The Libretto

[Guido]

So often, a libretto is blamed for the failure of an opera that we like, but I often wonder whether it just means the composer hasn't been as sensitive to the text and style of the libretto as he might have been. Should the composer mould their style to the style of the text or the librettest to the style of the composer? While we can obviously be irritated by certain plot elements or poor characterisation or if it is too static, what about the textual rhythm, phrasing and words themselves? What makes a successful text for singing?

In a similar vein - some song composers seems to be able to set almost anything to music, not needing even poetry (e.g. Ives), whereas some read reams and reams of the stuff in order to find one that they actually consider settable (e.g. Barber, who was one of the most erudite and literary of all composers, but only rarely found poems that he felt he could set.)

[sospiro]

Intersting topic thank you Guido.

I don't consider myself suitably qualified to answer you properly but I'm always interested in the choices some composers make.

In the libretto book of 'Un giorno di regno' there is a fascinating history of the opera written by Martin Sokol.  Following the success of his first opera, Verdi was commissioned by La Scala to write three more. He was asked to write an opera buffa (at the most tragic time imaginable in his life) and he was given several texts.  Sokol writes "...None of these appealed to Verdi, but because there was not enough time to search for a more suitable play, he chose the one he least disliked ..."

When it was first produced the opera was a failure & the grief stricken Verdi was released from his contract with La Scala.

I felt so sad when I learned the story of this opera and (IMO) proves that even in adversity & with a rubbish libretto Verdi's music is still sublime. 

[knight66]

Perhaps a distinction is needed between the storyline and the libretto. Some are a bit hopeless in both respects. Schubert's 'Fierrabras' for instance. The plot is contorted and the words just don't allow cohesion. Odd in a way as Schubert had such a talent for setting great poetry.

There is lots of correspondence between Puccini, Verdi, Richard Strauss and their various wordsmiths. Hofmannsthal was no kind of hack in Libretto terms, but his sense of drama, or occasional lack of it, lead him to some over wordy, clotted and inert texts in later collaborations such as 'The Egyptian Helen'. In contrast, the much earlier joint effort 'Elektra' is terse and builds drama superbly.

Now it is possible that the aims of the artists were quite different in the later operas, but from my reading I draw the following conclusion:
That Strauss', craving intellectual respectability, hitched himself to a heavyweight intellectual who increasingly wanted to explore the abstract and the arcane.
There are letters from Strauss asking for some less heavily textured writing, but I think he was inclined to sacrifice his own dramatic instincts and bow to the Great Brain.

In contrast, Puccini went at it until he pared the words down to what he needed. The results may make you queasy, but as libretti, they are wonderfully well shaped.

Verdi also took enormous pains with the words. But then he would attempt a bonkers plot such as Simone Boccenegra, or much more successfully, Trovatore. But his collaborations with Boito such as Otello are masterpieces in that they are faithful to the spirit of Shakespeare and explore well beneath the surface of the plot. They suited Verdi's style, so he was inspired to his best.

So, sometimes there had to be enormous amounts of revision, sometimes the composer seemed not to have the confidence to insist on what he needed, other occasions either the writer understood what the composer wanted, or the two struck sparks off one another.

Mike

Mike

[Guido]

Perhaps a distinction is needed between the storyline and the libretto. Some are a bit hopeless in both respects. Schubert's 'Fierrabras' for instance. The plot is contorted and the words just don't allow cohesion. Odd in a way as Schubert had such a talent for setting great poetry.

There is lots of correspondence between Puccini, Verdi, Richard Strauss and their various wordsmiths. Hofmannsthal was no kind of hack in Libretto terms, but his sense of drama, or occasional lack of it, lead him to some over wordy, clotted and inert texts in later collaborations such as 'The Egyptian Helen'. In contrast, the much earlier joint effort 'Elektra' is terse and builds drama superbly.

Now it is possible that the aims of the artists were quite different in the later operas, but from my reading I draw the following conclusion:
That Strauss', craving intellectual respectability, hitched himself to a heavyweight intellectual who increasingly wanted to explore the abstract and the arcane.
There are letters from Strauss asking for some less heavily textured writing, but I think he was inclined to sacrifice his own dramatic instincts and bow to the Great Brain.

In contrast, Puccini went at it until he pared the words down to what he needed. The results may make you queasy, but as libretti, they are wonderfully well shaped.

Verdi also took enormous pains with the words. But then he would attempt a bonkers plot such as Simone Boccenegra, or much more successfully, Trovatore. But his collaborations with Boito such as Otello are masterpieces in that they are faithful to the spirit of Shakespeare and explore well beneath the surface of the plot. They suited Verdi's style, so he was inspired to his best.

So, sometimes there had to be enormous amounts of revision, sometimes the composer seemed not to have the confidence to insist on what he needed, other occasions either the writer understood what the composer wanted, or the two struck sparks off one another.

Mike

Mike

Thanks for this Mike - all very interesting - The one I know most about is Strauss' colaboration with Hofmannsthal - and you are right I think in your characterisation. As a Straussian it is controversial to say the Die Frau Ohne Schatten is not his best work (far from it in fact!) but the fault is again largely the libretto in and for the same reason as Helen - Hofmannsthal not righting words appropriate for Strauss' talents (Strauss said that he responded best to sentimentality and parody - another reason why FrOSch is not his greatest) and also not apparently understanding the medium of opera all too well - although Ariadne, Rosenkavalier and Elektra are all very successful so he clearly understood it enough! He was most proud of Frosch and Helen though...

[knight66]

Thanks for the additional post. Even Rosenkavalier is over wordy and reams of words are often cut. Hoffie was really a playright, but I don't think his plays are revived, which tells us something.

Then there is Wagner's libretti. Some seem to think they are perfect, but I think an editor with a sharp pair of scissors would have done wonders to reduce the bloat. No doubt certain people will now send round the boys to kneecap me, but I am off on holls tomorrow, so the house will be empty when they arrive.

Mike

[Guido]

I quite agree with you about Rosenkavalier - For me, that opera is all about the Marschallin - her scene and monologues, and then the final trio and duet of course... The problem with that opera is the ridiculously over the top treatment of a very slim story outline - does it really need a three hour Wagnerian setting? Large parts of it are frankly boring and I find Ochs gets tiresome, mostly because neither Strauss nor Hofmannsthal had yet worked out how to write a likeable "bad" character. Also Strauss infamously never writes as well for male characters, and I think he only really solves this in the later operas, especially Capriccio, though of course in that one, the Soprano voice gets in the last scene one of its greatest outings in all of music!

With der Rosenkavalier, the good parts (both libretto and music) are so good that it is obvious why it gets done so often.


What about Barber's Vanessa? - this is so often described as an "almost masterpiece" - and the libretto is sometimes blamed for this. The music is unapollogetically Puccinian and Straussian, a gothic meldorama and seems almost vulgar at times compared to Barber's normally impeccably refined taste - always staying on the right side of sentiment/sentimental line. The libretto appeals to me in its simplicity, the characters are beautifully delineated, the poetry of the text is uncluttered, direct and often quite lovely. There is something wrong with this work, but somehow the more I listen, the less obvious it gets for me.

[False_Dmitry]

I quite agree with you about Rosenkavalier - For me, that opera is all about the Marschallin - her scene and monologues, and then the final trio and duet of course... The problem with that opera is the ridiculously over the top treatment of a very slim story outline - does it really need a three hour Wagnerian setting? Large parts of it are frankly boring and I find Ochs gets tiresome, mostly because neither Strauss nor Hofmannsthal had yet worked out how to write a likeable "bad" character.

Oooooh yes, indeed!   And we are sick of "Mariandel" before she even appears

In any stage work, it is crucial to decide two things before you start: (i) "What happens in this story?" and (ii) "What did we learn?"

The "story" of Rosenkavalier has nothing to do with any of the characters.  The story is -  "the Old Order is changing, in future the world will be run by money, and not by aristocratic breeding".   The Marschallin represents the Old Order, but she accepts that her time is up.  Octavian is the Changeling - born in the Old Order, but quickly marrying into the New Order to secure his future. - he "sells" his title for Faninal's money. And Sophie is the New Order - a pretty face, heaps of money, but no title (yet). 

And what do we learn? That money cannot buy happiness, but only the appearance of happiness.

Everything else in the story is extraneous, and conspires to bore the audience.

Perhaps Hofmanstahl felt unconfident about telling the audiences of the Vienna Opera what their future would be?  In fact WW1 saved him the trouble of telling them.

[Guido]

And what do we learn? That money cannot buy happiness, but only the appearance of happiness.

You don't think its real love between Sophie and Octavian? Or are you talking about the Marschallin.

The Mariandel scene is just awful. Why is it so long? The musical jokes in the score are wonderfully done of course, and I the reason it is so popular must be because of the beauty of the score in general.

Perhaps Hofmannsthal felt unconfident about telling the audiences of the Vienna Opera what their future would be?  In fact WW1 saved him the trouble of telling them.

Perhaps because Hofmannsthal himself was a part of this old world?

One needs to remember also that it is set in the 1740s.

[False_Dmitry]

You don't think its real love between Sophie and Octavian? Or are you talking about the Marschallin.

Hmmm, it's an interesting question )  Was it ever love between Octavian and the Marschallin... or was it just sex (at least, for him)?  I feel it's hinted that Octavian might remain loyal to Sophie for a while, but he will later turn into another womanising, drinking, gambling Ochs.... and the cycle will begin once again

I most recently saw the opera when I was in Berlin (by accident), and saw it at the Komische Oper.  There they do what I have always wanted to see...   they reverse the stage-directions, and Octavian & Sophie rush offstage to sing their duet out of sight...   centre-stage is Marie Therese, tearing her hair out with grief and despair  (Bernadette Greevy, fantastic performance!).  A great production by Andreas Homoki (Artistic Director at the Komische).

The Mariandel scene is just awful. Why is it so long? The musical jokes in the score are wonderfully done of course, and I the reason it is so popular must be because of the beauty of the score in general.

I think maybe the Viennese audience of the time wanted this kind of comedy scene...   and without it, the social commentary might have felt rather too harsh, perhaps?   Undeneath the periwigs and crinolines,  Hofmanstahl is preaching revolution   He has to sugar his message a little

[Guido]

Hmmm, it's an interesting question )  Was it ever love between Octavian and the Marschallin... or was it just sex (at least, for him)?  I feel it's hinted that Octavian might remain loyal to Sophie for a while, but he will later turn into another womanising, drinking, gambling Ochs.... and the cycle will begin once again

Yes this is very perceptive and I agree. Additionally, Sophie is the Marschallin in her teens - we can only imagine that the Marschallin's husband is similar to Ochs (i.e. also an Ox!) which gives credence to the idea that Octavian might end up the same. Though he seems less repugnant than Ochs, so I'm more hopeful!

I most recently saw the opera when I was in Berlin (by accident), and saw it at the Komische Oper.  There they do what I have always wanted to see...   they reverse the stage-directions, and Octavian & Sophie rush offstage to sing their duet out of sight...   centre-stage is Marie Therese, tearing her hair out with grief and despair  (Bernadette Greevy, fantastic performance!).  A great production by Andreas Homoki (Artistic Director at the Komische).

That sounds like a brilliant idea.

Incidentally, this bit in the final scene:

FANINAL
Sind halt aso, die jungen Leut'!

MARSCHALLIN
Ja, ja.

is one of the most moving things in opera I think, both the words, and Strauss' beautiful setting of them.
The Ja, Ja reflects her ironical humour, her nostalgic regret, her knowing wordlyness. How can anyone not fall in love with the character?!

[Tsaraslondon]

Yes this is very perceptive and I agree. Additionally, Sophie is the Marschallin in her teens - we can only imagine that the Marschallin's husband is similar to Ochs (i.e. also an Ox!) which gives credence to the idea that Octavian might end up the same. Though he seems less repugnant than Ochs, so I'm more hopeful!

That sounds like a brilliant idea.

Incidentally, this bit in the final scene:

FANINAL
Sind halt aso, die jungen Leut'!

MARSCHALLIN
Ja, ja.

is one of the most moving things in opera I think, both the words, and Strauss' beautiful setting of them.
The Ja, Ja reflects her ironical humour, her nostalgic regret, her knowing wordlyness. How can anyone not fall in love with the character?!

Which is precisely why, even alone, I doubt very much the Marschallin would give in to tearing  her hair in grief and despair. She may regret the argument (if you can call it that) she has with Octavian in Act I, but By Act III, she is much more resigned to the inevitable. She has already predicted it in Act I remember. This is where I feel Schwarzkopf is so fantastic. She does get angry and spiteful  for a few moments in Act III, hardly suppressing her disdain for Ochs, but she quickly recovers herself, and her natural magnanimity and nobility take over. And even when still angry with Octavian, she is tenderness itself in her dealings with Sophie. That final "Ja, ja!" expresses so many conflicting emotions; a regretful happiness for the young couple, a realisation that they will not always be so happy, a possibility that Octavian may still turn back to her, and an acceptance that things will never be the same again.

Der Rosenkavalier may have its faults, but, in it, Strauss created one of the greatest characters in all opera.

[False_Dmitry]

MARSCHALLIN
Ja, ja.

is one of the most moving things in opera I think, both the words, and Strauss' beautiful setting of them.

Oh yes, completely agreed   We've previously seen her as a very lucid and intelligent woman who can voice her opinions and ideas with care and accuracy.  This "Ja, ja" is choked-out because she cannot find words to express her feelings...  nor, even when Octavian has concluded a Marriage Contract with another girl, will she betray his secrets to Von Faninal  (even though she could easily "recover" him by doing so).

Which is precisely why, even alone, I doubt very much the Marschallin would give in to tearing  her hair in grief and despair.

I don't want to speak for Andreas Homoki as I don't know him - but I've perhaps misdescribed the moment?  In fact she pulls her magnificent wig off, revealing greyed dull ordinary hair below it,  and she steps out of her gorgeous crinoline into her drab petticoat - she is shorn of all the outer "display" that makes her a Marschallin. 

I dearly wish I could take the scissors to the final two pages with the page running in, and remove them forever - so that the opera ended as it ought to.  (In fact I once had the chance, since I was asked to stage the Trio in a showing of "opera scenes" with piano.  I left the Marschallin on-stage at the end - after all, she's in her own house, where the young couple are but guests...  I imagine them going off into the manicured gardens to sit by the fountains as C18th young people ought to do

[Guido]

Interestingly, page 130 of this book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c005AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Sind+halt+aso,+die+jungen+Leut+rosenkavalier&source=bl&ots=VEFqgo1xPU&sig=uGDEp_7VwPXsh8xu_W3tZ_k-wX0&hl=en&ei=wDrwS5jCAYb20wTZsoziBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Says that in the original text that Hofmannsthal put together, she doesn't say the "Ja, ja" and instead remains silent. How much less potent that would have been!


As an aside - does anyone know of a decent English libretto translation online?

[False_Dmitry]

Says that in the original text that Hofmannsthal put together, she doesn't say the "Ja, ja" and instead remains silent. How much less potent that would have been!

In a stage play, it would be perfectly in character to say nothing.  Within the context of opera, she has to say "something" in order to "say nothing"    Otherwise it would just seem like it "wasn't her cue"