When the macro issues are creativity and modernism, the debate
always seems to return: the usual kneejerk idea that if something is
in the "wrong" setting therefore "I" can't like it, ergo "all" modern
creativity is bad.  There is good and bad in all art, regardless of what
style it is.  It could be argued that the whole thrust of modern culture
- at least the last hundred years - has been to move away from simplistic
objective literalism towards the subconcious, the subjective, the personal.
"Inner experience" being a product of an artists psyche, can't be
objectively accessible.  That's why modern music, art, psychology, stress
the need for abstraction.  And symbolism.  Ironically modern opera is
in some ways closer to the original Greek concept of drama where universal
themes were expressed symbolically, with a minimum of superficial stage
effects.

In other forms of music we appreciate performers bringing some
insight into what they perform, but just play the notes mechanically.
Should opera should be an exception?  Freezing any art form can kill it.
Composers, like any creative people, develop and revise and are open to
ideas.  In opera, because drama is important, a director can illuminate
the underlying meaning even if it doesn't mean slavishly going by the
book.  Being true to the spirit of the work is a greater act of respect
than assuming that there is no more to it than the literal.  It does
matter that a director has a vision - would we enjoy a symphony where
a conductor put nothing of himself into the piece?

The current assumption that settings must be true to libretto is an
artistic dead end.  Wagner specifically asked that costumes for the Ring
not be Icelandic, but rather reflect the costumes worn in Roman times
by Suevi, Franks and other tribes.  He knew very well that this would
only be an approximation but it would express obliquely what he felt
about his own times, his contempt for capitalism, and "Roman" values.
Fifteen Christmases ago, British TV showed two complete Ring cycles,
back to back.  One was a tawdry Met production, where the acting was
as wooden as the sets.  The other was a German Japanese production, an
allegory about power.  In Gotterdammerung, Hagen and Gunther wore Armani.
(ie they were Roman in more ways than one).  It was the latter performance
which seemed to be imbued with a vision which brought out excellent
singing and playing.  This production was creative and had something
to tell us about our own times.  It is not the style of direction that
matters, but the quality of concept.

One thing that bothers me about the anti modern debate is the need
to use labels like Eurotrash, which is demeaning and racist.  When one
considers that there are several thousand opera venues in Germany, and
a tradition of music, theatre and opera going which goes back centuries,
one might assume then that German audiences were not fools, but on the
contrary, well informed and experienced.  (Similarly with Finland where
musical sophistication is infinitely higher than in some countries).
Of course some German productions are trash but it does not follow that
they all are, and that parochial and regressive are necessarily better.
Is opera a living art or a museum specimen?  Opera in the past wasn't
formula, and there was plenty of controversy throughout history.  Reading
the glib, flashy cliches on opera-l, I suspect these issues don't matter
to many people.  But I do think that thinking a bit more about the wider
context is more constructive.

Anne Ozorio <[log in to unmask]>