Opera collection, DVD vs CD percentage

[Fëanor]

For me, many of the best visual performances exists in my imagination. ...

Even now, given the excesses of certain producers, who seem not to understand a note of music, I often prefer to just listen to the music, and enjoy my own imagination's version of a piece.
...

Whatever: it's like preferring listening to sports events on radio rather than watching on HDTV.

[DavidRoss]

Whatever: it's like preferring listening to sports events on radio rather than watching on HDTV.

False.

[DarkAngel]

next

[Tsaraslondon]

Darkangel,

I actually have very few performances on DVD, though I have seen many more, either by borrowing from friends or when I used to work in a shop which only sold opera DVDs. I have all the Callas DVDs available, more for their documentary importance, than anything else, though Callas can still be a revelation in the small snippets we are vouchsafed. I have the Schwarzkopf/Karajan Der Rosenkavalier, again more as documentary evidence of a legendary portrayal. For some reason, this was issued by Sony, but, as far as one can tell, they literally put the video onto DVD. It is seriously in need of digitally remastering. (Please, someone).
Other than that, I have the Baz Luhrmann directed Australian Opera production of La Boheme, which I enjoy for its youthful verve, sung, as it is, by a cast of young, believable singers. And there we have the problem. Watching opera on television no way represents what it is like to watch it in the opera house. In the opera house, distance lends enchantment. And, though I have never been someone who could completely suspend disbelief enough to accept an overweight soprano tackling the role of Violetta, for instance, I am aware that a more mature singer of normal proportions can convincingly portray a young, pretty woman, when we, the audience, are not too close to her. On DVD, and in close up, we are more aware of every wrinkle, the make up, the wigs. In this age, when more and more productions are making their way onto DVD, it worries me that we are living in a culture, where singers will be cast for their looks, rather than their ability to sing the role they are playing.

[DavidRoss]

On DVD, and in close up, we are more aware of every wrinkle, the make up, the wigs.

And--particularly in Baz Luhrman's La Boheme--every cascading rivulet of gleaming sweat dripping from the principal's brow.

In this age, when more and more productions are making their way onto DVD, it worries me that we are living in a culture, where singers will be cast for their looks, rather than their ability to sing the role they are playing.

Already a done deal.  Sigh.

[Tsaraslondon]

Whatever: it's like preferring listening to sports events on radio rather than watching on HDTV.

Actually the two things are completely different. In sport the aural, which consists mainly of crowd noises, grunts form the players etc, is secondary, whereas in opera the aural experience is as important (the composer would probably argue, more important) than the visual one.

[Fëanor]

Whatever: it's like preferring listening to sports events on radio rather than watching on HDTV.

Actually the two things are completely different. In sport the aural, which consists mainly of crowd noises, grunts form the players etc, is secondary, whereas in opera the aural experience is as important (the composer would probably argue, more important) than the visual one.

Hey sorry, folks.  Yes I agree there's a difference.  I like to play the gadfly and some times I underestimate what people's reactions will be.

If I had the extensive listening experience that some folks here have, that is, if I was quite familar with the operas' plots and libretos as some people are, I might prefer just the music too.  However I don't think the majority of people come easily to opera without the full dramatic presentation.  Sure: I could be wrong.

[Brünnhilde forever]

If I had the extensive listening experience that some folks here have, that is, if I was quite familiar with the operas' plots and librettos as some people are, I might prefer just the music too. 

Humbly I admit I have the listening experience, watching experience live and on video and am familiar with the plots and librettos yet I still prefer the visual, because now we have intelligent directors presenting us with their ideas of the work. For instance there is a huge difference between the Olivier Py/Armin Jordan and Patrice Chéreau/Daniel Barenboim Tristan und Isolde and I wouldn't dismiss any of them in favour of the other. Hearing the music and voices only can't possibly show me what goes on on the stage, the setting, the expressions on the faces of the singers and so on.

[springrite]

Humbly I admit I have the listening experience, watching experience live and on video and am familiar with the plots and librettos yet I still prefer the visual, because now we have intelligent directors presenting us with their ideas of the work. For instance there is a huge difference between the Olivier Py/Armin Jordan and Patrice Chéreau/Daniel Barenboim Tristan und Isolde and I wouldn't dismiss any of them in favour of the other. Hearing the music and voices only can't possibly show me what goes on on the stage, the setting, the expressions on the faces of the singers and so on.

Indeed. Otherwise operas would be oratorios.

[Solitary Wanderer]

If I had the extensive listening experience that some folks here have, that is, if I was quite familiar with the operas' plots and librettos as some people are, I might prefer just the music too.  However I don't think the majority of people come easily to opera without the full dramatic presentation.  Sure: I could be wrong.

I agree. I took the opera plunge about five years ago and I've since seen five live performances, about seventeen Met HD performances on the big screen and bought about four or five DVD's and hired two or three from the library in addition to buying the CD sets for the live performances I attended to 'learn' the operas.

My verdict. Opera is an artform designed to be seen as well as heard. Without exception, I have not returned to the CD sets I bought and I've since decided not to buy anymore. I simply don't get the urge to sit down and just listen to opera. My wife does and enjoys aria compilation discs while I can barely recognise the pieces separated from the complete drama. The DVD's I bought are traditional Met productions and look very dated so I doubt I'll purchase more of those either (I love the Ring set). However I enjoy the Met HD presentations on the big screen immensely. The performers are well cast (unlike the old Met productions which have aged stars playing teenagers) and the production values are state of the art and you've got comfortable, great seats. I simply read the synopsis before going so I know the gist and the key moments to look out for and throughly enjoy the entire spectacle. No tiresome homework listening to long operas and following the libretto in those small CD booklets that always fall to bits.

So, my opinion could change in the future, but for now I'll stick to the Met HD productions for my opera fix 

[Tsaraslondon]

But nobody has really appreciated my point. Of course, opera is meant to be seen as well as heard. CDs are no replacement for the real thing. Nor, for that matter, are DVDs. No matter how good your equipment, they cannot replace the live experience. But my point is, that when I am listening to opera on CD, I do see the opera - only I see it in my imagination; and often the production I see there is a whole lot better than what some clever director has come up with. I generalise  of course. Another advantage of listening on CD is that Pavarotti, for instance can be the ardent young lover he ought to be. On DVD he will always be the fat man waving a white handkerchief.

Let me make give another example. Many years ago, when they were at their absolute peak, I saw Agnes Baltsa and Jose Carreras in Carmen at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. To this day, it remains the most gripping, thrilling and exciting production of the opera I have ever seen. Subsequently I bought the Karajan CDs of the opera and the Levine/Met DVD. Neither of these sets is ideal. Karajan's conducting, though a miracle of detail, lacks any real fizz, and by the time Baltsa and Carreras sang the opera at the Met, there is just a suggestion that maybe they had sang their roles a few too many times. But if I want to be reminded of that legendary night at Covent Garden, it is the CDs that I will take down from the shelves, for, in my mind, the singers give the same performance they gave when I saw them all those years ago.

[Elgarian]

when I am listening to opera on CD, I do see the opera - only I see it in my imagination; and often the production I see there is a whole lot better than what some clever director has come up with.

That's exactly how I approach it too. I'm generally resistant to opera on DVD because, unless it's truly exceptional, it's less visually satisfying than the scenes I would be imagining.

[DavidRoss]

But nobody has really appreciated my point. Of course, opera is meant to be seen as well as heard. CDs are no replacement for the real thing. Nor, for that matter, are DVDs. No matter how good your equipment, they cannot replace the live experience. But my point is, that when I am listening to opera on CD, I do see the opera - only I see it in my imagination; and often the production I see there is a whole lot better than what some clever director has come up with. I generalise  of course. Another advantage of listening on CD is that Pavarotti, for instance can be the ardent young lover he ought to be. On DVD he will always be the fat man waving a white handkerchief.

Some of us not only appreciated but shared your point of view.     I'm not sure whether the static nature of opera staging is amenable to "film."  Without the frisson of live performance, it's just a bunch of hammy actors in funny costumes standing around and singing improbably. 

I expect that with adequate resources a gifted director could make an "unstaged" opera film as successful as Fred Zinneman's Oklahoma or Walter Lang's The King and I, but I haven't seen it yet.  Francesco Rosi's Carmen fell far short of expectations.  Success requires something more than using "real world" venues as elaborate sets.

[T-C]

I have about 1200 Opera CD sets and about 600 opera DVDs.

Opera is a medium that was created for stage. When Mozart, Monteverdi, Verdi etc. created their greatest operas, they had no intentions that these creations will be experienced through preserved media like audio recording, but presented live on the opera stage, with décor, costumes and singers that are not only singing but playing. So an opera DVD is the proximate way to experience 'the Real thing'.

I find these arguments about the creation of a whole opera production in one's imagination unconvincing. Has everyone such a great talent for the stage that he can visualize in his imagination a complete opera production with Décor, costumes, singers acting with different facial expressions and body movements, dancing, extras that are playing in the background etc ?

I think opera directing is not such a simple matter... It is made of an overwhelming number of details. Unfortunately I am not that talented. I have seen in my life enough brilliant opera productions that in no way there is a chance I will ever be able to visualize even one tenth of the stage action. I didn't like every opera production that I have seen, but most of them I do like.

To make my point, I really encourage everyone to experience one after the other two recordings of Janacek's From the House of the Dead: First Charles Mackerras studio recording on the Decca label, and than the DVD version that is conducted by Pierre Boulez on the DG label. Although the Mackerras recording is outstanding musically, for my taste, the DVD version offers an experience that is on a totally different emotional scale. No CD recording of this opera (I have two) can move me like this DVD version can, because of the special combination of the powerful music with an amazing stage production that was created by Patrice Chérau.

And what about plays? One can read a play and create a production in his imagination... Is this a worthy replacement for a theater stage? Can everyone visualize the playing quality of the greatest actors?

[Brünnhilde forever]

Well said, T-C! 

[DavidRoss]

And what about plays? One can read a play and create a production in his imagination... Is this a worthy replacement for a theater stage? Can everyone visualize the playing quality of the greatest actors?

(1) The difference between reading a play and seeing it live on stage is akin to the difference between reading the score & libretto of an opera and seeing it live on stage.  (2) The comparison under discussion is not between score/libretto and live production on stage, but between audio-only recording and audio+visual recording.  (3) In my experience, film recordings of staged plays suffer the same defects as film recordings of opera productions.  (4) No one is trying to "convince" you or anyone else that you must see things as Tsaraslondon, Elgarian, and I see them.  It's not a contest to "prove" who's right.  We're only sharing different points of view in an effort to stimulate discussion and expand our understanding and appreciation of things we all enjoy...right?

[T-C]

(1) Ok, I will rephrase my last paragraph:
And what about plays? One can hear a play recited by actors through the radio and create a visual production in his imagination... Is this a worthy replacement for the theater stage?

(2) See above.

(3) I don't really get it. What are you suggesting? Let us close all the opera houses, theaters, and movies and use only audio recordings of music and plays and our imagination? 

(4) That is obvious: You are not trying to convince me and I am not trying to convince you. I will continue to enjoy real live but flawed opera productions and you will continue to enjoy perfect imaginary opera productions that unfortunately no one will ever see...

[DavidRoss]

You seem not to have grasped that we're not discussing the difference between aural recordings and stage performances, but rather the difference between aural recordings and aural+video recordings as substitutes for live stage performances.

I think it interesting that some prefer watching DVDs to listening to CDs, and vice versa.  (No one has expressed a preference for either over live performance--though I would probably find that interesting, too.)    I would much prefer to watch a well-made opera production on film (or DVD) than to just hear the music, but I've yet to see one that held my attention in the same way that listening alone can.

Given the numerous reports here over the years by knowledgeable aficionados like you and Lis about DVDs you enjoy, I've long felt a bit left out since I don't share your experience.  It's good to know I'm not alone and that others I respect, like Tsaraslondon and Elgarian, also share my experience.  Believe me, TC, it's not willful or intended, and it makes a lot of sense to me that audio+visual recording would be more satisfying than audio recording alone, but it just hasn't worked out like that for me...at least not yet. 

[T-C]

I am totally aware of the fact that we are talking here about audio vs. audio+video recordings. I hope we can agree that the reservations a few people mentioned here about DVDs do not concern the DVD technology but rather in their opinion, the not sufficient quality of the stage visualization, so in this aspect, there is no difference between live stage performances and those recorded on DVD.

I don't contribute here a lot because of lack of time and the fact that English is not my mother tongue... but I seldom argue with others about things they like or try to persuade them to like things they dislike.

So if someone writes here that he prefers to listen to audio recordings and while closing his eyes, visualize in his imagination an opera production, or just to concentrate in the music, I truly respect his choice.

However, for me it is another thing if someone is claming of doing so because of the fact that all opera productions, even by the most talented and respected directors working in opera are flawed, and the only worthwhile visualization that can be done is in one's imagination.

This kind of claim seems to me a bit presumptuous or (and I hope I don't hurt anyone's feelings) ridiculous. I am not sure if by chance every one of us will have the opportunity to direct an opera, the results would be especially impressive... it takes some talent... I don't think it is obvious. I've seen enough documentary films about opera productions that exemplify the amount of hard labor by the director and singers in shaping one operatic scene. And I think that opera directing is the most difficult of all because the music dictates a lot of what you can do on stage, so I do have respect for those who can materialize an opera production decently...

But I don't expect that everyone will agree with me about this matter...

[Elgarian]

Without the frisson of live performance, it's just a bunch of hammy actors in funny costumes standing around and singing improbably. 

That's a key point. Put me in the theatre, surround me with an ambience bristling with expectation and tingling with David Ross's frisson - and give me real people doing this stuff - and I'll be so willing to engage that I'll believe anything they want me to, almost. But translate that into a different medium - small screen, no atmosphere, no real people - and that's a different situation completely. It's a matter of temperament; there're no hard and fast rules - everyone will have his own take on this.

The comparison under discussion is not between score/libretto and live production on stage, but between audio-only recording and audio+visual recording.

Thought this was worth stressing.

Afterthought

I ought to add that I'm resistant, but not completely impervious. I'm not going to allow anyone to take my Cadmus & Hermione away, nor my Glyndebourne Giulio Cesare.