Regietheater - a discussion

[A.C. Douglas]

And by the way, the exception that [Cosi] represents in [the Da Ponte-Mozart] collaboration (and your [A.C. Douglas's] idea that Da Ponte would adapt his text to Mozart) is illustrated by the recent finding that after all the opera was NOT commissioned by Joseph II, and in fact Da Ponte had given the libretto to... Salieri! Who started setting it to music, left it incomplete, *then* Da Ponte gave it to Mozart (according to Bruce Brown in his book W.A.Mozart: Così fan tutte, based on the recent discovery of Salieri's attempt in papers found at the Austrian National Library).

I don't know how I missed the above in my reading of your post, but I did and it's quite revealing, actually. It goes some distance in explaining where that perfectly made, perfectly self-contained libretto came from. It was a libretto perfectly suited to a Salieri who could very nicely "illustrate" it with music, to use your term, but woefully ill-suited to a transcendent genius such as Mozart as all it provided him was too little maneuvering room in which to do his customary transforming dramma per musica magic, never mind that the music Mozart came up with is some of the richest he ever wrote.

I take it this Bruce Brown (I've never heard of him) can be trusted scholar-wise(?).

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Almaviva]

OK, cool, AC Douglas, since you *did* show a hint of admitting to being wrong - hehehe, it's the faintest of the faintest of hints, one must say, but still, a hint it is - I take back my charge.

As for you never being wrong here before, well, like I said, I strongly disagree, since I thought you were guilty of a sweeping and unwarranted generalization on the Norse studies issue (yep, you won't see it, but it is true), and I remain SHOCKED that you don't see the close-to-perfect marriage between music and text (Mozart having issued both poignant and playful music at ALL the right moments) in Così fan tutte - a position that is not only mine, but is shared by many experts in the operatic field (which in itself is no guarantee of it being the right one, of course, but I'm quoting these other opinions just to point to the fact that I'm not alone in this assertion).

And third mistake you've committed in my humble opinion, since the text of Così was ready when it ever got to Mozart (and was initially intended to another composer, Salieri), one just CAN'T sustain that in this specific case Mozart did anything different than illustrating it with music, since the sequence of creation in this case went in another direction, and that's a historical fact. Sure, Mozart *habitually* proceeded in the opposite order, helped by his extreme musical genius and operatic talent, to compose his music as the driving force of the drama, but unfortunately for your argumentation (and this is why I've sustained from the beginning that Così is an exception, where Mozart was unable to work with the librettist throughout the creation process for the simple fact that it was all already done when he got to it), it just didn't work this way in Così, a fact that you seemed to indicate yourself when you said that Mozart was left with little room to maneuver.

So, in my account, you were wrong three times, already. But sure, at least one of these is a matter of opinion (although the cleverness of the musical drama structure of Così is *demonstrable,* and there are scholarly works out there that do just that, pointing to the fact that in various occasions this *comedy* contains music of incredible poignancy, indicating how well Mozart was able to read the text and to find the EXACT points where the drama of the human condition was just below the surface of the jokes in Da Ponte's spectacular libretto) - you find that The Magic Flute is superior to Così; sure, you're entitled to your opinion although I certainly don't share it and it *is* a bit of apples and oranges given the different structure of a Singspiel (and I am the one who was defending The Magic Flute one of these days, but I do place it 4th, with Idomeneo a close 5th) - just, I'm still puzzled at how someone would say that the 3rd - or even 4th - best MOZART opera for Pete's sake is "a relative failure." Like I said, if that's being a failure although relative, give me more failures like that any day.

Yes, Le Nozze *is* closer to perfection than Così (and it is one of the top 5 for me, all operas considered - among the four German/Austrian ones I was quoting in my preference - the list is completed by the Ring taken as one, Tristan und Isolde, Giulio Cesare, and Les Troyens), but Così is still *pretty close to perfection* and only a small notch below Le Nozze and Don Giovanni, to qualify in my opinion as "a relative failure." Sure, it depends on where one sets the bar, and you seem to set it incredibly high to be able to still see this masterpiece as flawed in any way - even in a relative way. But you're entitled to setting the bar as high as you want, I give you this.

Anyway, like others pointed out here, it's a matter of opinion and I shouldn't be mocking yours - I should not have included emoticons... I guess I'm guilty for the second time of less than civil behavior towards you.

I want Opera Lively to be a place where differences of opinion can be healthily and respectfully debated and I've been less than stellar in setting the example. Certainly it helps bringing down the irritation that has pushed me to excesses when the opponent is a bit more willing to see the other side's points, but I'll try to keep in mind that *I* should be setting the bar very high, and will do my best in the future to refrain from any mocking stance - I apologize for the emoticons, and will delete them from my previous post. [PS: Done.]

On the other hand, one must commend you for being very rigorous, no doubt about it. And hey, like you said before, being on opposite camps can be *fun* and Opera Lively can use some more debate - at one point this place was a bit sleepy - so your contribution is welcome. Here goes a good emoticon, for a change:

And like I said, we should definitely go back to Regie, or else we would have to move these posts to a new thread on the merits and shortcomings (if they can be proven) of Così fan tutte.

[Almaviva]

I don't know how I missed the above in my reading of your post, but I did and it's quite revealing, actually. It goes some distance in explaining where that perfectly made, perfectly self-contained libretto came from. It was a libretto perfectly suited to a Salieri who could very nicely "illustrate" it with music, to use your term, but woefully ill-suited to a transcendent genius such as Mozart as all it provided him was too little maneuvering room in which to do his customary transforming dramma per musica magic, never mind that the music Mozart came up with is some of the richest he ever wrote.

I take it this Bruce Brown (I've never heard of him) can be trusted scholar-wise(?).

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

Regardless of Dr. Bruce Brown's reputation as a scholar, good or bad (I'd say, good), his point is based on factually demonstrable grounds - the above mentioned fragments of sheet music trying to set Così to music, authored by Salieri at an earlier time than Mozart's effort, found in the dead archives of the Austrian National Library circa 1994. By the way, the publisher for his book on Così is Cambridge University Press and they *are* very rigorous in their selections, so this should reassure you a bit on this.

As for why you missed it, I believe that I added this paragraph later, after my post had already been published.

If this helps, here is some information on Dr. Bruce Brown, professor at the Thornton School of Music of the University of Southern California:

Bruce Alan Brown, professor of musicology, has research and teaching interests primarily in music of the later eighteenth century, particularly opera, ballet and performance practice. He received degrees in music and musicology from the University of California at Berkeley (PhD 1986), and also studied harpsichord at the Sweelinck Conservatorium, Amsterdam. His publications include Gluck and the French Theatre in Vienna (Oxford, 1991), critical editions of Gluck's Le Diable à quatre (Kassel, 1992) and L'Arbre enchanté (Kassel, 2009), W. A. Mozart: Così fan tutte (Cambridge, 1995), The Grotesque Dancer on the Eighteenth-Century Stage: Gennaro Magri and His World (ed., with Rebecca Harris-Warrick; Madison, 2005), and numerous articles, including for the New Grove Dictionary of Music (revised ed., 2001). From 2005 to 2007 he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Musicological Society.

Dr. Brown has received research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and American Council of Learned Societies. He is on the editorial board of the Gluck-Gesamtausgabe, and is a member of the Akademie für Mozart-Forschung (Salzburg).

[A.C. Douglas]

Regardless of Dr. Bruce Brown's reputation as a scholar, good or bad (I'd say, good), his point is based on factually demonstrable grounds - the above mentioned fragments of sheet music trying to set Così to music, authored by Salieri at an earlier time than Mozart's effort, found in the dead archives of the Austrian National Library circa 1994. By the way, the publisher for his book on Così is Cambridge University Press and they *are* very rigorous in their selections, so this should reassure you a bit on this.

As for why you missed it, I believe that I added this paragraph later, after my post had already been published.

If this helps, here is some information on Dr. Bruce Brown, professor at the Thornton School of Music of the University of Southern California:

Bruce Alan Brown, professor of musicology, has research and teaching interests primarily in music of the later eighteenth century, particularly opera, ballet and performance practice. He received degrees in music and musicology from the University of California at Berkeley (PhD 1986), and also studied harpsichord at the Sweelinck Conservatorium, Amsterdam. His publications include Gluck and the French Theatre in Vienna (Oxford, 1991), critical editions of Gluck's Le Diable à quatre (Kassel, 1992) and L'Arbre enchanté (Kassel, 2009), W. A. Mozart: Così fan tutte (Cambridge, 1995), The Grotesque Dancer on the Eighteenth-Century Stage: Gennaro Magri and His World (ed., with Rebecca Harris-Warrick; Madison, 2005), and numerous articles, including for the New Grove Dictionary of Music (revised ed., 2001). From 2005 to 2007 he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Musicological Society.

Dr. Brown has received research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and American Council of Learned Societies. He is on the editorial board of the Gluck-Gesamtausgabe, and is a member of the Akademie für Mozart-Forschung (Salzburg).

Ah! Thanks for that. Looks good enough for government work (as the saying goes).

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[A.C. Douglas]

And like I said [before], we should definitely go back to Regie [in this thread].

Capital suggestion, Almaviva. I think folks here have had quite sufficient of our bickering about these Cosi and Italian opera vs. German opera matters. But first, let me set your mind at ease regarding another matter; viz., your,

Anyway, like others pointed out here, it's a matter of opinion and I shouldn't be mocking yours - I should not have included emoticons... I guess I'm guilty for the second time of less than civil behavior towards you.

I want Opera Lively to be a place where differences of opinion can be healthily and respectfully debated and I've been less than stellar in setting the example. Certainly it helps bringing down the irritation that has pushed me to excesses when the opponent is a bit more willing to see the other side's points, but I'll try to keep in mind that *I* should be setting the bar very high, and will do my best in the future to refrain from any mocking stance - I apologize for the emoticons, and will delete them from my previous post.

Speaking for my own view of the matter, mocking (with or without emoticons) is perfectly OK if the mocker truly deems the mocking deserved by what was written. One should always try to be stylish about the mocking, of course, but the thing itself is just dandy and causes no real harm. Might even do some good in various ways if handled properly.

The above opinion comes from someone who's been involved in online discussion groups since 1982 (my first PC was one of the very first to come off the IBM assembly line in 1981) and who's set up and administered more than his share of online forums.

But, Basta! (See what I did there? I said it in Italian instead of German.) Back to Regie.

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Amfortas]

As to my responding that the reason you never saw me admit I was wrong is because I was never wrong in any of my postings here, that's pretty much true. That's exactly how I would respond. But only because it's a matter of fact. That does NOT mean I've never been "wrong" in holding certain deeply held opinions of mine. At some later time I might very well view those presently held opinions as indeed being "wrong". It means only that, to my knowledge, I've never made an error of fact or logic here. Believe me, if ever I discovered such an error on my part, or such an error was pointed out to me with proof of the error, I'd instantly own up to it. No one is a more severe critic of A.C. Douglas than A.C. Douglas. Trust me.

Sigh . . . he went there.

For starters: You praised Deryck Cooke's I Saw the World End as a brilliant study of Wagner's Ring, precisely because it doesn't try to use Wagner's source materials as a way to understand the operas. But when I demonstrated, with substantial evidence, that Cooke does precisely that, your only response was, "Cooke was wrong."

Whether or not Cooke was wrong about Wagner, you were wrong about Cooke.

Now that we're all human here, let's move on.

[Amfortas]

Eurotrash has nothing to do with whether a production sucks (i.e., is trash) or not. Some Eurotrash productions are absolutely first-rate in their conception and execution. It's something else entirely that makes those productions Eurotrash; principally, as I've already made clear, that they substitute their own vision and concept in place of that of the operas' original creators.

OK, this is the post I didn't have time and energy enough to answer yesterday. It raises some interesting questions. I'll try to articulate my response as best I can, asking apologies in advance for my longwindedness--as well as for belaboring what, to me at least, seems obvious.

When we talk of an author's concept or vision, what do we mean? The concept of "concept" in the arts is problematic. Is the author's concept a philosophical statement he is trying to make? A facet of the human spirit or psychology he wants to explore? A social dynamic he wants to critique? A combination of several of these things? Or, more likely, something that varies, not only from one work to the next, but from one interpretation of a given work to the next?

What is the "concept" of Hamlet? Of The Iliad? Of The Divine Comedy? Of Wagner's Ring? You may come up with answers to all these questions; they may be good ones. But they probably won't be the same answers other equally astute readers come up with. The great works are great precisely because they elude easy classification.

If this is true for literary, dramatic, or operatic works, I would also maintain it holds true for the director's art as well. A director, like an author, may offer an explicit statement about his concept or vision. But like an author, a director makes a multitude of choices, and can neither know nor control all the possible significations of those choices. An artist's work always exceeds the limits of his own intentions, opening the door to a host of differing interpretations.

With that in mind, I find it problematic to talk about the director replacing the author/composer's concept with his own. I don't claim that such an idea has no meaning--we've all had experiences where we strongly believed this to be the case, whether or not we could articulate the reason. But at the same time, I don't think the principle you've espoused is nearly as cut-and-dried as it may sound at first blush (certainly not so much that one could regularly arrive at a valid judgment simply by looking at production stills). It's not just that directors apply their own concepts to the original work to differing degrees or in different ways; the very of notions "vision" and "concept" are unstable to begin with.

Of course, if you're willing to acknowledge as much--that what you offer is a broad guiding principle, but not a cookie-cutter template that can be applied indiscriminately, then I take less issue with your stance. I still wouldn't rely on it myself, but I'm certainly willing to entertain discussions based on such a standard.

But in any such discussion, before accepting your claim that a director has replaced a librettist/composer's concept with his own, I would want to hear more fully articulated what you believe both the opera's concept and the production's concept to be. It's very possible that I (and others) will not agree on one or both of those fronts, and so end up with a different assessment of the production.

[Amfortas]

Hello Amfortas

Sorry, I got distracted.

Hello Aramis

[A.C. Douglas]

Sigh . . . he went there.

For starters: You praised Deryck Cooke's I Saw the World End as a brilliant study of Wagner's Ring, precisely because it doesn't try to use Wagner's source materials as a way to understand the operas. But when I demonstrated, with substantial evidence, that Cooke does precisely that, your only response was, "Cooke was wrong."

Whether or not Cooke was wrong about Wagner, you were wrong about Cooke.

Now that we're all human here, let's move on.

Oh good lord, man! You did no such thing and I was not wrong about Cooke.

I praised Cooke's book for its brilliance in examining "how Wagner might have used [his] sources in the creation of his own original Ring myth" rather than examining those sources as a way to better understand the music-dramas and I stand by that praise. What you adduced were two examples where Cooke made assertions about Wagner himself, NOT the Ring or its sources, both of which assertions I proved were false and therefore Cooke wrong, and one example where Cooke avers that people "[un]familiar with Teutonic mythology since childhood" would find the Ring to be "rather strange" or "frankly ridiculous" and therefore be "put off" the work, and I showed how Cooke was wrong about that as well.

That's very different from what you above asserted, now isn't it.

Of course it is. Your forthcoming apology is accepted.

Now we can move on.

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Almaviva]

Speaking for my own view of the matter, mocking (with or without emoticons) is perfectly OK if the mocker truly deems the mocking deserved by what was written. One should always try to be stylish about the mocking, of course, but the thing itself is just dandy and causes no real harm. Might even do some good in various ways if handled properly.

The above opinion comes from someone who's been involved in online discussion groups since 1982 (my first PC was one of the very first to come off the IBM assembly line in 1981) and who's set up and administered more than his share of online forums.

I appreciate your generosity in not feeling bothered by my mockery, AC Douglas, but it was still wrong, according to our Terms of Service, and I *must* set the example. Maybe other online forums you've frequented in the past don't have standards as strict as Opera Lively's (which I'm dismayed to have poorly upheld myself), but actually, over here, this kind of mockery should not be tolerated, as stated in our Terms of Service, rule # 1: "Snobbish, contemptuous, and arrogant remarks may be seen as just as damaging as direct personal attacks. This will be taken very seriously, and *will* be enforced by the moderation team."

So, as a matter of fact, *I* should have accrued a penalty (however it can't be done since my account as one of the two senior administrator accounts - the other one being Schigolch - is immune to penalties). Over here, we want the *utmost* civility from member to member; and sarcasm, contempt, and mockery in general shouldn't happen. Oh well, we're not *that* rigid and the occasional tongue-in-cheek remark as well as the occasional making fun of another member in good spirit and for good humor *are* tolerated, but when people actually try to put down others, it isn't, and we need to keep it this way, since one of the hallmarks of Opera Lively and a matter of pride for us is that this is one of the most civil venues you'll ever find in the Internet.

This said, pointing to people's use of fallacies and the such as a debate technique is fair game, but we should all avoid getting personal. It's OK to factually point to what someone is doing in a specific line of argumentation, and it's OK to challenge - as strongly as needed or desired - either the opinion or even the method specifically picked by the member regarding that point [e.g., "here you are using a straw man", etc.]. It's *not* OK to criticize someone's style *in general* or to be contemptuous and arrogant in a discussion.

So, I shouldn't have said that your style is one of never admitting to being wrong (and I've taken it back, like I said), and I shouldn't have mocked your opinion on Così fan tutte (as deserving of the mockery - for being factually wrong - as it was) by posting a laughing, finger-pointing emoticon (which I have, since, deleted). So, I'll try to better police my behavior (and I gather that you'll return the courtesy by doing the same regarding yours).

[A.C. Douglas]

When we talk of an author's concept or vision, what do we mean? The concept of "concept" in the arts is problematic. Is the author's concept a philosophical statement he is trying to make? A facet of the human spirit or psychology he wants to explore? A social dynamic he wants to critique? A combination of several of these things? Or, more likely, something that varies, not only from one work to the next, but from one interpretation of a given work to the next? [...] With that in mind, I find it problematic to talk about the director replacing the author/composer's concept with his own. I don't claim that such an idea has no meaning--we've all had experiences where we strongly believed this to be the case, whether or not we could articulate the reason. But at the same time, I don't think the principle you've espoused is nearly as cut-and-dried as it may sound at first blush (certainly not so much that one could regularly arrive at a valid judgment simply by looking at production stills). It's not just that directors apply their own concepts to the original work to differing degrees or in different ways; the very of notions "vision" and "concept" are unstable to begin with.

Let's confine our discussion to Wagner's mature works (i.e., those works from Rheingold forward) and his three canonical operas as to be perfectly frank, that's the one body of work I'm concerned with and, additionally, it presents the most telling cases.

Since opera Regies have not yet, to my knowledge, taken to fundamentally altering Wagner's music and text (but the time will come when they certainly will if things continue to go as they're at present going, I can assure you), no matter what or whose the vision and concept it, at bottom, comes down to how it's physically realized onstage in the theater. So when one talks about Wagner's vision and concept as made manifest in the score (music, text, and stage directions) being replaced by the Regie's own vision and concept, what one is really talking about is nothing other than how the music-drama is physically realized onstage.

Before proceeding further with an example, can we agree on the above, or are we on different pages here entirely?

(Note: The above post was altered 7 Jun@01:53 Eastern to make the discussion Wagner-specific.)

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Almaviva]

Since opera Regies have not yet, to my knowledge, taken to fundamentally altering an original opera creator's music and text (but the time will come when they certainly will if things continue to go as they're at present going, I can assure you),

It has happened already, and multiple times. Regarding the text, there are examples in Salzburg of altered text (e.g. introducing a narrator with different lines in some Mozart operas); there's a Fledermaus with altered text explicitly mentioning contemporary politics; there's an Offenbach that changes lines that then suddenly refer by name to Natalie Dessay and Cecilia Bartoli, and there is a very outrageous example of changing the ending of La Donna del Lago and making Elena marry the king and not Malcolm. As for musical changes, they are countless; too numerous to list - but most, not necessarily out of the stage director's wish but rather because of faulty or corrupted scores. But beyond the simple use of faulty scores, there's been plenty of attempts to 'simplify' the music, give it a more musical theater appeal, whatever poor excuse they come up with. By the way, this practice is ancient. Many singers of the past had their pocket arias that they carried around and inserted into another opera if they thought that the opera didn't have meaty enough pieces for them.

[A.C. Douglas]

It has happened already, and multiple times. Regarding the text, there are examples in Salzburg of altered text (e.g. introducing a narrator with different lines in some Mozart operas); there's a Fledermaus with altered text explicitly mentioning contemporary politics; there's an Offenbach that changes lines that then suddenly refer by name to Natalie Dessay and Cecilia Bartoli, and there is a very outrageous example of changing the ending of La Donna del Lago and making Elena marry the king and not Malcolm. As for musical changes, they are countless; too numerous to list - but most, not necessarily out of the stage director's wish but rather because of faulty of corrupted scores. But beyond the simple use of faulty scores, there's been plenty of attempts to 'simplify' the music, give it a more musical theater appeal, whatever poor excuse they come up with. By the way, this practice is ancient. Many singers of the past had their pocket arias that they carried around and inserted into another opera if they thought that the opera didn't have meaty enough pieces for them.

Well, I'm pretty sure that's not happened yet with any of Wagner's works (what idiot would dare attempt that?) and I confess that's the one body of work I'm concerned with. I suppose I should have made that clear in my last (I'm going to do so now). To be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less about alterations to anything in the Italian or French reps as those reps have a long history of such messing about with music, text, and staging with no ill effects to the integrity of the work messed about with. Ditto the lighter, comic works in the German rep, Fledermaus in particular, as they practically invite such messing about. But one can't mess about like that with Wagner's mature works (i.e., those works from Rheingold forward) or even his three canonical operas without doing them significant damage.

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

[Couchie]

Well, I'm pretty sure that's not happened yet with any of Wagner's works (what idiot would dare attempt that?) and I confess that's the one body of work I'm concerned with. I suppose I should have made that clear in my last (I'm going to do so now). To be perfectly frank, I couldn't care less about alterations to anything in the Italian or French reps as those reps have a long history of such messing about with music, text, and staging with no ill effects to the integrity of the work messed about with. Ditto the lighter, comic works in the German rep, Fledermaus in particular, as they practically invite such messing about. But one can't mess about like that with Wagner's mature works (i.e., those works from Rheingold forward) or even his three canonical operas without doing them significant damage.

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/

Katharina is premiering a new 7 hour Ring in Argentina this fall, does that count?

[A.C. Douglas]

Katharina is premiering a new 7 hour Ring in Argentina this fall, does that count?

Yes. But because it's clearly identified as a Readers Digest version of the Ring -- an extended "bleeding chunks" version -- it will be received with that foremost in mind and might actually serve to lead people to experience the Real Deal.

(Disclaimer: My above text contains NO embedded (i.e., un-spelled-out) links. Any embedded links that appear in that text were NOT inserted by me.)

--
ACD
http://www.soundsandfury.com/