Britten Operas

[Susan de Visne]

The critic entirely misses the point - not uncommon among reviewers of new operas!

He (or is it she?) is right about Grimes using a lot of standard opera conventions, however, and in that respect it's the least original of Britten's operas. I've always thought that's precisely why it's the most popular. Even if the subject matter is unconventional, the forms are familiar. If you look at Billy Budd or Turn of the Screw, you find something much more unusual, and in my opinion they are both greater operas than Peter Grimes. They probably take more concentration and effort from the listener, though - which not all listeners are willing to give. Turn of the Screw is probably the most frequently performed.

[knight66]

Certainly Grimes is the most 'operatic' in the traditional sense. I can detect echos of Verdi, that critic found some of Moussorgsky, I can hear Richard Strauss as a close cousin. There is the quartet of women singing which starts, 'From the gutter', a close relation to the final trio from Rosenkavalier. Surely the storm interlude has just a little of Wagner in it.

I know some of the other operas may be more admired, can absorb one in different and more intimate ways, but I connect best with the Grimes piece.

Mike

[Tsaraslondon]

Certainly Grimes is the most 'operatic' in the traditional sense. I can detect echos of Verdi, that critic found some of Moussorgsky, I can hear Richard Strauss as a close cousin. There is the quartet of women singing which starts, 'From the gutter', a close relation to the final trio from Rosenkavalier. Surely the storm interlude has just a little of Wagner in it.

I know some of the other operas may be more admired, can absorb one in different and more intimate ways, but I connect best with the Grimes piece.

Mike

And how many other great opera composers show such a sure hand in the idiom, in their very first opera? Not Mozart (La Finta Semplice), not Verdi (Oberto, Conte di San Bonifacio), not Wagner (Die Feen), not Rossini (la Cambiale di Matrimonio), Donizetti (Enrico di Borgogna, or Bellini (Adelson e Salvini, and certainly not Strauss (Guntram). Peter Grimes is a towering achievement indeed.

[knight66]

Yes, if we count Paul Bunyan as an operetta, then indeed the first fully fledged opera was one in full flower.

Mike

[(poco) Sforzando]

And how many other great opera composers show such a sure hand in the idiom, in their very first opera?

Berg.

[Tsaraslondon]

Berg.

True. I forgot Berg, but probably because he only completed one opera. And before anyone pulls me up, Lulu was left incomplete. One could say the same for Debussy, but, though he wrote one unique masterpiece in the genre, Debussy is not really considered an opera composer. And the same for Bartok, who wrote one short, rather static opera for two characters (Duke Bluebeard's Castle), which, though indeed a masterpiece, is on an altogether smaller scale than Britten's Peter Grimes.

[(poco) Sforzando]

True. I forgot Berg, but probably because he only completed one opera. And before anyone pulls me up, Lulu was left incomplete. One could say the same for Debussy, but, though he wrote one unique masterpiece in the genre, Debussy is not really considered an opera composer. And the same for Bartok, who wrote one short, rather static opera for two characters (Duke Bluebeard's Castle), which, though indeed a masterpiece, is on an altogether smaller scale than Britten's Peter Grimes.

Exactly why I didn't mention either. Or for that matter Beethoven, whose only opera is a work that many lovers of the composer's music treasure, but does have a number of flaws that the revisions did not always resolve.

But though technically Lulu was left incomplete, the first two acts were indeed finished and the third substantially so - to the point where Friedrich Cerha's primary responsibility was to orchestrate from Berg's short score when he completed the opera for Universal Edition, working in secret to prevent Helene Berg from finding out. And for this task he had guidelines to follow from the Lulu Suite and the parallel passages from the earlier acts.

[bhodges]

My review of Peter Grimes is here.

--Bruce

[knight66]

Bruce, A very complete review. It does make me want to see it. Was it well received by the audience?

Teddy Tahu Rhodes is seemingly one to watch out for; a tiny part this year, but I suspect he will get offered larger roles soon.

Mike

[bhodges]

The reception has been very mixed: high praise for everyone in the cast and the chorus, and for the orchestra, but mostly negative for the production.  I was most annoyed at one comment: "...an egregious mistake."

I'm seeing it again tonight, and will look forward to seeing how they changed the ending.  (I left what I saw on opening night "as is," but I gather the final set was scrapped.)

But never mind.  The score remains one of the 20th century's greatest.

--Bruce

[(poco) Sforzando]

The critic entirely misses the point - not uncommon among reviewers of new operas!

He [yes, he] is right about Grimes using a lot of standard opera conventions, however, and in that respect it's the least original of Britten's operas. I've always thought that's precisely why it's the most popular. Even if the subject matter is unconventional, the forms are familiar. If you look at Billy Budd or Turn of the Screw, you find something much more unusual, and in my opinion they are both greater operas than Peter Grimes. They probably take more concentration and effort from the listener, though - which not all listeners are willing to give. Turn of the Screw is probably the most frequently performed.

It's easy to be critical of someone who has come to a work that hasn't had the seasoning of time. But I know each of the three works you mention quite well, I have recordings and scores and memories of several live performances for each, and I still maintain that Grimes is the most consistent and powerful of the lot - as someone put it well to me, perhaps the only of his operas where Britten is always firing on all cylinders. For whatever reasons dramatic and/or musical, I feel that in here more than any other of his operas, Britten gets to the heart of each of his characters and shapes the entire action in a dramatically compelling way. (Not that he doesn't rise to the occasion at times - in his characterizations of Claggart, for example, or Puck.)

From the photographs alone, and despite bhodges's eloquent review, I still feel a bit apprehensive towards this production, and a bit annoyed that they replaced the entirely satisfactory earlier staging after so few viewings. Nonetheless, I'll at least order my ticket for the movie.

[Susan de Visne]

Great review, Bruce, many thanks. Thank goodness they have at least left the Sea Interludes more or less alone. A recent very highly praised production for Opera North in England was partially spoit for me by busy scenes during the interludes.

Sforzando  -I do know what you mean about Peter Grimes. It's young man's music, plenty of rushing passion, whereas the others are more inturned, though of course he still wasn't very old. Interesting what you say about Claggart, because the character has been criticised by many for being just a one-dimensional pantomime villain - not that I think that.

[Tsaraslondon]

Interesting what you say about Claggart, because the character has been criticised by many for being just a one-dimensional pantomime villain - not that I think that.

Nor do I. There's a lot more to Claggart than pure pantomime villainy, though, like some of Shakespeare's villains, there is not a lot to explain why he is so evil and takes against Billy's unequivocal goodness. Some have ascribed this to a subliminal homo-erotic element. Claggart cannot explain his attraction to Billy, and therefore has to destroy the thing he is attracted to. But surely the most interesting and complex character in Billy Buddis Vere. Vere knows that, though Billy is indeed guilty of killing Claggart, he is not guilty of intent. He could save Billy, but he doesn't. Why? A question that remains unanswered, both for Vere and the audience, at the end of the opera.

[Susan de Visne]

Some have ascribed this to a subliminal homo-erotic element. Claggart cannot explain his attraction to Billy, and therefore has to destroy the thing he is attracted to.

That's certainly what E.M.Forster intended when he wrote the libretto. He and Britten had to be careful how they dealt with the subject, because depicting homosexuality on the stage was, amazingly, illegal in Britain until 1958.

But surely the most interesting and complex character in Billy Buddis Vere. Vere knows that, though Billy is indeed guilty of killing Claggart, he is not guilty of intent. He could save Billy, but he doesn't. Why? A question that remains unanswered, both for Vere and the audience, at the end of the opera.

I agree he's the most interesting character. A conflict between conscience (he thinks Billy is essentially innocent, and should be saved) and conscientiousness (the law says he should die)? That's how I see it.

[Tsaraslondon]

because depicting homosexuality on the stage was, amazingly, illegal in Britain until 1958.

Actually 1967, 10 years after the Wolfenden report recommended that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence. Although it was only homosexual behaviour between men that was illegal, the law having been passed during Queen Victoria's reign. Victoria refused to believe that women would indulge in such a thing, so the law only ever refered to men.

[knight66]

That was the date for actual relationships, but I also thought there was an earlier date for simulated relationships portrayed on-stage.

Mike

[Tsaraslondon]

That was the date for actual relationships, but I also thought there was an earlier date for simulated relationships portrayed on-stage.

Mike

That probably had more to do with the fact that all stage performances were controlled by censorship under the Lord Chamberlain's office. Censorship of stage performances was withdrawn in 1968, leading to the staging of the musical Hair, and full frontal nudity on stage. This in turn led to the production of many shows dealing with nudity and sex, such as Kenneth Tynan's Oh! Calcutta!.

[Susan de Visne]

It wasn't only a matter of "simulated relationships". Any direct reference in the theatre to homosexuality was forbidden by the Lord Chamberlain's office until 1958, when they decided that since it was by then talked about in everyday life (though not much!), it was no longer reasonable to forbid mention of it on the stage. Completely astonishing by today's standards.

Britten and no doubt others managed to get round this, but they had to be subtle and indirect about it.

Yes, the law about real relationships was changed in 1967 - and Britten had managed to get round that too, though he was once interviewed by the police, which must have been very frightening.

[bhodges]

And here is Alex Ross's very perceptive write-up.  I'm glad he comments on the puzzling unpopularity of this opera...perhaps the upcoming broadcast will help change that. 

--Bruce

[uffeviking]

Peter Grimes right now at:

KING.org

10:30 am
BRITTEN: Peter Grimes
Donald Runnicles/Metropolitan Opera of New York
Patricia Racette; Anthony Dean Griffey; Anthony Michaels-Moore
LIVE PERFORMANCE: Met Opera