GMG Classical Music Forum

I'll launch this, since I am on the threshold of getting to know many of the operas, at last.

Still in the middle of listening to Peter Grimes, for the first time.

Karl, Whose version? I regard it as an opera for grownups. What a wonderful sweep it has and such insight into human nature. Live, it can have an overwhelming impact. The interludes are vivid and atmospheric. I especially love the heartbreaking embroidery aria and there is a lot for the chorus to do that emphasises their role as protagonist. Grimes as antihero, as outsider, as poet, as scapegoat....lots of strands to explore.

There is a quartet for Auntie, nieces and Ellen, it starts with the words....From the gutter....and it develops into the nearest I have heard to the trio from Rosenkavalier, an unexpected influence.

How are you finding the piece?

Mike

I'd like to learn more about The Rape of Lucretia . . . . . . .

Well, Lucretia is not grand opera in the way of Grimes. It is a chamber opera. Although it deals with a pre-Christian subject, it is filtered through the hindsight of subsequent Christian ideology and this aspect of the opera is handed over to the male and female chorus...solo parts. They comment and speculate on the action.

We are introduced to the happy Roman matron, at ease in her blissful life with her husband. She is preyed upon by the Etruscan King Tarquinius. He awaits his opportunity when Lucretia is left undefended and he despoils her. She takes on the idea that she has somehow allowed this to happen to her and that it brings such shame on her husband that she commits suicide.

Britten was in his early 20s when he composed it. The restricted orchestra is used with great imagination. There is often a wide eyed feel to the orchestration and it then becomes very dark in colour leading up to and after the event.

My own feeling is that the structure which imposes a framework of commentary gets in the way of the drama and the libretto is over-poetic. The action is held up, Lucretia's husband seems a two dimensional character, hardly worthy of the sacrifice.

Despite all of this, it is well worth listening to or watching. The recording I have has Janet Baker giving a definitive performance with Benjamen Luxon providing sleek menace as Tarquin. Baker brings the character to believeable life and tragic death, not a feat all singers of the role manage.

An awkward but rewarding piece.

Mike

Quote from: knight on April 09, 2007, 01:50:38 PM
Karl, Whose version? I regard it as an opera for grownups. What a wonderful sweep it has and such insight into human nature. Live, it can have an overwhelming impact. The interludes are vivid and atmospheric. I especially love the heartbreaking embroidery aria and there is a lot for the chorus to do that emphasises their role as protagonist. Grimes as antihero, as outsider, as poet, as scapegoat....lots of strands to explore.

There is a quartet for Auntie, nieces and Ellen, it starts with the words....From the gutter....and it develops into the nearest I have heard to the trio from Rosenkavalier, an unexpected influence.

How are you finding the piece?

Mike, it's the Colin Davis reissue on Philips.  I'm still absorbing, but I am certainly mighty impressed.  And I have long liked the Sea Interludes, to be sure.  More anon!

D Minor:  I should have the chance to gain Lucretia's acquaintance (so to speak) ere this month is very old.

Quote from: knight on April 09, 2007, 02:49:35 PM


Britten was in his early 20s when he composed it.

Mike

Sorry to be pedantic, but he was in his early 30s. Lucretia was the year after Grimes.

Like most of Britten's operas, it works very well on the stage, awkward libretto and all!

Quote from: karlhenning on April 09, 2007, 03:16:51 PM
D Minor:  I should have the chance to gain Lucretia's acquaintance (so to speak) ere this month is very old.

Please keep us updated, Karl . . . . . . . We seek to share in your discovery . . . . . . . :D

Quote from: Susan de Visne on April 10, 2007, 06:40:30 AM
Sorry to be pedantic, but he was in his early 30s. Lucretia was the year after Grimes.

Like most of Britten's operas, it works very well on the stage, awkward libretto and all!

Sorry, typo...the sort that goes through spellchecker without any problem.

Mike

Well, I've had an initial listen, in less-than-ideal conditions, to The Turn of the Screw.  Too creepy a story to say simply, "I like it";  but it makes a strong musical impression, and I will (from a musical standpoint) enjoy getting to know this better.

I still haven't gotten to know The Turn of the Screw, but have enjoyed virtually every other Britten opera I've heard.  Good for you for plunging into Peter Grimes -- and that's an excellent recording.  I am waiting with bated breath for the Met's new production next season.

--Bruce

Well, you know, Bruce, one always listens to new things.  Keeps the ear from ossifying, and goodness knows the literature is much richer than any of us could completely subdue.

And, one always finds new music to love!

I think next up needs to be The Rape of Lucretia.  I want to get all the 'dark' stories out of the way before listening to A Midsummer Night's Dream, e.g.

I have a soft spot for A Midsummer Night's Dream. I swing like a pendulum where Britten's music is concerned, but MND is always pleasant listening.

Last night I saw Curlew River for the first time, a production by the Rouen/Haute-Normandie Opera from 2005 (originally premiered at Aix-en-Provence in 1998).  It's not really an "opera" in the traditional sense: short (just 70 minutes, no intermission) and with a cast of about 20, and a chamber orchestra of seven musicians.  Based on Sumidagawa, a classic of Japanese noh theater, the story takes place in medieval times, with a "madwoman" in search of her lost son.  She and a partner cross the Curlew River on a small boat, and she find's the boy's gravesite, where his spirit briefly appears, and she is cured of her madness. 

The music is very spare, stark, and delicate, with much use of flute and harp to illustrate the emotions of the characters, who are all played by men, including the Madwoman.  There is a small chorus that evokes the choral parts of Peter Grimes or Billy Budd, and whose parts provide a nice contrast to the more spartan writing for the main characters. 

The set was simple: two platforms, one higher in the back, and a rectangular pool of water in front of them, with floating candles.  The musicians were grouped together at the right.  Everyone was quite good -- the intimate theater seats about 250 people so the singers don't have to strain.  If it may not enter my Britten "hit parade," I'm still very glad I saw it. 

--Bruce

I've just read the review of Curlew River from the New York Times. The boy played by a girl, apparently, which is rather inauthentic - and also, apparently, a conductor! Britten didn't intend there to be a conductor. It's like chamber music, the singers taking their clues from each other. Perhaps none of this matters all that much, but in addition to the fact that it was performed in a theatre rather than a church, it does make it all rather far from what Britten wanted, even more so than the modern dress performance at the London Proms.

I'm shortly going to be seeing Albert Herring (in, of all places, Salzburg) and was wondering if anyone had a recommendation for a recording to familiarise myself with this (as yet, to me) unknown music beforehand?

I can recommend two recordings of Albert Herring that I am familiar with:

Steuart Bedford recording with the Northern Sinfonia and a cast including Christopher Gillett, Josephine Barstow, Felicity Palmer and Robert Lloyd. This was recorded in the early nineties by Collins Classics and is available now cheaply on the Naxos label. Sound quality is excellent.

On DVD there is a very good performance from the Glyndebourne Festival 1985. The London Philharmonic is conducted by Bernard Haitink and with John Graham-Hall, Alan Opie, Jason Rigby, Felicity Palmer etc.

Britten's recording is available on Decca, but it is still in full-price. And I don't like especially Peter Pears voice...       

Well, I am at last listening to Death in Venice.

Quote from: T-C on April 18, 2007, 05:55:28 AM
I can recommend two recordings of Albert Herring that I am familiar with

Thanks - that's excellent  :)

Finally setting to Gloriana.  Great prelude! Let's see where it goes from here . . . .

I have several operas yet to discover.

But thought I should mention that I'm absolutøley enamoured by his early musical (?) Paul Bunyan. Anybody else know it?

Quote from: knight on April 09, 2007, 01:50:38 PM
Live, it can have an overwhelming impact.

That is very true! I saw "Peter Grimes" in Amsterdam a couple of years ago, and it left me moved and shocked - inspired. A great work.

I listened tonight to Britten's "War Requiem"  from Saint Denis / Paris. Kurt Masur leading the French National Orchestra & a mixed group of soloists ( not the best that I ever heard..). still : deep impact - stopped working and sat down to listen : "I am the enemy you killed, my friend.."

There were times when Britten could be wayward in his word settings. The format of his opera Lucretia is perverse. I cannot grasp how we end up with a Christian framework and commentary tacked onto a Pagan story.

However, when it came to setting poems, he seemed to have unerring taste and he mined a wonderfully diverse range of poets. The Serenade, for example, has superb lyrics bound by his music into a completely satisfying unity, despite the variety of styles of the poets who supplied the verse.

Mike

Quote from: knight on July 05, 2007, 02:03:48 PM
However, when it came to setting poems, he seemed to have unerring taste and he mined a wonderfully diverse range of poets. The Serenade, for example, has superb lyrics bound by his music into a completely satisfying unity, despite the variety of styles of the poets who supplied the verse.

Yes, the Serenade (e.g.) was, loosely speaking, one model for Shostakovich's Fourteenth Symphony.

Quote from: bhodges on April 13, 2007, 07:25:39 AM
She and a partner cross the Curlew River on a small boat, and she find's the boy's gravesite, where his spirit briefly appears, and she is cured of her madness. 

........ and ....... what happens next ? .........

I remember watching a wonderful production by the DNO in Amsterdam-starring Kim Begley as Grimes. He was wonderful!  Was it the same production Knight?

Yes it was that production,Yashin....

PJME aka ....

Peter

Oh how i miss the DNO opera in Amsterdam :'(
I have seen so many beautiful productions there.

Quote from: D Minor on July 05, 2007, 03:31:37 PM
........ and ....... what happens next ? .........

I'm not sure whether you were expecting an answer, but just in case you were: the child's spirit promises his mother that they shall meet again in the afterworld, and she is evidently reconciled to his death and no longer feels the empty sense of devastation which had driven her mad.

Quote from: Boris_G on July 07, 2007, 03:25:57 PM
I'm not sure whether you were expecting an answer, but just in case you were: the child's spirit promises his mother that they shall meet again in the afterworld, and she is evidently reconciled to his death and no longer feels the empty sense of devastation which had driven her mad.

Ahhh ......... closure at last ..........

Quote from: Boris_G on July 07, 2007, 03:25:57 PM
I'm not sure whether you were expecting an answer, but just in case you were: the child's spirit promises his mother that they shall meet again in the afterworld, and she is evidently reconciled to his death and no longer feels the empty sense of devastation which had driven her mad.

(((((apparently Bruce skipped out on that part ..........  :D  >:D )))))

Quote from: erato on July 05, 2007, 06:36:43 AM
I have several operas yet to discover.

But thought I should mention that I'm absolutøley enamoured by his early musical (?) Paul Bunyan. Anybody else know it?

Erato, Britten called it a "choral operetta". He suppressed it for most of his life, and was only persuaded to revive it after the death of Auden (whom he had largely cut out of his life), and when he himself was reliving his lost youth not long before he died. You probably know this anyway.

I have mixed feelings about it. There is some lovely music in a simple vein - it was written for students - and some very clever (too clever?) words. Not sure that it adds up to much in the end.

Little depth I agree. But lots of fun. The telegram aria, complete with bicycle bell - is so funny. Nice to know that Britten weren't only about deep psychological drama,  and it fills out the picture of the man. Last opera of his I listened to: "Turning of the Screw". Another valuable Naxos series.

Britten had a great sense of fun, though it's been overshadowed by the deep psychological dramas. It's audible in the Young Person's Guide (and most of the pieces for children), Albert Herring, Midsummer Night's Dream, Spring Symphony, and I'm sure others I've forgotten.

Quote from: D Minor on July 07, 2007, 05:20:10 PM
(((((apparently Bruce skipped out on that part ..........  :D  >:D )))))

Heh-heh...sorry, didn't see this.   ;D

On a serious note, I have to say I wasn't quite as bowled over with Curlew River as I thought I would be.  But then, that's just a first impression, based on a single hearing...

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on July 09, 2007, 11:12:23 AM
Heh-heh...sorry, didn't see this.   ;D

On a serious note, I have to say I wasn't quite as bowled over with Curlew River as I thought I would be.  But then, that's just a first impression, based on a single hearing...

--Bruce

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.

Quote from: bhodges on July 09, 2007, 11:12:23 AM
I have to say I wasn't quite as bowled over with Curlew River as I thought I would be. 

Yeah ........ we noticed that it didn't make your "hit parade" ............  :D

What do you think of "Britten's own" recording of A Midsummer Night's Dream, Mike?  I'm wondering if it's just something I need to adjust to, or if there are things which I really find a bit stagey (the Duke in the last act, e.g.)

Karl, I barely know the work and don't own a recording. I saw it once and did not take to it. That was such a long time ago that I may well get an enthusiasm for it now. So, I am afraid I can't be of any help.


Mike

Readers of this topic might be interested to know that Peter Grimes was the subject of last Saturday's Radio 3 Building a Library. Though none of the available recordings were thought to be without merit, the reviewer finally whittled them down to just two - the composer's own recording with Peter Pears and the first Colin Davis recording, with Jon Vickers. But his final recommendation was the Davis, both for Vickers's riveting  portrayal of the title role and the superiority of its supporting cast. This recording was made during rehearsals for the first revival of Elijah Moshinsky's wonderful production, with the same cast, and it certainly has the feel of a live performance. It would be my recommendation as well.

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

Quote from: bhodges on July 10, 2007, 01:31:25 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Boris_G on July 09, 2007, 02:42:24 PM
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.

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

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

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 24, 2007, 10:11:33 PM
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.

Quote from: knight on August 25, 2007, 01:27:24 AM
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

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.

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.

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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/arts/music/24davi.html?ex=1361509200&en=3d7f95827ca7f844&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) is a good article from yesterday's paper by Peter G. Davis, with a cool photo of the set.

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on February 25, 2008, 09:02:34 AM
Peter G. Davis

Middle name's not Grimes, I reckon?

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!

Quote from: Susan de Visne on February 26, 2008, 02:22:02 AM
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

I'm also looking forward to the theatrecast.  And you can hear the premiere live from the Met website here (http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/broadcast/on_air.aspx) this Thursday.

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

Quote from: bhodges on February 29, 2008, 11:43:28 AM
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.

QuoteBut 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!

Quote from: Wendell_E on February 29, 2008, 12:08:18 PM
"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.

Quote from: Wendell_E on February 29, 2008, 12:08:18 PM
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

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

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.

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 01, 2008, 01:49:30 AM
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.

The live cinema transmission on the 15th must be on somewhere in London, surely? (Assuming from your name that's where you are.)

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 01, 2008, 02:48:49 AM
The live cinema transmission on the 15th must be on somewhere in London, surely? (Assuming from your name that's where you are.)

Yes I am. I'll have to check it out.

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 01, 2008, 02:48:49 AM
The live cinema transmission on the 15th must be on somewhere in London, surely? (Assuming from your name that's where you are.)

Thanks for the tip, Susan. It's showing at the Barbican Centre in London on March 15th.

Quote from: Tsaraslondon on March 01, 2008, 07:49:03 AM
Thanks for the tip, Susan. It's showing at the Barbican Centre in London on March 15th.

I'd assume that at the same place on 3/22 Tristan und Isolde will also be shown from the Met.  April 5 will be La Boheme.  April 26 will be La Fille du Regiment.

Quote from: Anne on March 01, 2008, 07:56:13 AM
I'd assume that at the same place on 3/22 Tristan und Isolde will also be shown from the Met.  April 5 will be La Boheme.  April 26 will be La Fille du Regiment.

Yes indeed.

And in the cinema near to me it costs £25 a ticket. I will not be paying £50 for two of us to watch a film any time soon. I gather the price in the US is about 22 Dollars.

Mike

Quote from: knight on March 03, 2008, 07:50:23 AM
And in the cinema near to me it costs £25 a ticket.

Woof!

Quote from: knight on March 03, 2008, 07:50:23 AM
And in the cinema near to me it costs £25 a ticket. I will not be paying £50 for two of us to watch a film any time soon. I gather the price in the US is about 22 Dollars.

Mike

That is a bit weird, why it's so expensive...although I suppose £25--even £50--is cheaper than a flight here.  ;D  PS, and during the week, you can go to the actual, real-life opera house...for $15.

--Bruce

Oh, moderators tormenting fellow moderators . . . to think I should see the day! . . .

Quote from: bhodges on March 03, 2008, 08:07:01 AM
That is a bit weird, why it's so expensive...although I suppose £25--even £50--is cheaper than a flight here.  ;D  PS, and during the week, you can go to the actual, real-life opera house...for $15.

--Bruce

Now let me think about this. Swimming is excelent exercise and it is free.  I could get to NY by...........when is there to be a revival?

Mike

Quote from: karlhenning on March 03, 2008, 08:10:10 AM
Oh, moderators tormenting fellow moderators . . . to think I should see the day! . . .

;D

Quote from: knight on March 03, 2008, 08:12:42 AM
Now let me think about this. Swimming is excelent exercise and it is free.  I could get to NY by...........when is there to be a revival?

Mike

If you start today, you could probably arrive by March 24, the final performance.  I'd be happy to greet you when you swim ashore.  ;D  (Not to mention hand you a restorative brandy.)

--Bruce

I'm surprised that it's so expensive, but I suppose a live transmission isn't exactly a film, and everyone will have a good view. I'm going, anyway.

It's bit of a myth that opera is very expensive in Britain. People only talk about London, and then only about the very expensive seats. You could see Peter Grimes in Leeds (Opera North, excellent - I've seen it) for £9.50, and the cheap seats at the Royal Opera House in London are even cheaper - £6 for Eugene Onegin.

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 03, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
I'm surprised that it's so expensive, but I suppose a live transmission isn't exactly a film, and everyone will have a good view. I'm going, anyway.

It's bit of a myth that opera is very expensive in Britain. People only talk about London, and then only about the very expensive seats. You could see Peter Grimes in Leeds (Opera North, excellent - I've seen it) for £9.50, and the cheap seats at the Royal Opera House in London are even cheaper - £6 for Eugene Onegin.

Yes, but in the cheap seats at Covent Garden, you can only see about a tenth of the stage. You might as well stay at home and listen to it on the radio. Even the mid price seats only offer a semi- restricted view. To get a really good view, you need to be paying around £100 or more. Designers and directors these days only ever seem to sit in the expensive seats, and never give sight lines a second thought. With Covent Garden's horseshoe shape, this means that even in a quite expensive seat part of the way round the side of the shoe, you can miss any scene that is played on your side of the stage if the singers are placed a little too far back. As directors these days only ever seem to sit in the same seat in the mid stalls, it never occurs to them, especially if, fashionably these days, they have come from the world of cinema rather than theatre.

Yes, I know the very cheap seats at Covent Garden have a restricted view, but nevertheless you can be there, and feel the atmosphere, and hear the music without the intervention of radio. The cheapest seats I've ever sat in are the Amphitheatre ones, but last time I went I sat in a Balcony seat, perfect view and definitely not £100 - I've never paid that, even in the Stalls. Thomas Ades's The Tempest cost me £50 in the Stalls.

There's English National Opera at the Coliseum as well, and in regional theatres. There's Sadler's Wells, sometimes. Covent Garden isn't the only place.

At the live Met opera productions in our town, I overheard people talking about raising the $22 fee and someone telling them the Met had set the price.

I did discover a cheaper price near St. Louis, Mo. - like $15 or $17.  Maybe that was geared to the cost of living in that town or the theater owner lowered the price as he feared the tickets would not sell otherwise?  

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 03, 2008, 09:37:08 AM
Yes, I know the very cheap seats at Covent Garden have a restricted view, but nevertheless you can be there, and feel the atmosphere, and hear the music without the intervention of radio. The cheapest seats I've ever sat in are the Amphitheatre ones, but last time I went I sat in a Balcony seat, perfect view and definitely not £100 - I've never paid that, even in the Stalls. Thomas Ades's The Tempest cost me £50 in the Stalls.

There's English National Opera at the Coliseum as well, and in regional theatres. There's Sadler's Wells, sometimes. Covent Garden isn't the only place.

Of course The Royal Opera does charge a lot less for contemporary operas, in the hope of luring in audiences (though it doesn't always work), but to see, say, the recent La Traviata, a decent seat would cost you at least around the £100 mark. Incidentally, as a student, I used to go to Covent Garden quite regularly and sit in the amphitheatre, which was comfortably within my student budget. but, taking a look at the current Salome, for instance, a seat in row G of the side section would be £41, which isn't exactly cheap.

At the Coliseum, I have a different problem. My hearing isn't that great, and, the acoustics not being all they might be, I find that I can only hear certain singers from the Orchestra Stalls or Dress Circle. Consequently I only go when I am lucky enough to be offered a complimentary ticket, which, fortunately, does happen from time to time.

I do recall going to a performance of Dutchman and from the Gods, all I saw of him for the entire last act was his feet and up to knees. No doubt the stalls were getting a coplete picture.

Mike

Photos from the new Peter Grimes, here (http://66.187.153.86/Imgs/PeterGrimes0708.htm).  Apparently the news of the day is that the final image was removed after opening night, for all subsequent performances.  The wooden walls part to reveal a white-lit stage, with a steel catwalk upon which were perched about 20 people posing (as one person said) "like an ad for The Gap." 

Interesting that such a huge change was made so swiftly, but I guess the comments were mostly negative.

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on March 05, 2008, 08:43:22 AM
Photos from the new Peter Grimes, here (http://66.187.153.86/Imgs/PeterGrimes0708.htm).  Apparently the news of the day is that the final image was removed after opening night, for all subsequent performances.  The wooden walls part to reveal a white-lit stage, with a steel catwalk upon which were perched about 20 people posing (as one person said) "like an ad for The Gap." 

Interesting that such a huge change was made so swiftly, but I guess the comments were mostly negative.

--Bruce

The biggest complaint I've heard so far concerns the set. Just what is that monstrosity at stage rear supposed to be - mid-rise apartments come to the Borough?

My take (just a guess): it was an attempt to vault the story and its aftermath into some kind of "we are all complicit--all members of that little fishing village, even today" sort of thing.  It's not the most original idea, but I bought it.  But now it appears that scene will only live on in the minds of those in the audience last Wednesday.

PS, I've been looking for a photo of the removed scene...if I can find one I'll post it.

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on March 05, 2008, 10:18:32 AM
PS, I've been looking for a photo of the removed scene...if I can find one I'll post it.

--Bruce

This is the set model the Met had its website:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v20/Wendelle/met/5.jpg)

Oh thanks a million, Wendell!  Ever since the news broke today of the scene's deletion, I've been fielding e-mails from people wondering what it looked like.

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on March 05, 2008, 10:41:39 AM
Oh thanks a million, Wendell!  Ever since the news broke today of the scene's deletion, I've been fielding e-mails from people wondering what it looked like.

--Bruce

You're welcome.  This isn't the first time a Met production's made some major changes after opening night.  The same thing happened with Graham Vick's Il Trovatore in 2000.  Volpe called that production one of the major mistakes of his regime, and it's being replaced next season.  Here's part of one review (from Variety):

Quote
So dire was the response to some of Vick's choices that by the third performance the most egregiously quirky bits of staging had been eliminated. No longer does Neil Shicoff reach for that high C in "Di quella pira" while borne aloft, clinging to a moon-shaped contraption. No longer does his Manrico come to the rescue of Leonora via a cross-shaped ramp that emerges, Murphy bed-style, from one of the two massive panels that dominate Paul Brown's set designs.

That entrance inspired laughter on opening night, but its excision leaves behind a new peculiarity, as the audience is left to ponder the significance of the unmistakable upside-down crucifix cut into the fabric of the wall. There are a few other oddities left over -- the calla lilies Inez must determinedly plant in the stage for the Conte di Luna to swipe with his sword -- but what was formerly an arrestingly bizarre production is now just a rather ponderous and clumsy one.

Ah, I vaguely recall that Trovatore change.  (I don't recall seeing the production--and now I guess, never will.)  Interesting how a good director can, of course, have a misfire.  Vick's productions of Shostakovich's Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk and Schoenberg's Moses und Aron (for the Met) are terrific (IMHO).

--Bruce

The set is based on the "net huts" in the town of Hastings in East Sussex in England, where John Doyle, the director, lives, even though the opera is actually set in Aldeburgh. They were used by fishermen to store nets and fishing tackle.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Hastings_net_huts_and_preserved_fishing_boat_01.jpg/800px-Hastings_net_huts_and_preserved_fishing_boat_01.jpg)

I think the idea is that they look claustrophobic, like the Borough.

Thanks for posting that photo, Susan, which says volumes.  It is a very claustrophobic set, and I think, a brilliant conceit, but apparently Doyle is taking some heat for the production.  At the press conference for the new season yesterday, a critic asked Peter Gelb, "Do you plan on learning from your two most egregious mistakes, namely Mary Zimmerman and John Doyle?" 

Too bad.  And it doesn't bode well for the reappearance of this opera here, either.

--Bruce

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 05, 2008, 12:11:13 PM
The set is based on the "net huts" in the town of Hastings in East Sussex in England, where John Doyle, the director, lives, even though the opera is actually set in Aldeburgh. They were used by fishermen to store nets and fishing tackle.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Hastings_net_huts_and_preserved_fishing_boat_01.jpg/800px-Hastings_net_huts_and_preserved_fishing_boat_01.jpg)

I think the idea is that they look claustrophobic, like the Borough.

I like this set.  One can believe it is a fishing village.  What more could we ask?  Now if the costumes can only complement this set instead of being business suits or similar, this will be a great opera to watch.

I'm not sure, Anne, if you think the photo I posted is the actual set of the opera. It isn't, but it's a photo of the real town which the set is based on.

The costumes for the production look fine - nobody in modern dress!

The costumes appear to be stylized versions of fishermen's storm jackets, with sea creatures embedded in them.  (The effect was hard to discern the other night; maybe the film version will show this more clearly.)

--Bruce

Glad to hear that, Bruce.  Thanks for clearing the confusion.  Have you seen the DVD with John Vickers as Peter?  It also has Heather Harper.  I know Vickers' concept of the role was different than Britten's but I really liked it.  That is a very worthwhile DVD if you haven't already seen it.

Quote from: Anne on March 05, 2008, 01:49:49 PM
Glad to hear that, Bruce.  Thanks for clearing the confusion.  Have you seen the DVD with John Vickers as Peter?  It also has Heather Harper.  I know Vickers' concept of the role was different than Britten's but I really liked it.  That is a very worthwhile DVD if you haven't already seen it.

Well, browsing for photos of the costumes, I can't find any of the ones with the sea motifs!  :-[

Actually I haven't seen that DVD, and should, since I have the CD version.  I'm not sure if it's exactly the same production, but it's also Vickers and Harper, with Davis conducting.

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on March 05, 2008, 01:56:08 PM
Well, browsing for photos of the costumes, I can't find any of the ones with the sea motifs!  :-[

Actually I haven't seen that DVD, and should, since I have the CD version.  I'm not sure if it's exactly the same production, but it's also Vickers and Harper, with Davis conducting.

--Bruce

I think the CD's and DVD are the same performance.  You will not be sorry if you get the DVD; it is terrific.

The huts shown in SdV's photo look far more convincing than the photos of the Met's set. But what I honestly don't understand is the need for a new production in the first place. The Met has done Grimes only 74 times since 1949, and this is the third production. The one I saw at least twice that I can recall - once for sure with the great Vickers, who owned the part for two decades and sang it 40 times there - was superb. This one - well, I'm in no hurry to see it, though I may go to the movie.

Another very long personal review, with debate:
http://oberon481.typepad.com/oberons_grove/

BTW, the Met's first Grimes was not Peter Pears (who sang at the Met only in Death in Venice and Budd - another superlative Met production - a magnificent evocation of a sailing ship - done there only 44 times, so I'm sure it's due to be replaced by an inferior one in a year or two), but an American tenor named Brian Sullivan. Little known today, he was an extraordinarily handsome young man who did very well at the Met for some seasons, but for reasons I can't recall in much detail he had many personal problems and eventually committed suicide. (A little more research on line suggests he was starting to have vocal problems in his later seasons.) Here's what he could do, along with Roberta Peters and Eleanor Steber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6Ga9DtRqE

Quote from: Anne on March 05, 2008, 01:59:57 PM
I think the CD's and DVD are the same performance. 

The audio recording was recorded throughout April 1978; the video release (DVD) was recorded at a performance on 30 June 1981.

The principal casts are almost the same - the major change was that the role of Balstrode was sung by Jonathon Summers on the audio set and Norman Bailey performs the role on the video release.

Bailey was originally scheduled to singthe role on the audio recording but he was indisposed at the time and replaced by Summers for the recording.

Quote from: bhodges on March 05, 2008, 12:24:52 PMAt the press conference for the new season yesterday, a critic asked Peter Gelb, "Do you plan on learning from your two most egregious mistakes, namely Mary Zimmerman and John Doyle?" 

Well, Zimmerman's supposed to direct La Sonnambula next season, so I guess the answer is 'no'.  Of course, originally the plan was that the Met would present Trevor Nunn's Salzburg production of Grimes, so plans can change.

Quote from: Sforzando on March 05, 2008, 02:41:23 PM
BTW, the Met's first Grimes was not Peter Pears ... but an American tenor named Brian Sullivan.

Actually, the Met's first Grimes was Frederick Jagel, who sang five of the six performances the Met did of the opera in 1948.  Sullivan made his Met debut in the third performance (that was his Met appearance in the entire season), and returned next season and sang all the performances of the opera.

I know even less about Jagel than I know about Sullivan.  The name looks German, but he was American (born in Brooklyn) and sang leading roles at the Met from 1927 to 1950, mostly in the Italian and French repertories.

Quote from: bricon on March 05, 2008, 02:52:38 PM
The audio recording was recorded throughout April 1978; the video release (DVD) was recorded at a performance on 30 June 1981.

The principal casts are almost the same - the major change was that the role of Balstrode was sung by Jonathon Summers on the audio set and Norman Bailey performs the role on the video release.

Bailey was originally scheduled to singthe role on the audio recording but he was indisposed at the time and replaced by Summers for the recording.

bricon,

Thanks for the correction.  The performances seemed so similar that I thought they were the same.

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 05, 2008, 01:04:56 PM
I'm not sure, Anne, if you think the photo I posted is the actual set of the opera. It isn't, but it's a photo of the real town which the set is based on.

The costumes for the production look fine - nobody in modern dress!

Susan,
I apologize for mistaking your photo for Bruce's.  What I meant was that if the actual set was modeled after that picture, I didn't see how they could go wrong.  The photo was so natural-looking for a fishing village.

Quote from: Wendell_E on March 05, 2008, 03:28:00 PM
Actually, the Met's first Grimes was Frederick Jagel, who sang five of the six performances the Met did of the opera in 1948.  Sullivan made his Met debut in the third performance (that was his Met appearance in the entire season), and returned next season and sang all the performances of the opera.

Oops. You're right. Well, be that as it may, Olin Downes of the Times didn't like it much:

QuoteReview of Olin Downes in The New York Times

THREE NEW LEADS IN 'PETER GRIMES'

Sullivan, in Debut, Stoska and Harrell Appear in Britten Work at Metropolitan

It is sometimes regrettable that news requirements make it essential to review the first performance of a new opera off the bat - on immediate contact, for the morning after. Because the second performance is so likely to be better, more secure, more eloquent, and therefore, to do more justice to the composition. Now the first "Peter Grimes" at the Metropolitan was good. The second, last night, was still better.

There were three new principals in leading parts and they did very well. They were Brian Sullivan, who then made his Metropolitan debut, in the title part. Polyna Stoska, the Ellen Orford, and Mack Harrell, Captain Balstrode. But it was in the fluency and authority of this second performance that the greatest difference was made. The chorus was more brilliant. The secondary parts stood out more effectively. The audience listened with courtesy and a reasonable degree of enthusiasm, which, however, was not equal to that of the Metropolitan premiere. The Metropolitan can say that twice in succession "Peter Grimes" has met with the favor of its patrons. For all that, the writer thinks less of this opera every time that he hears it.

This is the impression of last night in spite of the dramatic address and the spirited singing of Mr. Sullivan in a difficult role; the freshness of Miss Stoska's voice and her sincerity in interpretation, and the further fact that Mr. Harrell does all that can readily be done to make the character of the bluff and hearty Balstrode plausible. There is also the mass effect of the chorus singing -- very good, where this particular feature is concerned.

Opera is Artificial

But the opera simply does not ring true. It is artificial in its make-up. The composer knows a great deal and he has a certain style. This is the style - we did not say the music, which is essentially unoriginal - of Benjamin Britten. He is a brilliant technician and orchestrator, but not as yet, in our belief, an opera composer. His choruses come out of Mussorgsky, as does his drunken preacher in the hostelry scene. But, these are really oratorio choruses, of a well-behaved people - people far indeed from the revolting peasants of Mussorgsky. No one believes in this chorus of villagers who go off yelling such a yodel as no English villagers on land or sea ever yodeled, led by a man who loudly whacks a drum, with the ostensible intention of punishing Grimes, in another scene.

The libretto is just as unnatural. The language is not that of the common people of a British seaport, though an unseemly oath or two is tucked in just to show how jolly democratic these characters can be. The prevailing tone of the poetry is very affected and not dramatic, and there isn't a real character in the lot of them. Peter is the central figure, but he, too, is a straw man of tragedy. He has not been born - only invented. He distresses us, but does not arouse sympathy. The other characters are nothing at all.

A Conventional Opera

And this opera is just as conventional as any other. A man draws a knife. Someone cries "For heaven's make a song," or words to that effect, and someone jumps on a table and intones an elaborately contrapuntal catch in seven-four time. We have just as soon or sooner have listened to a melting Italian aria in this place, which at least would have furnished a good time. The church chorus is an old cliché done better in a dozen French or Italian operas. The use of the old forms such as the passacaglia between acts is a Bergian device which is too regimented and too deliberately adapted either to keep up dramatic motion or make one feel that there was any reason for the passacaglia than there might have been for a toccata or ricercare. They were old forms too, and just about as unnecessary and inappropriate in a modern opera which professes to unite psychology, realism and symbolical situations.

The solo voice parts are seldom convincing either as emotional song or as melodic declamation. For the prosody is poor, making good diction difficult and sometimes impossible. The orchestral music is the best part of the score, and the sea music the most plausible, skillfully colored and of a scenic flavor. We used to think it more. We feel increasingly doubtful about "Peter Grimes." The public will decide its fate. We doubt, if operatic history will be affected by its coming or its going.

I will try to get to the theater which maintains the telecast, too.
Last time I went to watch "Manon Lescaut," the shooting was bad - cameras were very close to the singers, almost creeping in their mouths. That was distracting. I think they should show more zoomed out views.

Poor critic; I recall one report from the premier of Tannhauser that claimed with authority; there was NO melody in the entire piece. Tin-ear or what?

There is always this difficult balance in opera between the highly artificial art-form and the naturalness many composers strive to put across. When it works there is surely nothing more dramatic or moving. I have seen Grimes work superbly several times. That critic clearly has no idea of the savagery and neurosis of people that lies just below the surface; even amongst those who live in an English village. In any case, this is no twee thatched cottage enclave; but more one where the lives are tough, the work hard and dirty, the mindset peasant narrow.

Mike

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.

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

Quote from: knight on March 06, 2008, 01:44:09 AM
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.

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

Mike

Quote from: Tsaraslondon on March 06, 2008, 02:40:15 AM
And how many other great opera composers show such a sure hand in the idiom, in their very first opera?

Berg.

Quote from: Sforzando on March 06, 2008, 03:52:56 AM
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.

Quote from: Tsaraslondon on March 06, 2008, 05:10:31 AM
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.

My review of Peter Grimes is here (http://www.musicweb-international.com/SandH/2008/Jan-Jun08/grimes2802.htm).

--Bruce

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

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

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 06, 2008, 12:39:26 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 08, 2008, 01:25:04 AM
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.

Quote from: Tsaraslondon on March 08, 2008, 05:41:25 AM
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.

QuoteBut 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.

Quote from: Susan de Visne on March 08, 2008, 07:37:17 AM
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.

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

Mike

Quote from: knight on March 08, 2008, 10:29:12 AM
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!.

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.

And here (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2008/03/17/080317crmu_music_ross) 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

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

I am listening via BBC Radio Three.

Mike

Where are you sitting? I don't want your sneezing, coughing, cough candy un-wrapping next to me!

Love the tenor!  8)

Yes, Grimes is going well, only in this room have they given me more space to cough to my heart's content.

Mike

I do think that the transmitted Met performance really went up a level from the point in Act 2 where the ensemble starts, 'We planned that their lives'....from then on through a shattering Passacaglia to the end of that act, the adrenalin was coming right through the speakers. 'From The Gutters' was full of pain and disappointment, resignation as well.

Then Grimes with his flashes between reality, hallucination and the mood swings of his neurosis. He moves instantly from honeyed headvoice to guttural.

Anthony Dean Griffey was superb, every word crystal clear, lots of feeling and a convincing combination of poet with rough attitudes. He really digs into the words, pushes a little too much sometimes, but better that than safe and bland.

We lost the Met connection near the start of Act 3 for a while, but were back just in time for the Embroidery aria; though I am not sure it went quite as planned. Patricia Racette's voice sounded under the wrong kind of pressure, the falling phrases sounded out of tune.

Runnicles is excellent at building the tension and energy across a scene; especially to the point where the crowd decide on destroying the outsider. Then to an eventual unwinding. Overall, a really superb performance.

A pity the audience did not allow even a momentary silence before they started to clap

Mike

Great review, Mike! I agree with every word you said, especially how you pointed out the perfect diction of Griffey! I am not that familiar with Grimes, but for once I understood what was being sung, it made for a much more involved attendance via web cast, as substitute for being there in person.

And your thoughts and mine on the same line: While I was still trying to catch my breath the live audience had to start clapping. But that's NY, the audience at the Met never fails to break the spell I would rather enjoy. Oh well!

Yes, great performance! Enjoy your weekend Mike, and get over that cold, more hot lemon with honey!  8)

Quote from: knight on March 15, 2008, 12:55:15 PM
A pity the audience did not allow even a momentary silence before they started to clap.

There is an unbreakable unspoken tradition at the Met that applause starts whenever the curtain starts closing. This means that, for example, the last notes of Siegfried Act II are never heard because the curtain begins closing two bars before the end. It means that one never hears a moment of silence after the tomb scene in Aida because the curtain begins closing at the last "Immenso Phtah!"

I am quite certain that if the curtain were to close on Peter Grimes before the epilogue, the audience would start applauding. I am also quite certain that if, perhaps due to mechanical difficulty, the curtain failed to close after the same epilogue, the audience would have no idea what to do with its 6600 hands, and everyone attending would sit there in stony silence until the ushers escorted them out of the building.

 ;D  >:D  ;D

Thanks for that. Perhaps then the management ought to delay the curtain a little. I think in the production the curtain may start to fall just before the music ends; those are, I think the original stage directions.

Mike

The instant applause really shocked me, too. How can anyone do that? Surely time is needed to let the music die, and for the audience to come back to the real world.

That apart, I thought it was quite a good performance overall. Grimes's diction was excellent I agree, and not American at all. I'd never have known he hailed from South Carolina if I hadn't seen the interval interview. (That's another thing that shocked me - interviewing singers the moment they come offstage? Unless it was pre-recorded.) All the other main parts were OK - a good Mrs Sedley, making the most of it - but I thought the Nieces were far too bland. Those can be great little character parts if done well. It was difficult to judge their singing because the transmission was very loud, so that the lovely quartet was a bit lost. It also made it difficult to judge the orchestra, as it blasted down my ears in a way quite different from the way it must have sounded in the theatre. Very brass-heavy.

I really didn't like the set, though the costumes were fine, and you have to be grateful if a director keeps an opera in the era it's set in!

I realise I'm sounding quite critical, but it's really the experience of seeing opera in a cinema that I disliked, because it just isn't a real theatrical experience. On the other hand, I'm very grateful I've seen it at all, and I think it's a very good idea to show it. If I lived in a place where it was difficult to get to live opera, I'd be even more grateful.

Quote from: Sforzando on March 15, 2008, 03:01:59 PM
There is an unbreakable unspoken tradition at the Met that applause starts whenever the curtain starts closing. This means that, for example, the last notes of Siegfried Act II are never heard because the curtain begins closing two bars before the end. It means that one never hears a moment of silence after the tomb scene in Aida because the curtain begins closing at the last "Immenso Phtah!"

I am quite certain that if the curtain were to close on Peter Grimes before the epilogue, the audience would start applauding. I am also quite certain that if, perhaps due to mechanical difficulty, the curtain failed to close after the same epilogue, the audience would have no idea what to do with its 6600 hands, and everyone attending would sit there in stony silence until the ushers escorted them out of the building.

This is one tradition I wish would die, but of course that isn't going to happen.  So many endings get chopped off by the applause, it drives me crazy. 

The fact that this Grimes doesn't use a curtain means that there was no applause anywhere until the lights were extinguished at the end of each act, after the orchestra had finished playing (aside from the over-eager, instant applause at the end).  Not a bad decision on the part of the director. 

--Bruce

I'm revisiting Billy Budd, with the LSO conducted by Britten and starring Glossop, Pears and Langdon, and it's very fine indeed.  But are there other recordings people prefer, or feel are essential hearing?  I wouldn't mind having another, perhaps in more modern sound (even though the sound here is quite good for 1967).   

I found some excellent recommendations for the Chandos recording with Philip Langridge, Simon Keenlyside and John Tomlinson, with Richard Hickox and the LSO.  (Is there any other orchestra that does this piece?  ;D).

--Bruce

The Met televised Billy Budd a few years ago.  "Billy in the Darbies" (sp?) was the most gorgeous aria!  Unfortunately I did not know the timing of the first part of the opera and ended up putting 1/2 of that song on the first tape and the final 1/2 on the second tape.  I would gladly pay someone for a copy of that telecast!  It was a great performance.

Quote from: bhodges on March 31, 2008, 03:11:43 PM
(Is there any other orchestra [than the LSO] that does this piece?  ;D).

There is the Nagano recording with the Halle Orchestra featuring Thomas Hampson (Billy), Anthony Rolfe Johnson (Vere) and Eric Halvarson (Claggart); this recording uses the original (1951) 4 act version, rather than the revised (more commonly performed, 1960) 2 act version used on both the Britten and Hickox recordings.

BTW Richard Hickox will be conducting a run of Billy Budd here (Sydney) in September with Teddy Tahu Rhodes (Billy, Phillip Langridge (Vere) and John Wegner (Claggart) in a revival of the acclaimed production directed by Neil Armfield.

(http://www.opera-australia.org.au/opera/oaweb.nsf/lookups/BILLYBUDD-OPER-/$File/SUBS08_Budd_RGB96_400x250px.jpg)

Anne, thanks for that information; I didn't realize the Met's production had been broadcast.  (It has one of the best sets of any production I've ever seen: that ship, that unfolds and expands like a puzzle box.)

And bricon, that production looks great!  Wow...and Teddy Tahu Rhodes was just here in Peter Grimes and got raves.  He is quite good. 

--Bruce

Yeah, the Met televised Billy Budd back in 1997 with Dwayne Croft, Philip Langridge, and James Morris, with a couple of young fellas by the name of Nathan Gunn and Anthony Dean Griffey as the Novice's friend and Arthur Jones.  I wish I had a copy to share Anne, but I forgot about the telecast entirely until I turned on the radio (back in the days of simulcast) and heard the Budd/Dansker scene at the end of Act II.   :'(

The Met hasn't revived the opera since, which is a real shame, since Billys have a short shelf life.  They've missed the boat (so to speak) with Keenlyside, for one.

Quote from: Wendell_E on April 01, 2008, 07:18:22 AM
Yeah, the Met televised Billy Budd back in 1997 with Dwayne Croft, Philip Langridge, and James Morris, with a couple of young fellas by the name of Nathan Gunn and Anthony Dean Griffey as the Novice's friend and Arthur Jones.  I wish I had a copy to share Anne, but I forgot about the telecast entirely until I turned on the radio (back in the days of simulcast) and heard the Budd/Dansker scene at the end of Act II.   :'(

The Met hasn't revived the opera since, which is a real shame, since Billys have a short shelf life.  They've missed the boat (so to speak) with Keenlyside, for one.

Well, at least we know the video is available for a re-broadcast (theoretically). 

And you're right about Keenlyside...too bad they aren't booking him.  I've read nothing but great reports about him in this piece.

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on April 01, 2008, 06:33:13 AM
Anne, thanks for that information; I didn't realize the Met's production had been broadcast.  (It has one of the best sets of any production I've ever seen: that ship, that unfolds and expands like a puzzle box.)

And bricon, that production looks great!  Wow...and Teddy Tahu Rhodes was just here in Peter Grimes and got raves.  He is quite good. 

--Bruce

You're welcome, Bruce.  Glad I could help.

Thanks, Wendell.

Nagano's recording of Billy Budd with Thomas Hampson and Hickox's recording with Simon Keenlyside are both excellent (although in the Chandos recording voices are recorded a bit too low). Nagano recorded the original four-act version while Hickox's recording is of the revised two-act version.

Later this year, there will be a new CD recording of Billy Budd from Virgin Classics.
Daniel Harding conducts the London Symphony Orchestra and chorus. And in the leading roles are: Ian Bostridge (Captain Vere), Nathan Gunn (Billy Budd) and Gidon Saks (Claggart). 

That's great news, T-C, thanks!  What do you think of Harding?  I have but a single recording, of him doing some prize-winning new pieces (one of those BBC Music Magazine discs) but have not heard him in anything else.  He seems to get opinions all over the map, from "awful" to "brilliant."

--Bruce

Bruce,

Actually, I don't have too many Harding recordings. I have his recording of Brahms symphonies no. 3 & 4, which is interesting, and I have two recordings of him conducting Britten's opera The Turn of the Screw. One is a Virgin Classics CD recording and the other is a Bel Air DVD that was recorded at the Aix-en-Provence Festival. My impression about Harding's contribution in the Britten opera is closer to the 'brilliant' end of your scale...

But this evening I am going to watch a new DVD, which I received this afternoon: Janacek's From the House of the Dead from the Aix-en-Provence Festival with Pierre Boulez (conductor) and Patrice Chérau (Stage Director). My expectations are high...
 

Quote from: T-C on April 01, 2008, 08:33:15 AM
Nagano's recording of Billy Budd with Thomas Hampson and Hickox's recording with Simon Keenlyside are both excellent (although in the Chandos recording voices are recorded a bit too low). Nagano recorded the original four-act version while Hickox's recording is of the revised two-act version.

Later this year, there will be a new CD recording of Billy Budd from Virgin Classics.
Daniel Harding conducts the London Symphony Orchestra and chorus. And in the leading roles are: Ian Bostridge (Captain Vere), Nathan Gunn (Billy Budd) and Gidon Saks (Claggart). 

I was at the dress rehearsal before the concerts, at which this recording was made. I was, as usual I'm afraid, singularly unimpressed by Bostridge. He didn't, for one minute, suggest why this man would be so revered by the crew of the ship. And, even though this was only a concert performance his on stage mannerisms were distracting in the extreme. Compare his with Nathan Gunn's wonderfully natural presence as Billy, coincidentally the only member of the cast to sing without a score. Gidon Saks was also very impressive. My favourite Vere so far has been Philip Langridge, who, more successfully than anyone, seemed to be able to strike the right balance between the intellectual and the military man.

Thanks for those impressions, T-C and Tsaraslondon, both helpful.  I'm mixed on Bostridge to date.  I have liked some things I've heard, others left me cold.  But Langridge...what a performer.  I saw him as the Witch in Hänsel und Gretel here recently, and he basically stole the show. 

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on April 01, 2008, 09:44:01 AM
But Langridge...what a performer. 

--Bruce

Couldn't agree more. Still my most memorable Grimes (and I've seen quite a few), though I never saw Vickers live.

This Met production was my first time seeing Grimes live, and I look forward to the day when I can say I've seen "quite a few"!  During the run, talking with as many people as I could, it was amazing to me how many people actually have seen Vickers, whose performance apparently casts a very long shadow. 

During the intermission feature in the Grimes movie broadcast, they showed a brief excerpt with Vickers that really was quite something, I must admit.  (Must have been quite awhile back, since it was in black-and-white.)  One friend said that as much as she enjoyed Anthony Dean Griffey (and he really was great), Vickers "made her hair stand on end." 

--Bruce

Quote from: bhodges on April 01, 2008, 11:56:31 AM
During the intermission feature in the Grimes movie broadcast, they showed a brief excerpt with Vickers that really was quite something, I must admit.  (Must have been quite awhile back, since it was in black-and-white.) 

That black-and-white excerpt was Peter Pears, wasn't it?  Vickers' complete Grimes is available in color on DVD, of course.

Ah, sorry, you're right.   :-[  (Well, he was pretty good, too.  ;D)

--Bruce

I am with those who cannot get on with Bostridge. I have one Handel piece where he sings in a duet really beautifully. Also one Britten disc of the Canticles that I enjoy. Other than that, I divested myself of the discs I had. Each hearing I felt, it was my fault I could not 'get' him. However, I have concluded he is increasingly mannered. He breaks the line to enable him to seemingly be more expressive, but all that apart, I find his tone and voice uningratiating and his range of expression very narrow.

Mike

Quote from: knight on April 01, 2008, 03:28:01 PM
I am with those who cannot get on with Bostridge. I have one Handel piece where he sings in a duet really beautifully. Also one Britten disc of the Canticles that I enjoy.

Oh, I think I may just have that 'un, too, Mike!

IMHO everyone should own that Vickers DVD.

Quote from: bhodges on April 01, 2008, 12:19:57 PM
Ah, sorry, you're right.   :-[  (Well, he was pretty good, too.  ;D)

--Bruce

LOL

Quote from: bhodges on April 01, 2008, 08:38:49 AM
What do you think of Harding?  I have but a single recording, of him doing some prize-winning new pieces (one of those BBC Music Magazine discs) but have not heard him in anything else.  He seems to get opinions all over the map, from "awful" to "brilliant."

--Bruce

Believe the ones that say "awful." After a friend sold me his under-inflected, slick CD of Beethoven overtures for $6, I turned around and ditched it after one hearing.

Quote from: bhodges on April 01, 2008, 09:44:01 AM
Thanks for those impressions, T-C and Tsaraslondon, both helpful.  I'm mixed on Bostridge to date.

I have only one CD of his, one of the Schubert or Schumann cycles (can't recall as I'm away from home). But I rather liked it, despite certain obvious mannerisms. At least he can't be accused of not being interesting.

Quote from: Sforzando on April 02, 2008, 05:27:16 AM
I have only one CD of his, one of the Schubert or Schumann cycles (can't recall as I'm away from home). But I rather liked it, despite certain obvious mannerisms. At least he can't be accused of not being interesting.

IIRC I heard him live doing Britten's Les Illuminations, and enjoyed it, even with as you say, some mannerisms.  But he seems like a thoughtful artist.  One friend's comment: she enjoys his voice but can't stand watching him perform.

--Bruce

I have a few Britten CDs with Bostridge that I like very much:

Serenade for Tenor, Horn & Strings; Les Illuminations and Nocturne with Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic. I think this is an outstanding recording of these pieces.

The Canticles with Bostridge, David Daniels and Christopher Maltman.

Harding's CD recording of The Turn of the Screw.

But I am not sure whether Captain Vere in Billy Budd is suitable for his voice.
Anyhow, I am sure going to find out...

I don't like Bostridge in opera. He's not a brilliant actor. That said, his Aschenbach (Death in Venice) in London recently was quite well done, and certainly his diction is clear, but he's not a natural on the stage. I wouldn't ever listen to his recordings, but I've heard him live in recital a few times and almost been converted. He did the Britten John Donne Sonnets very well indeed. He's intelligent enough to understand the words, which can't be said of all singers!

I wonder if you know that a black and white BBC TV performance of Billy Budd from 1966, with Pears as Vere, is going to be issued on DVD by Decca sometime this year? Also the 1969 Grimes with Pears and Heather Harper, which was in colour.

Quote from: Susan de Visne on April 03, 2008, 04:01:04 AM
I wonder if you know that a black and white BBC TV performance of Billy Budd from 1966, with Pears as Vere, is going to be issued on DVD by Decca sometime this year? Also the 1969 Grimes with Pears and Heather Harper, which was in colour.

Great news!!  This is the first I've heard of their DVD release.

Quote from: Wendell_E on April 03, 2008, 06:57:12 AM
Great news!!  This is the first I've heard of their DVD release.

Agreed, fantastic news.  Thanks, Susan!

--Bruce

PBS (on Great Performances) is showing the movie broadcast of Peter Grimes this week.  Here in NYC they're showing it Thursday night at 8pm, and again on Sunday at noon.

--Bruce

The Turn of the Screw: LPO Jacub Hrusa cond: Miaha Persson, Toby Spence, Susan Bickley, Giselle Parfitt, Jonnaa Songi, Thomas Parfitt. Glyndebourne production, director Jonathan Kent.

Name me a great artist who was not flawed. Here we have to face flat on that very thing we worry about in Britten's make up. His predilection for young boys, the desire for which is played out here quite explicitly. If Wagner was obsessed by redemption, Britten dwelt on the corruption of innocence, in this, The Rape of Lucretia, Billy Budd, Death in Venice and even in Midsummer Night's Dream where Oberon carries off Puck.

In most of these pieces desires feed into death.

The original base for The Turn was a Victorian, psychological ghost story. It has been moved to the 1950s and the heritage encasing stripped away. The ghostliness is played down, though you may be seeing what sits in imagination.

Shining bright white light to dispel the gothic original has actually heightened the tensions and you sit in fascinated horror as the piece is given what has to be as near a perfect performance as is possible.

There are only 14 instruments here, but the composer makes it sound like a full scale Debussian, glittering orchestra. But, one savage and beguiling by turn. This is a very tight, exciting and disturbing conception of the music, more hard edged than Britten's or the Davis recording. A veil is removed, a merciless conception.

The singing is all first rate, all the adults are at the top of their game. Persson's English is perfect and she conveys the hope, the innocence, hysteria, doubt and the steel that informs her over involvement with the children especially Miles. She adores him, tries to control him and he creeps her out. She is terrific. Bickley is no cypher and sings gloriously, a pity she did not have more music. But the novelty here is the Quint of Toby Spence. He is no creepy ghost. He looks normal and attractive and dangerous. His voice is beautiful and strong and full. He inhabits the role in a singular and effective way, corrupt and black hearted. His dynamic with Miles is delved into daringly. Miles is played by a 12 year old and he swivels his eyes projecting the ambiguity of him thinking one thing as he sings something quite else. He is knowing without being precocious and he yearns for as well as being scared of Quint. Their main scene is played out with Miles in his bath and being lifted and embraced by Quint.

The set is a character in the piece, a large glass wall that tilts and spins and the stage has two revolving elements: this all works together providing seamless movement from one scene to the next. The lighting adds considerably to the atmosphere.

If you can deal with the themes, then you will never hear or see it better performed.

Mike

Quote from: knight66 on November 01, 2013, 01:12:55 PM
...If you can deal with the themes...

Desire, hysteria, betrayal, death--these are something new in opera? :laugh:

Sounds like a great performance!  Wish I could afford it now.

Quote from: jochanaan on November 02, 2013, 07:06:26 PM
Desire, hysteria, betrayal, death--these are something new in opera? :laugh:

Or on this board? OK; perhaps not death, but certainly the first three.

Quote from: The new erato on November 03, 2013, 01:42:36 AM
Or on this board? OK; perhaps not death, but certainly the first three.

Cha-ching!

(http://cache2.artprintimages.com/LRG/8/813/UMRI000Z.jpg)

Hi Mike, great post. I do know all the Britten operas well and bought most on CD- will try find time to contribute more here.

You forgot Peter Grimes and the suspicious killing of little boys while out alone with them...

QuoteName me a great artist who was not flawed. Here we have to face flat on that very thing we worry about in Britten's make up. His predilection for young boys, the desire for which is played out here quite explicitly. If Wagner was obsessed by redemption, Britten dwelt on the corruption of innocence, in this, The Rape of Lucretia, Billy Budd, Death in Venice and even in Midsummer Night's Dream where Oberon carries off Puck.

Quote from: Sean on November 05, 2013, 01:52:02 AM
Hi Mike, great post. I do know all the Britten operas well and bought most on CD- will try find time to contribute more here.

You forgot Peter Grimes and the suspicious killing of little boys while out alone with them...

I'm sure BB adored the company of boys. As far as I know he never abused any boys in any way, physically or psychologically. Or am I wrong about that?

Basically he was a pedophile who kept his desires in check, as far as I know.

We have discussed this and the newer evidence. I agree your final sentence, not so sure that despite there being no physical abuse that no one was psychologically damaged. Some certainly attest to fond memories of being the special one. David Hemmings related the mental affects of being the chosen one and being treated as a special friend, then on the day his voice showed signs of breaking, being cast out and ignored as a non-person. Bewilderment, sense of guilt, sense of loss.

But as we have seen, acting out or not, the theme pervades a lot of his most important work and even in the opera I reviewed, I decided not to get into the double meanings of the list of Latin words put into the mouth of the young singers portraying Miles. A very esoteric kind of abuse.

Mike

I see. All rather strange I guess; Britten had his partner so you might think that side of his life was sorted. I just listen to the music, most of the time without watching the libretto- I guess I've only found time to follow a handful of the operas by anyone I've explored. Britten's music quality varies quite a lot and I certainly agree that he never surpassed Grimes the first large scale opera; the later emphasis on motifs over closed melody was a good idea but it didn't really work for him, music's inner logic started eluding him without the reassuring formal frames- he should have studied Bax more...

Britten: The Rape of Lucretia.   Sarah Connolly, Christopher Maltman, John Mark Ainsley, Orla Boylan ENO at Maltings, Paul Daniel. Dir David McVicar.

This performance has languished in the vaults for over a decade. Often that suggests there is a problem in the quality of the performance. The release was managed after a sustained campaign by, amongst others, Sarah Connolly. It is superb and riviting. Not the hint of a weak link, it is moving and beautiful and sickening just as the composer designed.

The piece is a chamber opera, the small scale in contrast to its immediate predecessor Peter Grimes. That decision to explore the small scale was an artistic decision, but also played into a situation of post war austerity: it enabled the piece to have many more performances and to play in spaces Grimes could not reach.

Small scale does not imply any lack of drama or power, rather here it concentrates both. There is one perceived problem with the opera, it is strangely structured. Despite being set in roughly 500BC, there are two Greek Chorus style commentators who filter the action through a Christian redemptive paradigm. There is Marian invocation, Christ's tears are claimed to wash the pain and sin away. This technique can have a distancing effect. It is curious. Had the Chorus been left merely to react, the 'problem' would be insignificant. Britten responded to adverse comments by editing the framing down and what we see now is seemingly less overtly Christian than in the original. McVicar suggests that Britten having visited a concentration camp, he was reflecting a need to make sense of the war and what happened in Europe: thirsting for some path of redemption leading from it.

McVicar breaks tradition here and brings the Chorus from the edge of the stage into the action as unacknowledged shadows who react to and empathise with the characters. This works well and removes some of the distancing effect stationary commentators can have. Both singers are first rate.

The acting is all round excellent and the stage design simple and pared down. Two stand out, as they should. Maltman is absolutely the sin with so much grace. He is handsome, dissolute, full of suppressed anger, lust, self disgust. He dominates physically the men around him and then is so believable in his brutal despoiling of Lucretia. He was a Cardiff singer of the world Lieder winner and has had a really good career, this is a high point. Sarah Connelly is a natural for this role. With a powerful voice she acts well, bringing a slight hysterical neediness to the early scenes when she does not seem to be able to function without the presence of her husband. Her extreme reaction of suicide later feels to me more believable within that context. Her tone is generous, juicy and she brings dignity, fear, loss and grief to the part.

I only know the piece from the Britten CDs, but it seems to me that Daniel has a complete grasp of it. The orchestra, as with 'Turn of the Screw', sounds much more lush than might be expected from so few players. Britten was a wonderful orchestrator. Even at 14 he pastiched the Ravel/Debussy soundworld marvellously in his 'Four French Songs', so the textures and sounds here are very far from ascetically pared down.

If you want the piece, don't hesitate, this performance is well worthy of it.

Now, I wait for the issue of the Live on the beach at Aldeburgh Grimes.

Mike

https://twitter.com/cjgillett/status/401636649437634560

A link here to a great interview with Oliver Knussen and his connections with Britten.

Mike

Hello Mike, great review. I too bought the Britten recording on CD during a phase in the 80s where I got all the major opera sets available at the time. I remember the Penguin review of Lucretia saying it contains some of his most ravishing (in the right way) melodies and indeed it does- the spare scoring suits the style of music perfectly and the exposed (ditto) vocal lines of the 'chorus' are in a special expressive idiom, even if the whole perhaps isn't really convincing, as with all the later operas. And as with Grimes too actually...

A work I must return to soon.

Thanks Sean. You are right to point out the lyrical writing. It is a very beautiful score with melody passed round the singers and audience and yet again I hear the echoes of Strauss in the women's' music.

Mike

There's certainly the career parallel with both composers turning to opera after early successes in orchestral music and song, then the earlier operas perhaps being seen as the best. Actually the emphasis on the earlier Strauss operas is anomalous but the two also wrote 15, or Britten about 15, and a dissolution of closed forms characterizes them both. I can't bring musical similarities to mind right now but I'll find a recording of Lucretia soon as I can.

There's this one from Aldeburgh under Daniels 2001 according to the notes, though I'll probably prefer a smoother studio performance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8xcrCGwmcs&list=PL29CFB3F806F32230

(http://www.deccaclassics.com/imgs/s300x300/4256662.jpg)