Britten Operas

[Tsaraslondon]

Thanks, that might be my choice as well. 

Say, do you have any opinion on the two leads at the Met's Peter Grimes next season?  Neil Shicoff is singing the first six performances, and Anthony Dean Griffey is doing the last one.  (To be honest, I'll probably end up hearing both.) 

--Bruce

Shicoff might be an interesting choice, as long as he doesn't bring too many of his sobbing mannerisms to the part. I haven't heard him live, but I imagine the voice might be quite big now.

Griffey I have actually worked with, though I was only playing the minor part of the doctor in Previn's A Streetcar Named Desire, whilst he was an excellent Mitch. He's quite a big guy, which is quite an advantage for the role of Grimes, and I'd expect him to sing it very well. I'd be interested to know how he does.

[bhodges]

Thanks.  I don't think I've heard much of either's work, although Shicoff has appeared at the Met quite a bit.  (FYI, just looked at the Met Opera database and he began there in Il Trittico in 1976!)

--Bruce

[grandma]

It might be a question of going to a production that 'works'. I saw Curlew River performed in a very large church (Ely Cathedral in the UK) and was very moved by the experience, as was a young Spanish lady I was with who normally couldn't bear classical opera. I think once it 'clicks' with you, it's there to stay.

Did anyone else see the DVD of Leonard Bernstein conducting Mahler's 2nd symphony at Ely cathedral?  I liked it.

[zamyrabyrd]

There are a couple threads on Gloriana but maybe this is the most appropriate to praise the Queen.
After Tsaras' endorsement of the opera (are you here?), curiosity didn't allow me to rest until ordering a videotape with the ENO with Sarah Walker, made in 1984.

Wow! There is yet another film, a tantalizing clip with Josephine Barstow on youtube, more ominous in character perhaps, all of which convinced me that this opera was a "must have". It seems that it was not a big hit when commissioned for the coronation of the 2nd Elizabeth, but a royal tribute, indeed.

Vulnerability and the demands of holding onto power are excellently balanced in the text and the characterization by Sarah Walker, her voice being very suited to the role. (I thought at first that she may have been a trite too cheerful, smiling a lot in the beginning.) The character of Essex is well delineated and acted without degenerating into a stereotype. I didn't know (or remember) he was married, having read and been fascinated by the Lytton Strachey book (also a very good play on TV) many years ago.

The music also is an excellent blend of traditional English (songs with lute and dances) with modern, a more than adequate foil to historical operas of the 19th Century. In fact when and where relevant operas exist in the vernacular, one wonders WHY another Trovatore has to be trotted out, or top preference has to be given to Puccini because these represent "opera" in the minds of the public.

ZB

[knight66]

I think the opera failed because it was not thought to be an appropriate celebration of royalty in connection with the accession of the then new young queen. She is more into horse racing than music and there has been scant patronage for the arts coming out of Buck Pal, plenty of good horse bloodstock however.

The public also did not take the piece to their hearts and I do think there was general disappointment that Britten took a different operatic track after Grimes, moving away from Verdian concepts and much more to something spare and less likely to provide the big tune.

I have listened to the piece, but perhaps seeing it would be rather more engaging.

Mike

[Wendell_E]

There are a couple threads on Gloriana but maybe this is the most appropriate to praise the Queen.
After Tsaras' endorsement of the opera (are you here?), curiosity didn't allow me to rest until ordering a videotape with the ENO with Sarah Walker, made in 1984.

Wow! There is yet another film, a tantalizing clip with Josephine Barstow on youtube, more ominous in character perhaps, all of which convinced me that this opera was a "must have".

I was lucky enough to see that ENO production in New Orleans with almost the same cast as the video (different Essex).  It really was one of my peak operatic experiences, and I love the DVD.

A couple of weeks ago, I checked the version with Barstow out of the library, and it was a major dissapointment.  It looks like the stage version would have made a great video, but the opera was heavily cut (whole scenes disappear), and strained to create a releationship between aging diva Barstow backstage (with the music sometimes literally pushed to the background) and aging Queen Elizabeth onstage.  It's not really a film of Brittens opera at all.

[zamyrabyrd]

I think the opera failed because it was not thought to be an appropriate celebration of royalty in connection with the accession of the then new young queen. She is more into horse racing than music and there has been scant patronage for the arts coming out of Buck Pal, plenty of good horse bloodstock however.

The public also did not take the piece to their hearts and I do think there was general disappointment that Britten took a different operatic track after Grimes, moving away from Verdian concepts and much more to something spare and less likely to provide the big tune.

Isn't it odd that works like these have to wait until their timeliness is over and at some time in the future may be trotted out like 19th-early 20th century opera is endlessly repeated in ours? To my mind Gloriana is an important exemplar of English culture, relevant first of all in its home country and then anywhere else in the English speaking world for language, and for music, the fact that it is contemporary. Meistersinger united past and present in German culture. Historical and mythological subjects abound in French and Italian operas of the Romantic period. If what you say is correct, it looks like some people may have missed the boat.

Somehow I get the impression that John Q Public would prefer to go to a Baroque Opera since this is supposed to be "culture", while hardly understanding its musical or cultural context. Prokofiev voiced the same frustration back in the 1920's while in the West about piano recitals almost entirely built around Chopin and Schumann.

Opera, more than instrumental music, is tied to text and a certain amount of social relevance. There may be a running translation of the text flashed above the stage but that's no guarantee of those who are not schooled in the language (including the singers) really grasping a work. I also feel that the irrelevance of some opera companies is not what they show but what they do not, in other words, not support or encourage local composers in the their own language. Instead they spend enormous sums of money that they can never recover, repeating the old saws.

Zee Bee

[Susan de Visne]

Britain was a wildly patriotic country in 1953 - I know, I was a teenager there at the time! - and the main reason Gloriana failed at the time was that it was not considered patriotic enough. It wasn't a celebration, and the Queen was seen as less than perfect. It was first seen at a Royal gala, attended mostly by aristocrats and diplomats, most of whom were musically ignorant. Peter Pears, who sang Essex, said later that it "was almost like performing to an empty house".

I always wonder what the people who commissioned it thought Britten was likely to produce. His operas up to then were Grimes, Lucretia, Albert Herring and Billy Budd, none of them exactly conventional. Even the comedy, Albert Herring, has an element of subversion. He really wasn't likely to produce Merrie England.

I love Gloriana myself, and think the music both clever and beautiful. The characterisation is quite subtle, which no doubt the first audience missed, and it has a most wonderful central role for a dramatic soprano or mezzo. Yet it even now is performed less often than many of his operas - pity.

[Tsaraslondon]

That ENO production of Gloriana, with Sarah Walker in the part of Elizabeth I remains one of the abiding memories of my early opera going years. I was probably only 18 or 19 at the time, but absolutely loved it. Another Britten opera I saw when still in my late teens was The Turn of the Screw, given by Scottish Opera in a wonderfully atmospheric production by Anthony Besch. I remember that Catherine Wilson, who sang a great deal with Scottish Opera at that time was a superb Governess. It was actually the first Britten opera I had ever seen, and I found it riveting. Strange how many of my early operatic memories have remained with me more than some of my later ones. I've seen it The Turn of the Screw quite a few times since, but, though I've never seen a bad production of it, it is this first one that comes most readily to mind, when listening to the opera.

[bhodges]

Reviving this thread since the MET's new production of Peter Grimes opens on Thursday.  Since this is one of my favorite operas, I'm really excited.  Here is a good article from yesterday's paper by Peter G. Davis, with a cool photo of the set.

--Bruce

[karlhenning]

Peter G. Davis

Middle name's not Grimes, I reckon?

[Susan de Visne]

It's wonderful that I'll be able to see this production in England, courtesy of the live cinema transmission on March 15th. I'll be there!

[bhodges]

It's wonderful that I'll be able to see this production in England, courtesy of the live cinema transmission on March 15th. I'll be there!

I have tickets for the broadcast, as well.  We'll have to compare notes afterward!

--Bruce

[Wendell_E]

I'm also looking forward to the theatrecast.  And you can hear the premiere live from the Met website here this Thursday.

[bhodges]

There were plenty of empty seats at the opening of the Met's new Peter Grimes last night--a bit dispiriting, but today I'm finding out through reading online that many people just don't like the score.  I am 180 degrees: in my mind it is a candidate for the greatest opera of the 20th century.  The production (by director John Doyle who did Sweeney Todd on Broadway, and set designer Scott Pask who did The Lieutenant of Inishmore) encourages a very ambiguous, unresolved take on the piece, without any easy answers to Grimes's behavior or that of the townspeople.  The final scene is already causing dismay, but I liked it.  (Won't reveal it here, either.  )

But musically, I can't imagine a much more satisfying evening.  Anthony Dean Griffey just sounds terrific, whether in "Now the Great Bear and Pleiades" or in his final tortured monologue, and Patricia Racette is great as Ellen Orford.  The rest of the cast is excellent, but the real stars here are the members of the Met's chorus, increasingly formidable under their new director, Donald Palumbo.  And Donald Runnicles was warmly applauded by the Met Orchestra at the curtain call.  They are as sensational as usual; anyone who loves the "sea interludes" won't be disappointed. 

I suspect the filmed version may be even more effective, due to the close-ups.  Definitely one to catch on March 15 if you like the score.

--Bruce

[Wendell_E]

The final scene is already causing dismay, but I liked it.  (Won't reveal it here, either.  )

"Spoilers" don't bother me, but it does seem odd the Met website had a picture of  the set design for that final scene (very different from rest of the opera) months before the production even premiered.

But musically, I can't imagine a much more satisfying evening.

I heard the free webcast of the performance, and agree 100%.  I've read several reports from others who were they, and while most complained about the oratorio-like production, everyone seems to agree about the musical end.  I do like Grimes, though it isn't in my top 4 Britten operas, but a performance like that makes me reconsider my list.  I can't wait to see this in the movie theatre, and for the DVD release (even if I end up listening with the monitor off).

Thanks for the report!

[bhodges]

"Spoilers" don't bother me, but it does seem odd the Met website had a picture of  the set design for that final scene (very different from rest of the opera) months before the production even premiered.

Ah, forgot about that.  Well...(still not wanting to give it away)...I could be wrong, but it's not the set per se that perplexed some last night; it's the people standing on it.

I heard the free webcast of the performance, and agree 100%.  I've read several reports from others who were they, and while most complained about the oratorio-like production, everyone seems to agree about the musical end.  I do like Grimes, though it isn't in my top 4 Britten operas, but a performance like that makes me reconsider my list.  I can't wait to see this in the movie theatre, and for the DVD release (even if I end up listening with the monitor off).

Thanks for the report!

The oratorio style bothered me at the beginning (basically the first act), but then I began to have a different take on the director's intent, and by the end I was convinced.  (I'm writing a review, so will explain then.)  At the end, when the chorus was singing those fortissimo "Peter Grimes!  Peter Grimes!" I was getting goosebumps.

--Bruce

[knight66]

The villagers need to come out as a character in their own right. They take on roles and become a protagonist. With a good chorus, it really shows up the thrilling writing and Britten's acute ability to create tension and wind it up. The mob is not just threatening,but it illustrating how such a group behaves in society. Even the ending is so clever; having got rid of what they did not understand, the tribe resorts unconcernedly to its formar mundane tasks the instant Grimes have been extinguished.

Mike

[Susan de Visne]

My curiosity is aroused, but I'm not sure I like the sound of this production. I'll reserve judgement. The Met is famously conservative (to Europeans at least), but I find it surprising there were empty seats for this classic - and even more surprising that so many people "don't like the score", which must surely be the most ravishingly beautiful score in 20th century opera. I suppose if your taste is Puccini it might sound difficult, but in fact there are a good few echoes of Puccini in it. It can hardly be called "modern" any more, I'd have thought.

The subject is far from straightforward, and I think its ambiguity puts some people off.

[Tsaraslondon]

My curiosity is aroused, but I'm not sure I like the sound of this production. I'll reserve judgement. The Met is famously conservative (to Europeans at least), but I find it surprising there were empty seats for this classic - and even more surprising that so many people "don't like the score", which must surely be the most ravishingly beautiful score in 20th century opera. I suppose if your taste is Puccini it might sound difficult, but in fact there are a good few echoes of Puccini in it. It can hardly be called "modern" any more, I'd have thought.

The subject is far from straightforward, and I think its ambiguity puts some people off.

It does seem strange that there were empty seats. As you say, the opera could hardly be called modern anymore and is now, I would have thought one of the most popular of all 20th century operas. Certainly, whenever it is on in London, either at the English National Opera or the Royal Opera House, it plays to packed houses, which is not always the case with some of Britten's other operas. The production certainly sounds interesting. I wish I could pop over the pond to see it.