To think or not to think while enjoying an opera?

Question

The great Wagnerian soprano, Astrid Varnay ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdne3kdSVZI ), makes many intriguing observations in her memoir (55 Years in 5 Acts). One of them was sparked by a review she read;
"Critic X paid lavish compliments to the musical and dramatic interpretation, taking issue with one small detail. In his words, "What is the point of Herod's asking Salome to bite on some fruits with her white little teeth and then offering her grapes?" The difference between cultures is sometimes overwhelming: while a German reviewer would be holding forth over the philosophical significance of this or that symbolic element, an American discusses the prop fruit!" (P. 296) 

It seems we're still seeing the same trend today. The European opera theaters are more keen on presenting conceptualized staging of operas while the American houses mostly want to stick to the traditional one... probably because that's what the audience of both places want or expect. 

My question is: when you attend or watch an opera (live or on DVD or at the cinema), do you just want to be entertained with a familiar story/setting or do you like to think along - of what is being presented or pondered - as the show goes on? (there is no right or wrong answer. People pick up a book or listen to music for different personal reasons).

suhwahaksaeng · Accepted Answer

Tosca prays for the stars to shine more brightly.
A scientifically-minded person might remind us that the light from the stars takes hundreds of years to get here.
So God would have to travel back in time to honor Tosca's request.

Here is another question which I have been wondering about:
Does "one" mean "only one" or "one or more"?
Does "two" mean "only two" or "two or more"?
Amahl seems to choose the first option to each question.

petr b · Answer

Many of the older period operas were originally staged in contemporary dress of the time.  The custom meant the producers and the public were accustomed to thinking of the drama as happening in their present.

To keep up this 'tradition' is not a bad thing.

There is, however, too much theater where some director feels they have to layer on some conception which either doesn't fit the piece, or there seems to be a desire to make their mark (assert their 'take' upon) again, often to the detriment of the piece.  If the piece supports another 'interpretation' of staging, there is not a problem beyond personal taste.

Me, I prefer to think a bit.  Otherwise, a presentation becomes too much of a passive activity, at which point why not turn on the television?

If attending a particular opera for the first time, it may be better seen as a period piece. It feels a bit as if 'you were there' back in time. I believe the preference for the 'original' vs the new is then is dependent upon the attendee.

best regards, petr b.

Alberich · Answer

Great question: would like to see more on this forum like this one.  Some of us "ole fuddy-duddies", need to re-think our individual perceptions, taste, from time to time, and question if they might have become "fossilized".

     It's a shame there wasn't a video of the Varnay "Salome"; but still, gloriously chilling.

     In considering the pros and cons of contemporary American vs. European operatic productions, I think one needs to take into account 
the evolutionary aspect.  Some would probably contest my assertion 
that American culture is essentially that of a transplanted
European "Enlightenment".

     Whereas opera has long been a main-stay of European culture: for centuries; not so here, we are relatively newcomers relative to a history of 
its being a viable, ongoing aspect of our culture.  Be that as it may, I for one still much prefer the traditional over the "questionable" value of perpetual revamping of the classics of this genere.

     For entertainment, I watch "America's Funniest Videos" on TV, or some such similar program.

     And although I plead guilty to at times having fallen asleep during a live performance of the Wagnerian epics, it was really only because I had difficulty in following the English translations on the monitor, or none were available.

     When I watch a DVD performance on my set at home, or a live PBS-TV production(both of which have English sub-titles), I'm always all "eyes and ears": focus and concentrate intently.

     So to respond to your question in a most explicit way: NO, I never view/listen to operas for entertainment alone(although some do provide this in addition to experiencing that of their artistic merit).

                                                                                           Alberich

P.S.- trust some of the above makes sense; am really tired and perhaps shouldn't have attempted a response tonight.

I. Jones · Answer

Actually I go to see the performances I don't know well. I'll read the synopsis beforehand and try my darnedest to ignore subtitles. I want to see opera for the sake of opera. Since I've already read the storyline, I can enjoy the music, singing, set design, costuming, and acting. 

... It's liberating not having to hang on every word that is sung over six measures of melisma.

Edit: Before I get a beating ... When I see opera it is not mindless entertainment. I'm actively listening and watching and in a good production I am transported into "that place and time" set on the stage.

? · Answer

I go to the opera becuase even though the story is so familiar I feel like I am seeing it for the first time.  I don't think I just wath and listen.  Once the opera is over I enjoy discussing them with others.

Trending News

To think or not to think while enjoying an opera?

5 Answers