John Smyth replied to Christopher Webber:

>>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.
>
>If one's eyes are closed, it should be so that he doesn't see the libretto!

A hard drive crash knocked me out of this thread.  I saw some of the
responses, including the one quoted in part above.

Without wishing to drag readers back over ground well covered, my
underlying point was that, for me, Tristan is primarily an opera of ideas
as opposed to action; the *things* which happen are far less interesting
to me than the ideas and emotions it explores.  These are quite well
served by a static performance--which is not to say a disengaged one.
Indeed, in their abstraction they can be expressed quite well by
instrumental music with the words--and certainly the action--in a decidedly
subsidiary role.

Nothing wrong with any of this, and I acknowledge Tristan as a masterpiece
("Listening I can be moved to tears.")However, to me, opera is at least
equally a *dramatic* art form.  I am willing to sacrifice the acting
ability of an Olivier (another current thread)in the interest of musical
communication.  I can even understand the need for a spare staging or
concert version in the interest of economy.  But I still want to feel
the dramatic push of the opera itself (even on cd.  That is what I was
"complaining" about with Tristan and Isolde when I said that "Watching,
I can be bored to tears."

I know that for others this drama unfolds in compelling ways--eyes open
or shut.  It just hasn't (yet) worked for me, and I was making an attempt
at explaining why.

Ed