Humanitas Visiting Professor of Opera Studies 2016: Christian Thielemann TS Eliot Lecture Theatre, Merton College, Oxford, 21, 22 January 2016
thielemann-spielt-bruckner-das-original-des-originals-41-48247468
Humanitas is a series of Visiting Professorships at Oxford and Cambridge intended to bring leading practitioners and scholars to both Universities to address major themes in the arts, social sciences and humanities. Created by Lord Wiedenfeld who died the day before the event reported here, the programme is managed and funded by the Wiedenfeld – Hoffmann Trust with the support of a series of benefactors, in collaboration with TORCH (The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities. The Humanitas Visiting Professor of Opera has been made possible by the support of the Clore Duffield Foundation.
The inaugural Visiting Professor of Opera in 2011-2012 was Joseph Volpe, retired General Manager of the New York Metropolitan Opera. He was followed in 2013-2014 by opera director Gerard Mortier (1943 –2014), ultimately Artistic Director of the Teatro Real in Madrid and in 2013-2014 by an opera singer Renée Fleming. The latest holder of the Chair, 2015-2016 is one of today’s leading conductors Christian Thielemann. Currently Principal Conductor of the Dresden Staatskapelle and Artistic Director of the Salzberg Easter Festival. He has conducted many times at Bayreuth following Meistersinger in 2010, all but one of Wagner’s operas.
Thielemann led the Humanitas Opera Lecture Series in Merton College on 21, 22 January. This consisted of four events: a lecture ‘A Conductor’s point of View’, In Conversation with Roger Allen ‘Kapellmeister or Conductor?’ and two more general discussions; ‘Regietheater Revisited’ and ‘Performing Opera’.
The opening lecture was a spell-binding rambling account of the Conductor’s career which was set when as a talented sixteen-year old he was granted a fifteen - minute interview with von Karajan whose advice was to start conducting voices in opera or operetta to learn how music breathed. He went on to describe his experiences as a conductor contrasting the styles and venues required for Wagner and Strauss. It was essential for a conductor to have eye-contact communication with individual members of the orchestra, rather than formally directing them. He gave fascinating insights into the problems of balance and projection of sound in the Bayreuth Festspielhaus. Subtitled ‘Commonalities and differences between Wagner and Strauss’, the main conclusion seemed to be the difference in length of these composers’ operas. The lecture is available on the TORCH website. The discussion in the conversation with Roger Allen centred on the different styles of conducting required for different composers, as an example contrasting Wagner and Bruckner on the one hand with Mahler on the other.
***
It has been a feature of the Humanitas Opera Lecture series to devote time to the state of opera in some aspect and to its future. This year discussion centred on the role of the Director and his freedom to impose his own ideas on opera productions, under the title Regietheater Revisited. The importance of the director’s role and its evolution throughout history was explained by Suzanne Aspden in the opening contribution to the roundtable discussion. The need for positive direction has evolved with the circumstances of opera production from princely salon to public theatre, from the days of charismatic singers, out-size castrati with pop-idol status, able to improvise ad lib in the da capo of the aria to singers of today under pressure to resemble the role they are playing.
The future of opera depends on retaining old audiences and attracting new ones. This simple truth seems to be overlooked by managements who are prepared to give their directors a free hand to impose their own ideas on the production regardless of their effect on the audience. It is symptomatic that in no Humanitas panel discussion has there been a representative of the audience. Their point of view has been relegated to remarks from the floor from the floor – as on this occasion when a video clip from a recent Parsifal was condemned as cliché-ridden, a large majority of the audience demonstrating their agreement.
Two years ago I wrote the following (rejected by a Friends’ Newsletter for being critical of the Management). I find little need to change it:
Regietheater – Opera’s death wish. There is currently much debate, both public and behind the scenes, about the future of opera. On the surface, the situation in the UK appears very healthy with full houses and the popularity of new ways of experiencing live performances, on open air screens, direct transmission to cinemas and, a more recent innovation, internet streaming to home computers. But receipts from viewers of opera only cover part of the cost. Maintaining Houses, mounting new productions and covering Companies’ costs requires support from individual and corporate sponsors and funding from the State. All these are under threat: individual support from the cost of living, corporate sponsorship from alternative demands such as football and athletics and state funding from the perceived elitism of opera. Minds have recently been concentrated by the recent Arts Council awards with a cut to ENO, supposedly for not meeting attendance targets, and level funding for provincial companies. In view of these threats, it is desirable that those most concerned, the Company management and the loyal audience, represented by Friends and other individual supporters, work to a common strategy to broaden the audience base, win new Friends and raise funds by mounting productions which people want to see, then not to disappoint.
When I am reviewing an opera production the first question I ask myself is: Did I enjoy the occasion? Parking, seating, view of stage and surtitles, refreshment and other facilities all come into it but then, of the production, did I enjoy the performance? If not, why not? If so, was enjoyment enhanced by or in spite of the production? The major disappointment has been in the choice of Directors. The vast majority of opera-goers go to see and hear the drama interpreted by the music and the singers. To them, the role of the director is to be true to the Composer’s vision and not to indulge their own preoccupations often contradictory or irrelevant to the plot. Questions of period and location of the staging, degree of sexual licence and other details are secondary. Too often recently Managements have taken the opposite view by giving the opera to a director and letting him do what he liked with it. Such an attitude is so endemic in Europe that they have a word for it Regietheater (director’s theatre). It must be realised that Regietheater is not compatible with the aim of attracting wider audiences and retaining Friends. While such productions may appeal to a small minority more interested in avant-garde theatre than in the integrated musical - visual experience of opera, the majority find it a distraction or worse.
A recent trend has been to engage directors from other dramatic arts, theatre, film or circus with no previous operatic experience. Results have been mixed: One Ring cycle theatre director, when asked what was different, replied that it was only that one had to treat the singers like a bunch of stroppy actors; if only it were that simple! The New York Metropolitan wasted millions in mounting its Cirque de Soleil Ring, its staging completely detached from the underlying music drama. On the other hand, Monty Python’s Terry Gilliam has had some success with Berlioz for ENO with The Damnation of Faust (not an opera) and Benvenuto Cellini (over-ambitious but in the right spirit) but one would hardly trust him with The Trojans.
The Humanitas discussion covered most of these points, albeit many coming from the floor. A cogent point was made by Thielemann that if there is too much added stage business from the Director the audience’s senses are overwhelmed and it cannot concentrate on the underlying opera. This was nearly the case with the New York Met’s production of Alban Berg’s Lulu, reviewed 0th Week which was an outstanding example of how a creative director, totally in sympathy with the opera, can produce a success. But such examples are rare.
An irritation was that participants were required to register their attendance in advance. This required registering for each event separately, there being no means of registering some or all events with a single form. This was a frustrating piece of administrative laziness.
The inaugural Visiting Professor of Opera in 2011-2012 was Joseph Volpe, retired General Manager of the New York Metropolitan Opera. He was followed in 2013-2014 by opera director Gerard Mortier (1943 –2014), ultimately Artistic Director of the Teatro Real in Madrid and in 2013-2014 by an opera singer Renée Fleming. The latest holder of the Chair, 2015-2016 is one of today’s leading conductors Christian Thielemann. Currently Principal Conductor of the Dresden Staatskapelle and Artistic Director of the Salzberg Easter Festival. He has conducted many times at Bayreuth following Meistersinger in 2010, all but one of Wagner’s operas.
Thielemann led the Humanitas Opera Lecture Series in Merton College on 21, 22 January. This consisted of four events: a lecture ‘A Conductor’s point of View’, In Conversation with Roger Allen ‘Kapellmeister or Conductor?’ and two more general discussions; ‘Regietheater Revisited’ and ‘Performing Opera’.
The opening lecture was a spell-binding rambling account of the Conductor’s career which was set when as a talented sixteen-year old he was granted a fifteen - minute interview with von Karajan whose advice was to start conducting voices in opera or operetta to learn how music breathed. He went on to describe his experiences as a conductor contrasting the styles and venues required for Wagner and Strauss. It was essential for a conductor to have eye-contact communication with individual members of the orchestra, rather than formally directing them. He gave fascinating insights into the problems of balance and projection of sound in the Bayreuth Festspielhaus. Subtitled ‘Commonalities and differences between Wagner and Strauss’, the main conclusion seemed to be the difference in length of these composers’ operas. The lecture is available on the TORCH website. The discussion in the conversation with Roger Allen centred on the different styles of conducting required for different composers, as an example contrasting Wagner and Bruckner on the one hand with Mahler on the other.
***
It has been a feature of the Humanitas Opera Lecture series to devote time to the state of opera in some aspect and to its future. This year discussion centred on the role of the Director and his freedom to impose his own ideas on opera productions, under the title Regietheater Revisited. The importance of the director’s role and its evolution throughout history was explained by Suzanne Aspden in the opening contribution to the roundtable discussion. The need for positive direction has evolved with the circumstances of opera production from princely salon to public theatre, from the days of charismatic singers, out-size castrati with pop-idol status, able to improvise ad lib in the da capo of the aria to singers of today under pressure to resemble the role they are playing.
The future of opera depends on retaining old audiences and attracting new ones. This simple truth seems to be overlooked by managements who are prepared to give their directors a free hand to impose their own ideas on the production regardless of their effect on the audience. It is symptomatic that in no Humanitas panel discussion has there been a representative of the audience. Their point of view has been relegated to remarks from the floor from the floor – as on this occasion when a video clip from a recent Parsifal was condemned as cliché-ridden, a large majority of the audience demonstrating their agreement.
Two years ago I wrote the following (rejected by a Friends’ Newsletter for being critical of the Management). I find little need to change it:
Regietheater – Opera’s death wish. There is currently much debate, both public and behind the scenes, about the future of opera. On the surface, the situation in the UK appears very healthy with full houses and the popularity of new ways of experiencing live performances, on open air screens, direct transmission to cinemas and, a more recent innovation, internet streaming to home computers. But receipts from viewers of opera only cover part of the cost. Maintaining Houses, mounting new productions and covering Companies’ costs requires support from individual and corporate sponsors and funding from the State. All these are under threat: individual support from the cost of living, corporate sponsorship from alternative demands such as football and athletics and state funding from the perceived elitism of opera. Minds have recently been concentrated by the recent Arts Council awards with a cut to ENO, supposedly for not meeting attendance targets, and level funding for provincial companies. In view of these threats, it is desirable that those most concerned, the Company management and the loyal audience, represented by Friends and other individual supporters, work to a common strategy to broaden the audience base, win new Friends and raise funds by mounting productions which people want to see, then not to disappoint.
When I am reviewing an opera production the first question I ask myself is: Did I enjoy the occasion? Parking, seating, view of stage and surtitles, refreshment and other facilities all come into it but then, of the production, did I enjoy the performance? If not, why not? If so, was enjoyment enhanced by or in spite of the production? The major disappointment has been in the choice of Directors. The vast majority of opera-goers go to see and hear the drama interpreted by the music and the singers. To them, the role of the director is to be true to the Composer’s vision and not to indulge their own preoccupations often contradictory or irrelevant to the plot. Questions of period and location of the staging, degree of sexual licence and other details are secondary. Too often recently Managements have taken the opposite view by giving the opera to a director and letting him do what he liked with it. Such an attitude is so endemic in Europe that they have a word for it Regietheater (director’s theatre). It must be realised that Regietheater is not compatible with the aim of attracting wider audiences and retaining Friends. While such productions may appeal to a small minority more interested in avant-garde theatre than in the integrated musical - visual experience of opera, the majority find it a distraction or worse.
A recent trend has been to engage directors from other dramatic arts, theatre, film or circus with no previous operatic experience. Results have been mixed: One Ring cycle theatre director, when asked what was different, replied that it was only that one had to treat the singers like a bunch of stroppy actors; if only it were that simple! The New York Metropolitan wasted millions in mounting its Cirque de Soleil Ring, its staging completely detached from the underlying music drama. On the other hand, Monty Python’s Terry Gilliam has had some success with Berlioz for ENO with The Damnation of Faust (not an opera) and Benvenuto Cellini (over-ambitious but in the right spirit) but one would hardly trust him with The Trojans.
The Humanitas discussion covered most of these points, albeit many coming from the floor. A cogent point was made by Thielemann that if there is too much added stage business from the Director the audience’s senses are overwhelmed and it cannot concentrate on the underlying opera. This was nearly the case with the New York Met’s production of Alban Berg’s Lulu, reviewed 0th Week which was an outstanding example of how a creative director, totally in sympathy with the opera, can produce a success. But such examples are rare.
An irritation was that participants were required to register their attendance in advance. This required registering for each event separately, there being no means of registering some or all events with a single form. This was a frustrating piece of administrative laziness.