Anne Ozorio:

>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.

The early Wieland Wagner producitons seem to have been indeed just this:
as little "stuffing" as possible. But everything I've seen of "concept
opera" has rather too much 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.

I really don't understand this. I'd be so happy if anyone could try to
help me out. Why is it possible to fill out the notes with meaning without
significantly altering them, whereas a drama needs to be put in a place
far away from the original?

>The current assumption that settings must be true to libretto is an
>artistic dead end.

Yes. Because everyone just says "No, I don't wanna do that".

>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.

So, what does this matter? The Met produced an awfully acted Ring. Does
that mean that staging the Ring in appropriate sets always results in
poor acting and singing?  No one claims that all true-to-the-text settings
are great, why do you pick examples as use them against the idea?

>It was the latter performance which seemed to be imbued with a vision
>which brought out excellent singing and playing.

But is that really because of the Armani suits? Isn't it rather a different
combination of singers, conductor and director that made everyhting more
successful?

>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.

That's entirely true. But raping a work isn't exactly a good quality
concept. Yes, sure, it's magnificent for the director's ego, but for the
work it's pretty lethal.  Why does no one think of changing music to make
it tell us something about today? Where's the beard added to the Mona
Lisa? That certainly would trach us soooooooo much about modern times.

>Is opera a living art or a museum specimen?  Opera in the past wasn't
>formula, and there was plenty of controversy throughout history.

Does an art have to kill the work to live?

>Reading the glib, flashy cliches on opera-l, I suspect these issues
>don't matter to many people.

You misunderstood something. Opera-L actually is only mis-labeled, it
ought ot be Singing-L, it's got only very little to do with opera.:)

Jan