Nicholas Maw/ 'Sophie's Choice'
Simon Barrow
to Maw's earlier output?
Overview piece and links:
Len at MusicWeb
"Simon Barrow" <simon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d282a027.02121...@posting.google.com...
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/SandH/2002/Aug02/Maw_Bridle.htm
Simon Barrow
Excellent review by Bridle, Len. A model of how it should be done.
I've put a link up on NFE -- and am enjoying MusicWeb a good deal. S.
John L
wrote:
It turned out not to be a 4 hour opera after all - more like seven
hours 45 minutes.
Andrew Porter's review in the TLS seems to me to get it right.
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/this_week/story.asp?story_id=22991
John L
PS I'll still be watching the TV broadcast, but if that doesn't grab
me any more I'll will take the unusal step of wiping the recordings I
made.
Philippa Ballard
<Covent Garden had withheld its usual, enlightened invitation to
critics to attend rehearsals of a new opera, discover in detail what
is being essayed and created, get "reservations" out of the way, and
follow the first performance with mind and ear attuned.>
WHat were they so scared of...?
I went to a performance and was bored in the extreme. It was Too long,
too literal-minded. Gives opera a bad name.
If COvent Garden revives this some year I'll scream. (Given that
DOnnerstag aud LICHT was made there once and never revived).
Philippa
Simon Barrow
Fairly typical, cynical Andrew Porter hatchet job. Probably occasioned
by this (I quote):
"This account, I should add, is based on a single hearing of
Sophie’s Choice , for Covent Garden had withheld its usual,
enlightened invitation to critics to attend rehearsals of a new opera,
discover in detail what is being essayed and created, get
'reservations' out of the way, and follow the first performance with
mind and ear attuned."
Buy the guy a drink and tell him to chill out, huh?
Happy viewing...
S.
John L
wrote:
>Fairly typical, cynical Andrew Porter hatchet job.
"Cynical" and "hatchet job" are not terms that can be fairly applied
to Andrew Porter, either in this case or more generally. He's one of
the few specialist opera critics who has been supportive of new work
(Birtwistle, Carter and Ligeti spring to mind as examples)
I deliberately chose this piece as its tone of regret seems entirely
genuine. He's saying this piece *ought* to have worked, but sadly it
didn't. That's a pretty soft hatchet he's got.
>Probably occasioned
>by this (I quote):
As someone else has already indicated, the lack of an opportunity to
hear the piece apart from a single performance looks more like
uncertainty on the part of management rather than something you can
use as a stick to beat pampered critics. Andrew Porter clearly would
have like to have heard it again, precisely to see if it really was as
bad as he first thought.
Incidentally, there was a radio review by Peter Conrad for Radio 3's
"Night Waves" (Monday last week, so it's sadly no longer available to
listen online) which might explain why some of the earlier critics
were even more negative. The stage machinery failed repeatedly at the
performance/rehersal he saw, making the whole thing even more
protracted.
>Happy viewing...
Thanks. It may still be.
John L
MarkD...
news:3dfe616a...@usenet.plus.net...
> On 16 Dec 2002 06:17:43 -0800, simon_...@hotmail.com (Simon Barrow)
> wrote:
>
> >Fairly typical, cynical Andrew Porter hatchet job.
>
> "Cynical" and "hatchet job" are not terms that can be fairly applied
> to Andrew Porter, either in this case or more generally. He's one of
> the few specialist opera critics who has been supportive of new work
> (Birtwistle, Carter and Ligeti spring to mind as examples)
You have missed something. As far as 'new work' is concerned, Andrew Porter
has a history of being more accepting in the case of 'modernist' scores than
with more 'conservative' ones. A close composer friend of mine - creatively
responsible, highly gifted, masterly, fairly successful, not unoriginal; but
who is perhaps in the 'romantic' camp (though I don't, personally, think the
term means much) - was once criticized in print by Porter for writing music
which 'isn't historically valid' (or some such nitwit expression). In short,
while Porter is in many ways not unintelligent, Maw was always going to be a
problem for him.
M.
John L
<blocke...@bigtrousers.com> wrote:
>You have missed something. As far as 'new work' is concerned, Andrew Porter
>has a history of being more accepting in the case of 'modernist' scores than
>with more 'conservative' ones. A close composer friend of mine - creatively
>responsible, highly gifted, masterly, fairly successful, not unoriginal; but
>who is perhaps in the 'romantic' camp (though I don't, personally, think the
>term means much) - was once criticized in print by Porter for writing music
>which 'isn't historically valid' (or some such nitwit expression). In short,
>while Porter is in many ways not unintelligent, Maw was always going to be a
>problem for him.
It is true that he seems not to have much of a taste for some
"conservative" contemporary music, though he isn't alone in that,
surely? Could you name another *specialist* opera critic with as open
a mind to a wide range of contemporary styles? Michael Tanner, maybe?
I think Andrew Porter was more positive than most about Robin
Holloway's "Clarissa" for example and that isn't exactly high
modernism.
I agree that "historically invalid" is an absurd (and pompous)
criticism of anything and as applied to opera particularly so.
John L
PS I notice you didn't offer an opinion yourself on whether or not
"Sophie's choice" has any value.
MarkD...
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:58:14 -0000, "MarkD..."
> <blocke...@bigtrousers.com> wrote:
>
> It is true that he seems not to have much of a taste for some
> "conservative" contemporary music, though he isn't alone in that,
> surely?
So what? One person being a twit about something isn't any righter for being
among company!
> Could you name another *specialist* opera critic with as open
> a mind to a wide range of contemporary styles? Michael Tanner, maybe?
I'm not actually interested in critics - and care about *opera critics*
least of all! And since I'm interested in *musical substance*, I have to
declare that evaluations based on 'style' strike me as delusional and
phoney.
>
> I think Andrew Porter was more positive than most about Robin
> Holloway's "Clarissa" for example and that isn't exactly high
> modernism.
Last time someone lectured at me about Holloway, his music was described as
*post-modernist*. Which is hardly vieux chapeau...
>
> I agree that "historically invalid" is an absurd (and pompous)
> criticism of anything and as applied to opera particularly so.
>
Well, I appreciate your agreement. But I disagree that it's 'particularly'
absurd to use the expression in connection with opera: the concept simply
has no meaning. Full stop.
>
> PS I notice you didn't offer an opinion yourself on whether or not
> "Sophie's choice" has any value.
I couldn't get a ticket, so I have no idea. But I want to hear it: Maw is a
more important composer than the a-musical trendies think.
M.
Philippa Ballard
Someone who could have created a bit of momentum and character.
For a man of his intelligence it was a very stupid thing to do -
attempting to write his own text. Michael Tippet's home-made efforts
were always a disaster as was RStrauss's INtermezzo.
Only Wagner could bring this off.
Philippa Ballard
(BBC Symphony Orchestra London)
Jerome Kohl
> MAW should have got a librettist.
Not having heard Maw's opera, I can't address this specifically, but as
to
> Someone who could have created a bit of momentum and character.
it is true that a libretto can either hinder or promote these elements
in an opera, but isn't it ultimately down to the music to provide
both "momentum and character"?
> For a man of his intelligence it was a very stupid thing to do -
> attempting to write his own text. Michael Tippet's home-made efforts
> were always a disaster
This is by no means an established fact; there are those (myself
included)
who find Tippett's libretti far from disastrous, even if they are uneven
from one case to the next (for the sake of comparison, let us say
The Midsummer Marriage vs. Ice Break).
> as was RStrauss's INtermezzo.
Again, critical opinion is divided.
> Only Wagner could bring this off.
This too, alas, is debatable.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that, automatically,
all opera libretti written by persons other than the composer guarantee
a successful outcome--or at least, greatly improve the odds. Is this
in fact the case? I genuinely do not know, but there is no reason to
suppose that, just because the great operatic successes of the past
involved such a division of labour, that times have not altered the
situation. (One can still fairly ask whether there have been any
"successful" operas--by the standards of the past--since Turandot.)
Jerry Kohl
Simon Barrow
> On 16 Dec 2002 06:17:43 -0800, simon_...@hotmail.com (Simon Barrow)
> wrote:
>
> >Fairly typical, cynical Andrew Porter hatchet job.
>
> "Cynical" and "hatchet job" are not terms that can be fairly applied
> to Andrew Porter, either in this case or more generally. He's one of
> the few specialist opera critics who has been supportive of new work
> (Birtwistle, Carter and Ligeti spring to mind as examples)
>
> I deliberately chose this piece as its tone of regret seems entirely
> genuine. He's saying this piece *ought* to have worked, but sadly it
> didn't. That's a pretty soft hatchet he's got.
Of course Porter is always worthy of respect. But on this occasion I
find it hard to detect the regret (or the reasonableness, in
places)... I've made a response to his critique on Wednesday, December
18, 2002 at http://www.newfrontears.blogspot.com/
Anyway, it'll be interesting to hear your own considered views after
the broadcast.
Simon Barrow
http://www.newfrontears.blogspot.com/
Latest: Icebreaker ensemble and post-minimalism
Best, S