# Sophisticated Operas That Don’t Get Discussed Very Much



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Folks:

Ok, we can set aside my snobbery re: _Mathis der Maler_.

Let's consider another work and my latest operatic love - _The Return of Ulysses To His Homeland_. I don't think I've ever seen this piece discussed in any popular opera book over the past 40 years nor have I seen anyone gush over it.... And I definitely consider it to be a _much finer_, deeper and musically sophisticated opera than _La Traviata_, _Norma_ and _Suor Angelica_.

So again, forget Hindemith for a moment... Where are the _Ulysses_ fanatics?

(Or are the opera fans just going to keep talking about their 8th recording of _Norma_, endless debates about which ultra-obscure Bulgarian soprano from the 1920′s has the best trill or who the Diva of The Month is?)


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Xavier said:


> Where are the Ulysses fanatics?


They all volunteered to get into that wooden horse... further fate - unknown.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I don't really understand your points of comparison. Why choose two operas from the Romantic period, and one (probably not one of Puccini's best anyway) from the verismo?

Not that I am denying for one moment that *Il Ritorno d'Ulisse in Patria* is a great work. If it's not discussed in popular opera books, it's probably because it is performed less often than either Monteverdi's *Orfeo* or his *L'Incoroazione di Poppea*. Nor am I sure I understand what you mean by "muscically sophisticated". I'm pretty sure Monteverdi would have wanted it to be as direct in its appeal, as the later operas you mention are in theirs.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

GregMitchell said:


> Not that I am denying for one moment that *Il Ritorno d'Ulisse in Patria* is a great work. If it's not discussed in popular opera books, it's probably because it is performed less often than either Monteverdi's *Orfeo* or his *L'Incoroazione di Poppea*. *Nor am I sure I understand what you mean by "muscically sophisticated*". I'm pretty sure Monteverdi would have wanted it to be as direct in its appeal, as the later operas you mention are in theirs.


Sophisticated is a word used to cast glory on its user, while spreading scorn on those lovers of supposedly "simpler" pleasures.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Nicholas Maw's _Sophie's Choice_, can't get much more sophisticated than that.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

I really don't know what a _sophisticated_ opera is, unlettered guttersnipe that I be, but I don't even like the term. My preference, registered from the depths of an abyss of ignorance and uncouthness. YMMV.

The rediscovery of Il Ritorno, along with Poppea for that matter, is a series of developing events occurring in the 20th century. Iirc, they only discovered the score and/or libretto in the late 19th century and didn't work on it until years later. Some more knowledgeable scholar around can correct me on this historical impression. I've been listening to and enjoying opera since 1955 when at the age of eight I listened to a vinyl pressing of a 1930 version of Il Trovatore. I didn't even hear of Il Ritorno or Poppea until 1978. Up until then, in my blissful ignorance about Monteverdi and the early baroque in general, I only recognized Monteverdi as the Author Of The First Opera (wrong!), L'Orfeo.

In earlier threads you might have read my posts (and a few others iirc) all a-gushing about Il Ritorno. After somewhat shaky but heroic starts in the 1970s, productions and recordings of this and other Monteverdi operas have much improved, albeit not always consistently. Case in point is this stage production from a few years ago, which is certainly the best IRdUiP ever produced and probably the best Monteverdi production ever.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Revenant said:


> In earlier threads you might have read my posts (and a few others iirc) all a-gushing about Il Ritorno. After somewhat shaky but heroic starts in the 1970s, productions and recordings of this and other Monteverdi operas have much improved, albeit not always consistently. Case in point is this stage production from a few years ago, which is certainly the best IRdUiP ever produced and probably the best Monteverdi production ever.
> 
> View attachment 34611


I haven't seen this one, but I am certainly curious to. The reason I haven't (yet) is because I am firmly convinced that this is the best IRdUiP ever produced and probably the best Monteverdi production ever.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> I haven't seen this one, but I am certainly curious to. The reason I haven't (yet) is because I am firmly convinced that this is the best IRdUiP ever produced and probably the best Monteverdi production ever.


And it was my favorite as well until I watched the second one. I've got both. Christie and co. hit it out of the park with the second one. The singers are better singers _and_ actors, notably Cristine Rice's Penelope. The Ulysses is superior in every respect to the earlier one. Kobi von Rensburg even looks like Ulysses, older and cast down yet persevering. Now the first Penelope was fine, but Rice really convinces you that Ulysses would brave the flames of Hades to return to her. Even the minor parts are first rate, and the stage direction and design as well. Absolutely no weak link in the second one. I'm sure that you'll agree when you watch it. I even thought the 1978 (?) Harnoncourt was great back in the day. But Christie's second take on _Ulysse_ blows them all away. And any other previous Monteverdi production. Another plus factor is that it doesn't have that revolting naked Human Frailty misfire at the beginning. This second version's production values kept the nobility of Monteverdi's vision squarely in its sights.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Sophisticated is a word used to cast glory on its user, while spreading scorn on those those lovers of supposedly "simpler" pleasures.


Bingo... this is an ongoing play on repeat loop of "sophisticated" "refined" etc. only adding fuel to the ongoing fire that classical music and its fans, is an elitist entertainment for a group of elitist snobs hell-bent on upper-crust social exclusivity.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

It seems that the OP is defining sophisticated as something which is not heard much. The Mozart operas are incredibly sophisticated. However, they have a problem that they are also popular!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Revenant said:


> And it was my favorite as well until I watched the second one. I've got both. Christie and co. hit it out of the park with the second one. The singers are better singers _and_ actors, notably Cristine Rice's Penelope. The Ulysses is superior in every respect to the earlier one. Kobi von Rensburg even looks like Ulysses, older and cast down yet persevering. Now the first Penelope was fine, but Rice really convinces you that Ulysses would brave the flames of Hades to return to her. Even the minor parts are first rate, and the stage direction and design as well. Absolutely no weak link in the second one. I'm sure that you'll agree when you watch it. I even thought the 1978 (?) Harnoncourt was great back in the day. But Christie's second take on _Ulysse_ blows them all away. And any other previous Monteverdi production. Another plus factor is that it doesn't have that revolting naked Human Frailty misfire at the beginning. This second version's production values kept the nobility of Monteverdi's vision squarely in its sights.


Oh dear I am going to have to get this, aren't I? I've been dithering about it for ages. Christine Rice was certainly a superb Ariadne in Birtwistle's _The Minotaur_ (an opera probably more distinguished for its bloodthirstiness than its sophistication, hehe).

Re the naked Human Frailty, I thought it worked quite well to underline the, well, frail and vulnerable aspect of humanity.

Edit: I just went to Amazon.....


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Oh dear I am going to have to get this, aren't I? I've been dithering about it for ages. Christine Rice was certainly a superb Ariadne in Birtwistle's _The Minotaur_ (an opera probably more distinguished for its bloodthirstiness than its sophistication, hehe).
> 
> Re the naked Human Frailty, I thought it worked quite well to underline the, well, frail and vulnerable aspect of humanity.
> 
> Edit: I just went to Amazon.....


That Human Frailty seemed more like an escapee from a very strange party. Frailty could have been portrayed with a little clothes on. But the poor guy certainly looked pathetic. I'll give them that...

Yes, succumb to the inevitable and pull that trigger on IRdU2.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, I think our esteemed friend Xavier is even more in love with the word "sophisticated" (as a synonym of "refined", "complex",..) than with any particular opera.

Next step is to understand that being able to discuss about "ultra-obscure" Bulgarian sopranos from the 1920 is indeed *more* "sophisticated" than to discuss two mainstream operas like Il Ritorno or Mathis, not to mention Pelléas. Second hand stuff, really. If you want to be really "sophisticated" about operas, it's much better to select other candidates. 

Let me see... Ulysses, right?. Well, let's talk about this truly "sophisticated" opera:


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2014)

Indeed. How about Alberto Ginastera's _Bomarzo_ (1967)?
[_Bomarzo is an opera in two acts by Alberto Ginastera, his Opus 34, to a Spanish libretto by Manuel Mujica Laínez, based on his 1962 novel about the 16th-century Italian eccentric Pier Francesco Orsini_]


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Or this one .


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> Even the minor parts are first rate, and the stage direction and design as well.


for what it's worth, Pier Luigi Pizzi is one of my favourite stage directors. He's behind those great Tancredi and Semiramide productions with Valentini Terrani from the early '80s  ergo, I should get this.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Operas by Moniuszko are highly sophisticated because to appreciate them in full you have to dig by far the most difficult and complicated European language.

BUT OPERAGOERS PREFER TO ATTEND POST-PERFORMANCE BRAWLS BETWEEN CALLAS HOOLS AND TEBALDI HOOLS AND MURDER EACH OTHER FOR WEARING T-SHIRTS AND FAN SCARFS OF WRONG SOPRANO!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

]

possibly the greatest masterpiece of our time, but no one will discuss it on here!

:lol:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> The singers are better singers _and_ actors, notably Cristine Rice's Penelope.


she must be doing a hell of a job, I thought Mijanovic was really compelling. Somehow her timbre just works for me in this role (not usually a fan). There's something mysterious and remote but not cold about her Penelope that seems dead-on to me.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

The epitome of operatic sophistication


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

dgee said:


> The epitome of operatic sophistication


I love le grand macabre! Its fantastic.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> she must be doing a hell of a job, I thought Mijanovic was really compelling. Somehow her timbre just works for me in this role (not usually a fan). There's something mysterious and remote but not cold about her Penelope that seems dead-on to me.


I found Mijanovic compelling as well; particularly how she displayed Penelope's reluctance/difficulty from snapping out of her siege mentality even after Ulysses stood before her. That was psychologically acute, and one of the many reasons I love this opera. Where else can you find this among opera greats, except at the other chronological end of the operatic spectrum, in Wagner? So, my preference for Rice is well-advised in this comparison, not capricious. Rice portrays Penelope as she was, an older woman and mother, her anxiety tinged with stoicism and a perseverance that comes from the will, not just trauma. And she reveals a womanly splendor for which Penelope is almost the iconic exemplar in myth and legend. As I noted before, your mileage may vary in this, but let it vary all it will after you too have compared both versions. Rice is just one of many reasons to prefer Christie's second version. It would be interesting to ask him which of his two children he prefers, although I dare say he might not want to tell us. I have two daughters, so I would understand if he didn't.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> As I noted before, your mileage may vary in this, but let it vary all it will after you too have compared both versions.


certainly, I'm all about comparing and contrasting


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

@ schigolch



> *Well, I think our esteemed friend Xavier is even more in love with the word "sophisticated" (as a synonym of "refined", "complex",..) than with any particular opera.?*



And you couldn't be more wrong.... Let me assure you that my love for these works goes beyond the maniacal.



> *Next step is to understand that being able to discuss about "ultra-obscure" Bulgarian sopranos from the 1920 is indeed *more* "sophisticated" than to discuss two mainstream operas.?*



No, I don't believe so. Now you know me, I am NOT a fan of reading words about music but if I had to pick one activity I'd say that discussing the musical director's concept of an opera, his sense of line, coloring, internal balance, general concept of tempi. In short -- the WHOLE musical architect's viewpoint requires more careful thought and 'sophistication'



> *Than to discuss two mainstream operas like Il Ritorno or Mathis, not to mention Pelléas. Second hand stuff, really*



What are you getting at here? So if an opera is now part of the standard repertoire it becomes less wonderful or exquisite? We can't bring it up for discussion now?

Also, how many operas truly rise to the level of _Pelleas_ in its subtle gradations and expressiveness? Seriously, how many operas reach that new order of harmonic, melodic and rhythmic structure? Don't get me wrong, I love a ton of 20th century operas but no matter how widely _Pelleas_ is embraced by audiences it will always remain utterly special.



> *Second hand stuff, really.?*



One more point about _Mathis der Maler_ and I know we've covered this before: The symphony (1934) may be popular but the opera itself is still underappreciated by most, including the professional critics. Read the commentary over the past 30 years... It is not a well-loved piece.



> *If you want to be really "sophisticated" about operas, it's much better to select other candidates. Let me see... Ulysses, right?. Well, let's talk about this truly "sophisticated" opera?*



For the record, I am a big fan of Nono's _Prometeo_ (haven't yet heard Dallapiccola's Ulysses) but this piece wasn't my topic. And I certainly don't equate intricacy or density of musical lines with 'sophistication'


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

But, my friend, of course I can be totally wrong about your real intentions and feelings. I have never met you, to the best of my knowledge, and the only hints I got about your thoughts and interests are the posts you are publishing here.

However, let me share openly that my impression when reading those posts, including the one that opened this thread, is that you are kind of presenting a case about your superior knowledge or "sophistication" in the field of Opera, (maybe even Music, maybe even Art in general), as exemplified by the works you admire: all of them are insighful, "sophisticated", subtle, not loved by the "operatic masses" (this rather improbable concept of yours...). At the same time deploring the lack of taste and "sophistication" of other opera fans, that are either stupid or clueless enough to like _Norma_, _Traviata_ or enjoy discussion about vocal techniques and the soprano voice.

Please believe me I have seen this line of reasoning before. The "sophisticated" part can be the operas you mention, or Wagner, or post-1945 works or... There are several possibilities. However, the culprit is almost always Italian's 19th century or verismo opera, perhaps with the occasional addition of _Carmen_.

Just to let you know what are my feelings. No, I don't think that Pelléas, or Mathis, or Il Ritorno are in any way "superior", "better", "more subtle" or, indeed, "sophisticated" than Norma or Traviata. In those terms, I'm firmly convinced that all five of these operas, and many more, are on an equal footing, and it belongs to each individual which ones he likes or dislikes. Because, in order to determine which one is "better" and which one is "worse", we would need first to be able to define the "value" of an opera, then agree with a scale to measure that "value", and finally to assign the particular "value" of each opera. A hopeless tasks. And totally useless. Ditto about "sophistication". We would need to design and build an OperaShopisticationMeter and then measure each opera. Alas, this problematic machine will never see the light, I fear!.

So, enjoy your tastes, and please share them here with us. I'm sure many TC members, including myself, are more than happy to discuss about Pelléas, Mathis (I personally prefer Cardillac) or Il Ritorno (I personally prefer Poppea), but the 'sophistication' line won't be very much appreciated moving forward, in my view.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Xavier said:


> @ schigolch
> 
> [/font][/size][/b]
> And you couldn't be more wrong.... Let me assure you that my love for these works goes beyond the maniacal.
> ...




Evidently I'm not _sophisticated_ enough to appreciate your arguments. Never mind, I'll remain in blissful ignorance.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

dgee said:


> The epitome of operatic sophistication


Unbelievable.
Todays thing is to gross out or shock I guess.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Well, it's a 70s opera based on a avant garde 30s play.... 

but I keep forgetting that we're still clutching our skirts in dismay over music that was written over 100 years ago ;-)


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

dgee said:


> Well, it's a 70s opera based on a avant garde 30s play....
> 
> but I keep forgetting that we're still clutching our skirts in dismay over music that was written over 100 years ago ;-)


Ligeti called it an anti-anti-opera. I think he was really parodying the kind of opera that deliberately tries to be shocking, and showing how ridiculous that is, because only the really conservative are going to be shocked by a bit of crude language and bawdiness.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

It's anti alright.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Folks:
> 
> Ok, we can set aside my snobbery re: _Mathis der Maler_.
> 
> ...


The reason it doesn't get discussed is because most people won't have heard of it--I wonder what that can mean ?
Now there's this Anatolian soprano from 1908 and her trill could last for fifteen minutes....


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Schigolch,

Before I begin let me say that last night a section of my post disappeared so here it is again:



> *Sophisticated is a word used to cast glory on its user, while spreading scorn on those lovers of supposedly "simpler" pleasures?*





> *Nor am I sure I understand what you mean by "musically sophisticated"?*



As I said I shouldn't have used the word 'sophisticated'. What I meant was... of special beauty, charm, subtlety or rare and appealing excellence in musical structure.

But yes, I do think _Ulysses_ (and _Mathis der Maler_) are finer operas that should be held in greater affection.



> *However, let me share openly that my impression when reading those posts, including the one that opened this thread, is that you are kind of presenting a case about your superior knowledge or "sophistication" in the field of Opera, (maybe even Music, maybe even Art in general), as exemplified by the works you admire: all of them are insighful, "sophisticated", subtle, not loved by the "operatic masses" (this rather improbable concept of yours*



Superior knowledge? Including the field of Music and Art?

No clue where you got this idea. My only focus here has been on a few operas.



> *all of them are insighful, "sophisticated", subtle, not loved by the "operatic masses" (this rather improbable concept of yours...)*



I know that _Pelleas_ has hordes of diehard fans. That wasn't the issue. But do you really think _Mathis der Maler_ is deeply loved by most critics and the majority of the opera going public?

I have serious doubts about this one.



> *At the same time deploring the lack of taste and "sophistication" of other opera fans, that are either stupid or clueless enough to like Norma, Traviata or enjoy discussion about vocal techniques and the soprano voice.*



No, I mentioned in Friday's post that I admired _Norma_ and _La Traviata_. My point is this: why should these (and other works) be constantly performed, to the exclusion of so many other fine works we rarely have the chance to hear? As for discussion about vocal techniques, of course that's important. But I recognize that singers are but one element of the performing apparatus of opera.



> *Just to let you know what are my feelings. No, I don't think that Pelléas, or Mathis, or Il Ritorno are in any way "superior", "better", "more subtle" or, indeed, "sophisticated" than Norma or Traviata.
> 
> In those terms, I'm firmly convinced that all five of these operas, and many more, are on an equal footing*




Do you see? This is the kind of statement I find astonishing, especially coming from a longtime opera lover like yourself.

Pelleas is an operatic experience quite unlike any other.... truly sui generis, the antithesis of the clichées of large ladies, histrionics and melodrama that forms the basis of so much standard operatic fare.

It's also one of the most beautiful of all operatic scores possessing a uniquely rarefied air, a subtlety of scoring, delicacy of atmosphere of an order and type that is without real precedent.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Xavier said:


> Pelleas is an operatic experience quite unlike any other


Pelleas isn't operatic experience. It's an opera. The experience is yours.

You're like a man who can't understand why all the world isn't in love with the woman that he loves, because after all, doesn't she make one's heart beat faster?! This lack of basic logic on your side is the very result of this whole misunderstanding.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Jobis said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmmZ_URZPEE
> 
> possibly the greatest masterpiece of our time, but no one will discuss it on here!
> 
> :lol:


mmm, that's so last century. I believe the greatest musical experience of our times is this:






I saw it last Summer and let me tell you, rapture was nigh


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Pelleas isn't operatic experience. It's an opera. The experience is yours.


And with all due respect, you and Schigolch don't know what you're talking about here.

Pelleas is not... _"on an equal footing"_ with many other pieces.

It's unique in many ways as I outlined above.... one of the milestones in the history of opera.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> So, my preference for Rice is well-advised in this comparison, not capricious. Rice portrays Penelope as she was, an older woman and mother, her anxiety tinged with stoicism and a perseverance that comes from the will, not just trauma. And she reveals a womanly splendor for which Penelope is almost the iconic exemplar in myth and legend. As I noted before, your mileage may vary in this, but let it vary all it will after you too have compared both versions.


ok, heard Rice's lament (and I will see her live in October as Bradamante ). I'm sticking with Mijanovic for now not that Rice wasn't good. In fact, weirdly enough, I can't say I've heard a lament I completely disliked as yet. I have yet to see the rest of the production though.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Xavier said:


> It's unique in many ways as I outlined above.... one of the milestones in the history of opera.


I'm sorry I have to wade in, for though I agree with you that *Pelleas et Melisande* is unique in many ways, though I agree with you that it is one of the milestones of opera, it's not a milestone in the way Monteverdi's *Orfeo* was or *Tristan und Isolde* or even *Le Nozze di Figaro* because it didn't lead anywhere, or start any kind of new movement in opera. I love *Pelleas*. I really do. I've seen it many times, listened many more, love discovering new layers of meaning in it, new threads. It's one of those masterpieces that is difficult to pin down, because it always seems different from one performance to another, but to suggest that is _better_ than other operas for that reason is just being ridiculous. *Pelleas* is undoubtedly a great work, but it doesn't need that kind of pleading. Nor does *Otello*, nor does *Norma*, nor does *Les Troyens*, nor does *Fidelio*, to take the single opera of another composer (my examples are arbitrary). They are _all_ great creations, and I would hate to have to place one above another. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> ok, heard Rice's lament (and I will see her live in October as Bradamante ). I'm sticking with Mijanovic for now not that Rice wasn't good. In fact, weirdly enough, I can't say I've heard a lament I completely disliked as yet. I have yet to see the rest of the production though.


A valid preference, following a comparison. Enjoy the first Christie version. The only other point I would like to make is that I was comparing the two full performances in those versions. Based on that, and the Lament included, my preference is Rice among two fine performances.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Revenant said:


> A valid preference, following a comparison. Enjoy the first Christie version. The only other point I would like to make is that I was comparing the two full performances in those versions. Based on that, and the Lament included, my preference is Rice among two fine performances.


Isn't it wonderful that we can have TWO truly excellent perfomances of an opera! How I wish we had the same embarrassment of riches for Handel, where great productions, although they do exist, are thin on the ground.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Isn't it wonderful that we can have TWO truly excellent perfomances of an opera! How I wish we had the same embarrassment of riches for Handel, where great productions, although they do exist, are thin on the ground.


And the most ironic aspect of it is that it is Monteverdi! Who would have dreamed it back in the 1980s, when de Harnoncourt and Ponnelle fearlessly sallied forth? After the relative missteps of some earlier productions? The efforts of de Harnoncourt, Gardiner and now Christie have yielded a glowing harvest. And to think that just to get a reconstructed text of those operas, particularly Ulisse, was a feat in itself.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

In a month, I am going to see _La Clemenza di Tito_ at Chicago's Lyric Opera. Does that count?


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I'm sorry I have to wade in, for though I agree with you that *Pelleas et Melisande* is unique in many ways, though I agree with you that it is one of the milestones of opera, it's not a milestone in the way Monteverdi's *Orfeo* was or *Tristan und Isolde* or even *Le Nozze di Figaro* because it didn't lead anywhere, or start any kind of new movement in opera. I love *Pelleas*. I really do. I've seen it many times, listened many more, love discovering new layers of meaning in it, new threads. It's one of those masterpieces that is difficult to pin down, because it always seems different from one performance to another, but to suggest that is _better_ than other operas for that reason is just being ridiculous. *Pelleas* is undoubtedly a great work, but it doesn't need that kind of pleading. Nor does *Otello*, nor does *Norma*, nor does *Les Troyens*, nor does *Fidelio*, to take the single opera of another composer (my examples are arbitrary). They are _all_ great creations, and I would hate to have to place one above another. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough.


And for the record: I love L'Orfeo, Tristan, Le Nozze, The Trojans.... (Norma an Fidelio not as much)

But in _Pelleas_ there is a high level of delicate potency and eloquence that for me will always set it far apart from most operas.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

I'll check it out! Every time I look up one of your (Xavier's) picks, I fall in love with it. You have great taste.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

marinasabina said:


> I'll check it out! Every time I look up one of your (Xavier's) picks, I fall in love with it.
> 
> You have great taste.


Thank you dear.


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2014)

Xavier said:


> But in _Pelleas_ there is a high level of delicate potency and eloquence that for me will always set it far apart from most operas.


That is what you perceive. Keep in mind that forcing one's opinions on others didn't result in a fun thread in the other subforum either.


----------

