The Metropolitan Opera has just opened a searingly erotic Don Giovanni, yet the New York Times has dismissed the new production for its “timidity.” Other members of the New York press corps are even more contemptuous. The New York Observer sneers that the “new Don Giovanni is worse than bad: it’s nothing.” And the New York Post calls the staging “dreck.” What has inspired such critical contumely? The riveting production is a faithful rendering of the opera’s music and libretto.RTWT here.
Your various articles on Wagner and his works convince me that you have a defective understanding of Wagner's music dramas, the intentions that lie behind them and the intellectual context in which they were written. While it's true that works of art take on a life of their own once the artist has delivered them into the world, this does not mean that the art-work can be or should be detached from the ordinary and intellectual life of the artist who created them. I reject the romantic [sic] view that the artist is merely the channel of some sort of divine inspiration. Wagner's works are his works, and those works are inseparable from Wagner the ordinary man and cannot be properly understood without placing them within the context of his ordinary and intellectual life at the time of the works' creation.The above idea concerning the output of creative artists is neither novel nor atypical and is, in fact, a bedrock assumption of perhaps the majority of arts criticism, both today and in the past. While we have no argument with that assumption when concerned with the output of creative artists of ordinary gift (which ordinary gift can indeed be substantial; Wagner's great contemporary Giuseppe Verdi springs instantly to mind), we take strong exception to it when the output concerned is the product of a creative artist of transcendent gift such as Richard Wagner. As the great T.S. Eliot put it: "[T]he more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates." In our not-so-humble opinion, the kind of thinking that proclaims that even in the case of a transcendent creative genius the created artworks cannot be separated from the ordinary man and can be understood properly only in the context of the ordinary and intellectual life of their creator serves only to lead one ineluctably into all sorts of false byways and into drawing false if authoritative-sounding conclusions concerning those artworks. Ultimately, such thinking results in producing what are essentially irrelevant intellectual maunderings regarding the artworks themselves, clever as those maunderings may be. As we've asserted here on S&F more than once, all Wagner's music-dramas are entirely self-contained works and require no scholarly biographical commentary of any sort whatsoever for one to comprehend them fully. Where genuine works of art are concerned, the facts of the ordinary and intellectual life of their creator, if he be a creator of transcendent genius, count directly for nothing in the artworks the aesthetic and affective core of each of which is always the product of mostly unconscious transformative processes which processes are as much a mystery to the creator as they are to us. Nor can those transformative processes be "reverse engineered" after the fact to better understand them and the works of art they produced — not even by the creator himself, much less ordinary folk such as us, no matter how deep or probing the scholarship or how convinced one may be that the results of such scholarship lead to a deeper understanding of the artworks in question. Such a conviction can be nothing more or other than a self-serving justification of the research time and labor expended. Which is not to say that such scholarship has no worth or value in itself. It most surely can be both worthwhile and valuable. It simply has no worth or value in gaining a deeper understanding of the artworks themselves in the case of artworks which are the product of transcendent creative genius. We might add, if somewhat ungenerously, that the products of such scholarly researches in the case of Wagner's music-dramas are too often used by writers, especially if they're critics or academics, to make their discourse on the music-dramas seem wonderfully erudite and objectively verifiable, that last a great (if false) comfort to both the writer and his readers. While we can sympathize with that feeling of comfort, that comfort is always misplaced. As with all genuine works of art, not only ones produced by creators of transcendent genius, once one goes beyond questions of craft and process there's no objectively verifiable anything except, perhaps, place and date of creation. One might even say that's a hallmark and necessary condition of all genuine works of art and a principal source of their affective power and resonant nature.
Franz Welser-Möst, music director of the Vienna State Opera, is so critical of Jean-Louis Martinoty's two recent Mozart productions [Le Nozze di Figaro and Don Giovanni] that a planned third [Così fan tutte] has been cancelled, reports the Kleine Zeitung. [...] From the outset, said Welser-Möst, Martinoty dismissed everything in the pit as a collateral matter.RTWT here.
There may be degrees between bloated ancien-regime production, "Carmen" on Mars (betraying my personal bias, I say why not?), or doing everything on milk crates and folding chairs.And another member wrote:
[T]he emphasis today has shifted to a, for me, unacceptable level of control by directors who know nothing about singers, singing and opera - nor do any of those things matter - as long as they can put their own signatures on productions. There has to be a middle ground!On reading both of which we responded instantly without so much as a moment's thought:
In matters of Art the middle ground is never the best, or even the right, solution. The middle ground all but guarantees mediocrity and while that may be acceptable or even the most sane solution in politics, in Art it's the Kiss Of Death. The fundamental problem with today's Regies is not so much that they want to "put their own signatures on productions" above all else (any opera director absent the ego to not want his signature on a production above all else is an opera director unworthy of the title and the job) but that they are either incompetent to come to grips with or don't understand and respect or, understanding, refuse to accept the irrefutable and ineluctable central circumstance that in opera the composer, NOT the librettist, is the dramatist. This is true of all opera from the most flimsy, soap-opera-y Italian melodramas to the great music-dramas of Mozart and Wagner. This directorial incompetence or failure or refusal of understanding underlies all Eurotrash Regietheater outrages. The solution is NOT to aim for a middle ground in staging opera, but to engage opera directors who understand, respect, and are competent to deal with that central circumstance of all opera.We were able to write that instantly without so much as a moment's thought because it's something we've written before in a previous entry here on S&F — or so we were certain. Turns out, there is no such entry, and we never did write it on S&F before — that is, not explicitly although the idea is implicit in almost everything we've written here concerning Regietheater. Time to make good the lapse; ergo, this entry.
I see that Lisa Hirsch deleted a comment of yours to the post "Top Ten Composers: A Fool's Errand" on her blog Iron Tongue of Midnight. What dastardly thing did you say this time? Enquiring minds want to know. :-) Carol _______The fact of the matter is our comment wasn't in the least "dastardly". It was deleted by Ms. Hirsch so that she — in a true-to-form, junior-high-school-girl fit of pique — could make a public show of deleting it (i.e., she first published the comment which she didn't have to do, then deleted it so that it would show up publicly in the comments section as a comment by us deleted by her). Our deleted comment was in response to a comment addressed to us by John Marcher (he of "Hendrix and Beethoven are pretty much musical peers" fame) in reply to our writing:
Had you written something along the lines of, "In their respective domains, I think Hendrix and Beethoven are equally important and, in that sense, musical peers," instead of the blunt, patently absurd, "Hendrix and Beethoven are pretty much musical peers," no one, least of all myself, would have lodged any complaint or criticism. Perhaps in future you'll develop the skill to write what you actually mean.To which Mr. Marcher replied:
ACD- I did indeed write what I mean and I think it reasonable to assume the readers of Lisa's blog bring to the table a level of musical knowledge eliminating the need to have every statement explained as if one were sitting in class on the first day of Music 101. That the two [i.e., Hendrix and Beethoven] operate in different domains is a priori.In response to which we wrote:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "bring[ing] to the table a level of musical knowledge eliminating the need to have every statement explained as if one were sitting in class on the first day of Music 101," and everything to do with the wording and apparent clear intent of your blunt, patently absurd initial comment. Had, for instance, say, Leonard Bernstein made such a blunt comment, everyone would have known the tacit underlying context of that comment and filled in the blanks, so to speak. But I and most others have no idea who John Marcher may or may not be. All we have to go on are the words John Marcher wrote, and the words John Marcher wrote have to be taken at their unambiguous face value; in this case a face value that's, as I've repeatedly remarked, patently absurd; something that could have been written only by a typical moron of the postmodern sort. See the difference?That was the entire content of our comment which Ms. Hirsch saw fit to first publish then delete in such a way as to have it show up publicly in the comments section as a comment by us deleted by her. Needless to say, because of this action (which is tantamount to not publishing our comment), and as we previously promised, we will never again submit a comment to any post on Iron Tongue Of Midnight.
A conductor (in)famous for his at-times glacially slow tempi (we once heard a Rheingold conducted by Furtwängler that clocked in at some 3 1/4 hours!), Furtwängler here turns Mozart's dramatically spot-on framing tempo of Andante for the entire alla breve encounter into a quasi-Adagio, later on becoming a plodding Adagio verging on a Largo, all of which we suspect was intended by Furtwängler to lend to the encounter what he considered to be the proper requisite mix of gravitas and terror, but instead distorts and all but enervates the dramatic impact of the entire climactic scene.We might understand such liberty of tempo applied to any number of works by other composers of opera, but perhaps more than anyone Furtwängler should have known better than to second-guess the musico-dramatic directions of a master musical dramatist such as Mozart. When Mozart writes Andante, he means Andante and not Adagio or any other tempo because Andante is what the drama requires at that point to make its proper musico-dramatic point, have its proper musico-dramatic effect, and produce its proper musico-dramatic affect. We're fairly certain that what Furtwängler did then no conductor today could do without being roundly (and justifiably) savaged for the impertinence. A kind of progress of sorts.
We've just finished reading for the second time the second edition (1947) of musicologist and music historian Edward J. Dent's classic (and brilliant) 1913 study of the Mozart operas, Mozart's Operas: A Critical Study, and found it just as rewarding a read as we did first time around. This time, however, we found ourself smiling at a graf on the penultimate page of the book that previously somehow evaded our notice. Writes Dr. Dent talking about current (1913) German stagings of Die Zauberflöte:
For the interpretation of Die Zauberflöte, we ought naturally to pay considerable respect to the traditions of the German stage; but we have the authority of many German critics for believing the older "traditions" to be extremely corrupt, and we have the evidence of our own senses ... for the vanity and pedantry of modern German producers and conductors whose one aim seems to be to produce the opera in a way that no one has ever seen before, regardless both of tradition and of the original libretto and score.
And here we've always imagined the willful, self-indulgent, self-involved distortions of the intent of the original creator of an opera as made manifest in that opera's score (music and text), which distortions are the hallmark of Eurotrash Regieoper everywhere, to be a pernicious excrescence endemic to our postmodern age alone.