest opinions are valid).


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

marceliotstein said:


> Rogerx, I always do read Wikipedia pages in detail before watching any opera! But I am trying to start a conversation about it. I'm trying to solicit people's personal takes on the meaning of this opera (even when they don't love it, like DavidA above, because all honest opinions are valid).


Okay, sorry, misunderstood.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Saw a bit last night and couldn't make head not tail of it! As I didn't care for the music too much either Igave up after first act. Pity because the cast was wonderful


DavidA, I agree that the opera is rather confusing to follow. I wonder if this is by design? Strauss and Hofmannstahl certainly were able to tell stories with great clarity in Salome, Elektra and Rosenkavalier. But yes, this opera begins in comic chaos and pretty much stays right there until the final curtain falls. I have to believe this was by design.

I also find the melodies here less easily lovable than other Strauss. And yet the basic situation is so fascinating - an opera about the creation of an opera! - that I want to perservere. I mentioned above that I watched the MetOpera livestream twice, but maybe I wasn't fully forthcoming when I said I watched it twice because I enjoyed it so much. Truth is, I watched it twice so I could maybe understand what the hell was going on the second time.  But I find it worth the effort! I do love this opera, and I would love to know more about what others find valuable or meaningful in it.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Rogerx said:


> Okay, sorry, misunderstood.


Sure, thanks - and also, my most direct question was whether or not the Composer's fictional opera about Ariadne was meant in any way to be a parody of "Tristan und Isolde". The Wikipedia page on the opera doesn't mention Wagner at all, but I'm wondering if Strauss's contemporary audiences might have seen a satirical reference to Wagner in the character of the Composer. Or maybe not, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. That's why I'm asking.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I've not really thought about the opera in great depth as it is one that I am not keen on. I like the first part, but I find the Ariadne and Bachus story seems to go on for ever. Some have made quips about the action of act two of Tristan taking too long and I can see how someone might see The Opera in Ariadne and Bachus being a parody of that. The problem is that parody only works if it is obviously meant to be funny. Writing an opera with a very long love scene is not a good way of parodying what you consider a love scene that lasts too long. Here parody could be mistaken for poor imitation.

I don't think that Strauss is referencing Wagner here. I think it is all part of the conversation piece nature of the work. Is opera high-brow and serious or is it entertainment? The answer, of course, is that it is both as evidenced by the use of greek myth (a reference to Monteverdi, early Italian opera, Gluck and French opera) and commedia dell'arte (a reference to Neapolitan comic opera and subsequent operatic comedy such as Mozart and Rossini). Just as Wagner wrote operas with music based on finding new ways of expressing ideas through sound because he felt that opera had departed from its roots and become solely entertainment, Rossini did something similar in his Neapolitan serious operas. Strauss would have been familiar with the wider history of opera and I think it is that which informs Ariadne.

N.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Saw a bit last night and couldn't make head not tail of it! As I didn't care for the music too much either Igave up after first act. Pity because the cast was wonderful


I'd recommend just skipping the "prologue" section (around the first 40 minutes), and just watching the "opera". The prologue just exists to explain why there's a commedia del'arte troupe invading a classical opera seria. It's all basically just some comic backstage business about the rich man engaging two troupes to perform, them running low on time, forcing the two troupes to combine their performances. It's pretty forgettable musically. The opera section is where all the good music is--similar to Rosenkavalier, with that wistful affect.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I'd recommend just skipping the "prologue" section (around the first 40 minutes), and just watching the "opera". The prologue just exists to explain why there's a commedia del'arte troupe invading a classical opera seria. It's all basically just some comic backstage business about the rich man engaging two troupes to perform, them running low on time, forcing the two troupes to combine their performances. It's pretty forgettable musically. The opera section is where all the good music is--similar to Rosenkavalier, with that wistful affect.


The two parts are very different, I was going to suggest to David that he might prefer the second half. I don't know what it is about Ariadne, but it just doesn't do it for me. Weirdly I prefer the first part, at least it hurtles along and I love a good backstage romp.

N.


----------



## marceliotstein (Feb 23, 2019)

Great responses, thanks. Especially great point that both Rossini and Wagner had to deal with the same balance of comedy and tragedy (or should we say "seriousness"?) that Strauss deals with in this opera.

Good point also that this is a parody that isn't actually funny. Indeed, it's not particularly funny, and sadly, commedia dell'arte also rarely is in any form. I'd love to see a modern commedia dell'arte production that actually manages to be funny.

I also like the "opera"/second act better than the prologue. Of course, Strauss and Hofmannstahl conceived and debuted an early version of the "opera" first and only added the prologue later. I remain fascinated by this opera, and I suppose I will have to follow up by eventually seeing Strauss's "Capriccio".


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

marceliotstein said:


> Sure, thanks - and also, my most direct question was whether or not the Composer's fictional opera about Ariadne was meant in any way to be a parody of "Tristan und Isolde". The Wikipedia page on the opera doesn't mention Wagner at all, but I'm wondering if Strauss's contemporary audiences might have seen *a satirical reference to Wagner* in the character of the Composer. Or maybe not, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. That's why I'm asking.


Richard Strauss was such an ardent Wagnerian his whole life, even despite the fact that his father didn't stand Wagner, he wouldn't have mocked his operas or composing style that influenced him so much.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

howlingfantods said:


> I'd recommend just skipping the "prologue" section (around the first 40 minutes), and just watching the "opera". The prologue just exists to explain why there's a commedia del'arte troupe invading a classical opera seria. It's all basically just some comic backstage business about the rich man engaging two troupes to perform, them running low on time, forcing the two troupes to combine their performances. It's pretty forgettable musically. The opera section is where all the good music is--similar to Rosenkavalier, with that wistful affect.


But while most of the best music is in the opera proper, without the prologue the opera makes no sense.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> But while most of the best music is in the opera proper, without the prologue the opera makes no sense.


And you'd also miss some glorious musci for the Composer, who is the most likeable character in the piece.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

wkasimer said:


> But while most of the best music is in the opera proper, without the prologue the opera makes no sense.


I wasn't making a blanket recommendation--just a recommendation for David, who found the prologue incomprehensible and musically unsatisfying, and for anyone else who feels the same. I think it's a common reaction--the prologue is pretty difficult to follow and the musical material is largely mediocre--and I think it's a shame if it means people switch it off before the opera section since the opera section is, to me, some of Strauss's best work.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

howlingfantods said:


> I wasn't making a blanket recommendation--just a recommendation for David, who found the prologue incomprehensible and musically unsatisfying,


It's no more incomprehensible than the plot of any Verdi opera.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I wasn't making a blanket recommendation--just a recommendation for David, who found the prologue incomprehensible and musically unsatisfying, and for anyone else who feels the same. I think it's a common reaction--the prologue is pretty difficult to follow and the musical material is largely mediocre--and I think it's a shame if it means people switch it off before the opera section since the opera section is, to me, some of Strauss's best work.


You're obviously listening to a different opera than me. The prologue is integral to the whole thing thing and the opera relates entirely to what goes before. It's the conflict between highbrow and lowbrow and the class struggle between upper class employer and working class employee which is at the heart of Ariadne. The mythological aspect is more of the same, the mortal Ariadne and the Demi-god, Bacchus where the theme is transformation rather than Wagner's motive of redemption.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

marceliotstein said:


> what the overall cultural meaning of this opera must have been


the point of this masterpiece is to show the sublime in a mix with the mundane, where the latter has recipes to help the former, however the main character, a sublime woman of noble origins, ends up embracing alcohol as her only solace.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> You're obviously listening to a different opera than me. The prologue is integral to the whole thing thing and the opera relates entirely to what goes before. It's the conflict between highbrow and lowbrow and the class struggle between upper class employer and working class employee which is at the heart of Ariadne. The mythological aspect is more of the same, the mortal Ariadne and the Demi-god, Bacchus where the theme is transformation rather than Wagner's motive of redemption.


I imagine the opera section works even better within the full original context without the prologue but after a performance of the adaptation of the Moliere play, but no one does that.

Odd, the amount of pushback I'm getting for simply suggesting to a new listener of this opera who gave up on it a different approach for possibly gaining more appreciation for it. I'm not suggesting that all future performances cut out the Prologue--I'm making a suggestion for a real life opera fan who reported that they switched it off after the Prologue. What is your advice to him and others like him who find the Prologue unappealing?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> the point of this masterpiece is to show the sublime in a mix with the mundane, where the latter has recipes to help the former, however the main character, a sublime woman of noble origins, ends up embracing alcohol as her only solace.


Presumably she's not the only one, glad to see she's got company!

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> I imagine the opera section works even better within the full original context without the prologue but after a performance of the adaptation of the Moliere play, but no one does that.
> 
> Odd, the amount of pushback I'm getting for simply suggesting to a new listener of this opera who gave up on it a different approach for possibly gaining more appreciation for it. I'm not suggesting that all future performances cut out the Prologue--I'm making a suggestion for a real life opera fan who reported that they switched it off after the Prologue. What is your advice to him and others like him who find the Prologue unappealing?


Well think how I feel who has never been able to get on with the opera at all, but now enjoys the Prologue due to how much is going on!? (I can see what David means as it is very busy in performance.) I agree with you the opera proper is totally different, so it is good advice for someone who doesn't warm to the Prologue to try the second part. The themes of the total opera and how it all works as a whole are a different bag of onions and for someone new to the opera its worth listening to it a few times to see if the music appeals of not.

N.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> What is your advice to him and others like him who find the Prologue unappealing?


Cut your losses. Don't waste time listening to it. Life is short so why would anyone spend time trying to understand and appreciate something which lacks any resonance with them?

I realised early on in my listening life that bel canto operas weren't reaching the parts that other stuff was so I don't listen to Bellini or Donizetti et al. No loss to me but more power to all those who love it.:tiphat:


----------



## Andrew Kenneth (Feb 17, 2018)

howlingfantods said:


> I imagine the opera section works even better within the full original context without the prologue but after a performance of the adaptation of the Moliere play, but no one does that. (...)


I'm a big Strauss fan. I have 11 Ariadne's on cd and 2 on blu-ray.

One of these blu-ray's features the 1912 version with the adapted Moliere play prefacing the opera (no prologue) 
=>







Worth a watch.

Kent Nagano also recorded this 1912 version on cd.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Another 1812 version (no prologue), but this one a concert performance. Worth it just for Bubbles.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

It’s been mentioned already, but it’s worth reiterating that the Prologue was added later, after the original version of the opera, appended to a Moliere play, proved a failure. This retrofitted Prologue has never been an entirely good fit with the opera proper, as it promises a kind rollicking, broadly comic conflict of high and low art which never fully materializes in the more lyrical, languid performance that follows. The fact that the Composer, so central to the Prologue, disappears entirely after that, attests to this uneasy conjunction.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

Zhdanov said:


> the point of this masterpiece is to show the sublime in a mix with the mundane, where the latter has recipes to help the former, however the main character, a sublime woman of noble origins, ends up embracing alcohol as her only solace.


I guess this is the socialist realism version of AaufN, which would drive me to drink too.

I've never read such a perplexing mix of odd comments for my favorite work, for its profound intent (our versions of the gods are just aristrocratic interpretations of the same terrors we all face, Als ein Gott kamm jeder gegangen), its innovative structure that in the theatre with a good director does not have longeurs, and for 3 of the greatest soprano roles in the literature, the Composer, Prima Donna (Ariadne) and Zerbinetta. The melodies of this opera have haunted me for 40 years!! to say that it lacks in comparison to other Strauss seems willfully oblivious to me. I know, gustibus.... but really, anyone who doesn't grab on to this masterpiece and hold on for dear life is really missing something wonderful.
En garde, detractors!! but given the horrors of the day and these years, we can't joke about dueling batons or anything else.
it's just art :cheers:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mparta said:


> I guess this is the socialist realism version of AaufN, which would drive me to drink too.
> 
> I've never read such a perplexing mix of odd comments for my favorite work, for its profound intent (our versions of the gods are just aristrocratic interpretations of the same terrors we all face, Als ein Gott kamm jeder gegangen), its innovative structure that in the theatre with a good director does not have longeurs, and for 3 of the greatest soprano roles in the literature, the Composer, Prima Donna (Ariadne) and Zerbinetta. The melodies of this opera have haunted me for 40 years!! to say that it lacks in comparison to other Strauss seems willfully oblivious to me. I know, gustibus.... but really, anyone who doesn't grab on to this masterpiece and hold on for dear life is really missing something wonderful.
> En garde, detractors!! but given the horrors of the day and these years, we can't joke about dueling batons or anything else.
> it's just art :cheers:


Bravo. I'm not a Strauss fan in general, and not as enthusiastic about _Ariadne_ as you (while I admire a good defense of any work of art), but I think I would rather attend a performance of _Ariadne_ than of _Salome,_ _Elektra_ or _Rosenkavalier,_ not to mention such cerebral and garrulous products as _Arabella_ and _Capriccio._ Stylistic hybrid though it may be, it's an interesting and unique work with some engaging characters and memorable music. Of Strauss's scores, only _Die Frau ohne Schatten_ interests me more.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Bravo. I'm not a Strauss fan in general, and not as enthusiastic about _Ariadne_ as you (while I admire a good defense of any work of art), but I think I would rather attend a performance of _Ariadne_ than of _Salome,_ _Elektra_ or _Rosenkavalier,_ not to mention such cerebral and garrulous products as _Arabella_ and _Capriccio._ Stylistic hybrid though it may be, it's an interesting and unique work with some engaging characters and memorable music. Of Strauss's scores, only _Die Frau ohne Schatten_ interests me more.


I too only like Die Frau ohne Schatten and am so far liking the new-to-me Ariadne auf Naxos. I need to explore Ariadne more. Capriccio bores me. I have not tried the others you mention because the stories behind them did not interest me and/or repulsed me (Salome, Elektra).


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

SixFootScowl said:


> I too only like Die Frau ohne Schatten and am so far liking the new-to-me Ariadne auf Naxos. I need to explore Ariadne more. Capriccio bores me. I have not tried the others you mention because the stories behind them did not interest me and/or repulsed me (Salome, Elektra).


I saw Capriccio at the Opera in Paris, I think I didn't fall asleep, which for me means it was ok. The instrumental music is lovely and I have a weak spot for the tenor as sung by Nicolai Gedda in the old Schwarzkopf recording. That's really saying something, because he is not a favorite, but I remember his singing of Flammand being exquisite! And for that, you might have something, I gave away my CDs of it.

For the others, I recently discovered Schweigsame Frau in the Pinchas Steinberg recording with Kurt Moll, and I love that. I'm a bit all over the place with other works, as the Capriccio example shows, there are things, that Aber Richtige (is that right) duet from the first act of Arabella is gorgeous. I've seen a couple of Rosenkavaliers that held up well for me and there is again some great music, but I find that it dwells too long with busy work. Elektra though, that is another matter entirely. That Friedrich production set in an abandoned factory yard is mesmerizing, and if you pay attention to the text Klytemnestra's role is riveting. There's a wild production from Denmark with Fura dels Baus as the production company that's pretty nuts.

Sorry, got me going, but I'm more in favor of carrying on (obviously) about the virtues than the faults, and I see Ariadne as a truly great work for all the reasons I noted above. I will retire from the field, Quixote-like, to lick my wounds and listen to Ariadne.:cheers:

PS: Yes!! to that Beverly Sills concert performance.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

‘Abandoned factory’, ‘riveting’, ‘nuts’. Very good Mparta.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

mparta said:


> I very much like an outlier,* Nagano with the longer score*, Margaret Price and Sumi Jo.


Just looked it up and it includes the same part at the beginning, Der Bürger als Edelmann (Le bourgeois gentilhomme), suite from the ballet for orchestra, as does the Chandos sung-in-English set.


----------



## mparta (Sep 29, 2020)

SixFootScowl said:


> Just looked it up and it includes the same part at the beginning, Der Bürger als Edelmann (Le bourgeois gentilhomme), suite from the ballet for orchestra, as does the Chandos sung-in-English set.


Yes, but the singing is wonderful, as I mentioned, Margaret Price just crystalline... 
although...
I found that I do have the Levine/Met/Norman/Battle/Troyanos, and I just listened to Norman sing Ariadne's great aria, Es gibt ein Reich......Just another order of singing, the voice is so sumptuous, I don't think there's any real comparison to any other singer I know. If the filming had just been reasonable, i really don't need to be close enough to watch her tonsils and see her sweat:lol:
But the glory of the voice is special. She may sound better here than in the Masur CD, it was very interesting to hear how clear and beautiful her upper voice is when she is singing softly. Lot of support there, but there's a lot of woman to work with


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

amfortas said:


> It's been mentioned already, but it's worth reiterating that the Prologue was added later, after the original version of the opera, appended to a Moliere play, proved a failure. This retrofitted Prologue has never been an entirely good fit with the opera proper, as it promises a kind rollicking, broadly comic conflict of high and low art which never fully materializes in the more lyrical, languid performance that follows. The fact that the Composer, so central to the Prologue, disappears entirely after that, attests to this uneasy conjunction.


I am watching the Bohm set with Janowitz and Gruberova on DVD. I find that the prologue (whole scene in the mansion) is very valuable as it explains why the opera is so strange with these jokers and a coquette prancing around the stage all goofy while a serious subject is proceeding at the same time.

About as confusing as the L'elisir d'Amore produced by Villazon with a western film being produced at the same time.


----------

