Christopher Webber wrote:

>When he [Ed Zubrow] says that when watching he is "bored to tears", he
>presumably means that he is distracted from the (for him) all-important
>music by the paraphernalia of the staging.  Would he be equally bored
>if he closed his eyes?  I doubt it.

Don't you mean "less bored"?  When I attended the New York Metropolitan
Opera's production of Berlioz's *Les Troyens*, an opera which I've enjoyed
listening to on recording, I was looking forward to the staging that the
libretto text prescribed and was disappointed at how this production
failed to live up to it.  In addition, I was frustrated at the cast's
seemingly pointless gyrating, which was probably supposed to symbolize
emotion when it wasn't supposed to be a form of dancing.  For a good
portion of the performance, I *did* close my eyes, and enjoyed the
performance much more.

In contrast, when a few months earlier, I attended a performance of the
opera *View from the Bridge*, it was only the sets that kept me from
being bored stiff!

But it all had come together for a magnificent opera experience
about a year and a half ago when I attended the Met's performance
of *Meistersinger*.

>As with anything else worthwhile, opera watching needs to be learnt and
>regularly practised.  Would we expect instant ease and gratification
>whilst listening to our first Bruckner symphony in the concert hall?
>The more time we spend in the opera theatre, the more our sensual reactions
>work together in harmony, the less distraction the visuals are apt to
>cause ...  and the more they augment the experience rather than proving
>a bore.

I don't think that applies in my case.  Repeated attendances at
performances of *Falstaff* have continued to underwhelm me.  Repeated
listenings to recordings have continued to delight me, as have attendance
at other operas.

>We've become over-familiar with the music, for one thing, and comparatively
>under-familiar with the drama.  Then, it's increasingly hard to enthuse
>about the imperfect, communal experience - of which the audience is very
>much a part, like it or not - when the passive, parlour armchair has so
>many attractions.

For me, where the music is good, familiarity does not breed contempt.
I can attend performances of *Don Giovanni* over and over again.  And
much of Verdi and Puccini.  And Wagner, irrespective of how static the
"action" in his operas might be.

I don't think it's necessarily a case of the sets' distracting from the
music, although the performance of *Les Troyens* to which I referred may
have been an instance of such.  I've enjoyed performances of Wagner's
*Ring*, *Tristan* and, more recently, a gripping performance of *Parsifal*.
In fact, aside from *Falstaff*, I can't think of a single opera which
for me suffers from live performance.  I thought at one time that it
might simply be a case of my not being sufficiently sophisticated musically
to appreciate Verdi's departure from his usual arias and recognizable
and immediately hummable melodic lines, but that wouldn't account for
my liking the opera very much when hearing it recorded.  I suspect that
listening w/ a libretto and following the usually competing texts of the
various singers in the numerous ensembles, makes the opera fall into
place for me while watching it on stage simply sounds to me like a lot
of singers making a lot of noise.  I don't need that crutch, however,
when hearing Mozart's ensembles, or those in Verdi's earlier operas.  I
could say that I just miss the tunes in the other operas, except that
this isn't the case when I hear *Falstaff* on records.  I guess I'll
just have to leave it as another one of life's mysteries.

Walter Meyer