Christopher Webber replied to me:

>A curiously bleak prospect. I don't suppose you'd be happy if the idea
>of "apprentice" work were extended to the singers and musicians, so why
>should the production side be down-graded, short-changed and condemned
>to mediocrity?

Because it isn't as important as the music.  Because there is no evidence
visible to me that suggest that the producer is anywhere nearly as
important as the conductor.

>Whether "what's in the score" extends to "what's in the libretto" remains
>as open a question as ever.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.  Could you elaborate?

>In the complex world of the modern opera house, ultimately somebody has
>to in charge.

Yes, of course.  I didn't deny that, and I hope you weren't taking my
"apprentice" literally.  After all, what to do with those who are beyond
their apprentice-stage?

>Presumably the excellent Marek Janowski would prefer to call the shots
>himself - old school maestros are not exactly famed for their ability
>to play second fiddle.

Yup.  That probably is because the conductor is the first fiddle.

>>Furthermore I find it curious that in the days of "period performance
>>practice" the clearly written will of the composer as to staging
>>matters less than ever.
>
>We've had this confusion surface before.

Where is the confusion?

<repeat of what I said cut>
>As for staging, the "clearly written will" of the composer cannot
>extend beyond the grave and the notes to the stage directions (which in
>any case are the legal copyright of the librettist) as it is physically
>and psychologically impossible to ape the stage manners of a bygone age
>without producing dead pastiche

Nonsense.  If it is possible to recreate the music making of bygone
times, why is it impossible to recreate the other arts?  I don't have
the impression that people are exactly laughing at HIP music making nor
is it un-understood.  Sure, it took time until it was accepted, but we
should give theatre (both musical and non-musical) that time too.  Would
anyone have thought it possible to perform Bach's works with a male alto
and soprano fifty years ago?  Hardly.  Today it's nothing but common.

Apparently you didn't get what I tried to say.  We agree on that musically
we're closer to the text of the score than we have been for the last
century.  But the staging is worlds apart.

For whatever reason cna you justify performing Lohengrin in some kind
of a school (or whatever Konwitschny did)?  Wagner was very clear about
its location and how it's supposed to look like.  Noone would substitute
the tubas by electric drills either.  But that's precisely what stage
directors do.

The art of music (and that includes opera) does have one serious drawback:
the performer is always a re-creating artist, rather than a creating
one.  This is what directors don't understand.  Their task isn't to tell
me whatever they want to say about life today, but to make possible what
the composer wanted.  That's what every musicians does, daily.  Yes,
they fill the music with our life, but they stick to the score.  First
it's the text, then the musician.  Please explain why for directors it
should be different.  If they are oh-so-creative, please, they should
write operas.  I'll do my very best to attend them.

>Singers are taught (if anything at all) modern acting styles

Musicians get training as to play in "period practice", why would it be
impossible to teach singers to act HIP?

Jan