First, my thanks to Christopher Webber.  Even though he considers me a
"music first fundamentalist" he wrote a very long and detailed reply.
Quotes below are from said reply.

>When it comes to the stage, the libretto can - and to some degree must
>- be considered as independent of the score, with its own demands and
>motives.  The composer doesn't "own" it; his music is simply one
>interpretation of it.

I'm not quite sure that I agree here.  You're basically saying that
the libretto could be perofrmed without the music just as well, no?
Or, more interestingly, the staging and the music are nothing but two
interpretations of the same libretto which can, but don't have to show
some commonality?  I believe this is the essential difference between
us: for me, opera is the composer's interpretation of the libretto, for
you opera is two interpretations of the same libretto simultaneously(!).

>In many twentieth century repertory pieces it is specially crucial to
>take the libretto seriously.

Oh, if only the director did take it seriously. ;)

>[in our armchairs] with respect, we only get half the experience.

Here we agree.

>The idea that not just the performers but - crucially - the audience
>could be magically imbued with a workable, simultaneous understanding
>of the theatrical conventions of [various times] or that the theatres
>themselves could be equipped to deal with their vastly different stage,
>lighting and costuming demands is, of course, quite simply absurd.

But why is it possible ot accept the musical conventions?  And literal
ones?  Noone really says that reading Shakespeare is impossible and it
therefore needs a modern transliteration, and the time of "musical
transliterations" (eg.  the various Bach-arrangements) is gone, too.
Why should this be impossible for acting?

>Have you heard Purcell performed in original pronunciation?
>It's unintelligible!

For most people Wagner is as unintelligible as Verdi is.  ("people" here
refers to the world's population, the opera-goers are only a certain
part of that, granted.  But really, does everyone in a theatre outside
German-speaking countries understand Wagner and his odd German?)

>Turning to other matters, gaslights are no longer allowed, so goodbye
>echt-Wagner and Verdi for a start!

Of course every historically informed performance has limitations.  Noone
sings Bach with forced chroisters anymore, and their spanking isn't en
vogue either.

>In other words, even if it were desirable, we cannot get anywhere
>near the original stage directions or staging practices.  End of story.
>Instead - as a pragmatic compromise if you like - we have to reinterpret
>them in terms of the theatre conventions of our own time.

A question from a rookie without insider knowledge: is it theatre convention
of our time that dramas shouldn't take place where the text/libretto
suggests it?

>>For whatever reason can you justify performing Lohengrin in some kind
>>of a school (or whatever Konwitschny did)?
>
>(Konwitchny the conductor?  Did he do the production?)

No, the director. IIRC, he's the son, but I may be very far off there.

>I don't think I need to "justify" it.  I think Jan, or someone else
>who saw it, needs to say why it *didn't* work for them, and why they
>would have preferred it put in boggy mediaeval meadow.  Others might
>then counter with their experience of why it *did* work, in helping
>illuminate the complexities of Wagner's subtle mythic-psychic stage
>action, or whatever.

This is all very nice blahblah.  The essential question (and I'm very
serious about it, I want to understand) is why the drama needs to be
placed elsewhere than the libretto suggests.  Of course I'm aware that
it is impossible to recreate the medieval Brabant on stage.  But it isn't
impossible to suggest it.  That does not mean "authentic" costumes or
scenes that actually look like a wood. But why distract obviously?  Why
isn't it possible to "sketch" what Wagner demands?  The first act begins
at "A meadow on the banks of the Scheldt near Antwerp".  Why not suggest
the river by putting a blue cloth on part of the stage and the wood by
a simple green background?  Why not dress the singers in simple, unobtrusive
cloths?  Things don't need to be very obvious to be perceived.

I rather liked the Chatelet production of Don Carlo.  At least the first
two scenes are IMO very well done.  It clearly is a snowy wood resp.
monastery and it still doesn't look anachronistic.  And it certainly
didn't push the technical demands.

>Rather, the creative tension between music and staging which created
>an unforgettably poignant impact on virtually everyone who saw it.

This is quite the opposite of the gesamtkunstwerk, no?

>This "Rusalka" was completely at odds with the letter of the libretto,
>completely at one with the spirit of the score: [...]

Why does it need to be at odds with anything?  Why isn't it possible
to be at one with the sprit and the letter of score and libretto?  Yes,
that is demanding.  But that shouldn't be a problem, art always is very
demanding.

>That's like saying that if I can't play the piano like Horowitz then
>I shouldn't criticise his playing.

No, it's like saying "if I can't play like Horowitz I shouldn't tamper
with the recordings of his music".

>No. Fresh interpretation from generation to generation is in
>reality the only thing that can keep opera with us as a living art form.

That means non-stage music has been dead since one day after its invention?
Because people simply perform what's written in the score?  Why does
interpretation have to mean in theatre something similar to "rape"?

>Of course, I realise quite well that none of this will persuade the
>fundamentalist "music firsters"

Yes, there still are too many questions open, thus I'm not persuaded
at all.  But the mention fo the "creative tension" between stanging
and music made me think.  But then, it isn't really the tension between
staging and music that bugs me, but the tension between the staging and
the libretto.  I may be too naive, but when the libretto is talking of
medieval barons, I'm having a hard time to see them depicted by SS-men.
On the other hand, I'm very well able to draw these connections in my
own mind.  The truly great works of art are about mankind, not a particular
epoch. And people don't change very fast, if at all.  I don't find it
difficult to decode a symbol that's present on stage, but I find it very
difficult to perceive the symbol AND it's decyption at the same time.
Why do you theatre guys have so little faith in the smartness and awareness
of the audience that you have to serve your message so loudly?

Jan