Stravinsky's The Rake's Progress and thoughts on operatic opinion

[theatokos]

ctiee and I went to the opera last night and as always it was a delight. I have seen four of the eight productions this fall. I think Rake's is my second favorite. While Mozart's Magic Flute was fun and I adore the music, the production was quite over the top and my experience being in the nosebleed seats definitely diminished the experience. Wagner's Tannhauser takes the cake and Puccini's La Rondine was certainly just plain bad.

It's hard to rate opera, for there are so many factors, all being almost entirely subjective opinion. Did you like the music? And did the orchestra play it well? Did you like the songs? And were they sung well? Acting? Voice type? Plot, character development, libretto (lyrics)? Production (sets and costumes, including theme/era/etc)? And then, what was the overall impression? Did you have a good time? And possibly, would you ever go see this opera and/or production again? Whew. That's a lot. But it's part of what makes this so fun. It's kind of like going to see a very long, big budget movie performed live.

Let's break down Rake's Progress in the order I listed the above questions. First, a wee bit of background: Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971), a Russian composer most known for his ballet music, wrote this opera in English (libretto by WH Auden) in the neo-classical style. It was finished in 1951, so it's modern, but has lots of elements of Mozart and pre-romantic composers in it (I am waaaay out of my field here, so that's all I'm going to say about that).

Music: I liked the music. Some of the incidental music was especially spare and lovely. I particularly liked the music as Ann is driving through London and I wondered why I haven't heard this used in a film. In general, the SFO orchestra does a wonderful job. Conductor Runnicles is an excellent conductor. However, in the opening of act one I noticed some strange trumpet sounds, as if the trumpet came in late and couldn't quite figure out what measure was where.

The songs themselves were mixed. The vocal parts, particularly the soprano role, are very difficult. Large ranges, large leaps, lines that at times seem to be sung with one set of notes while the orchestra is playing something completely different. I don't think there are any arias from this that I'm going to go away humming, but for the most part it wasn't so bad. Lyrical and melodic in it's own way. My only disappointment was the ensemble parts. If Stravinsky was using Mozart as any kind of example it is doubly disappointing that the ensembles were so bulky, unlyrical, and rather messy. Mozart is known for the beauty of his ensemble pieces. These parts were my least favorite, as I found the parts competing with each other, rather than enhancing one another.

However, all the parts were sung extremely well. William Burden played Tom Rakewell and his voice is superb. He may be my favorite tenor. He occasionally scooped, but it fit the era the opera was placed in (1950s) and the character. His tone is warm and clear; his acting was also excellent. All of the other characters sang beautifully and acted well. It was especially nice to see Denyce Graves in person, since she is big name and I have seen/heard her sing on tv specials. She is glorious and regal and in person the woman has more stage presence than most people in entertainment today. I liked that she brought an almost musical theatre sensibility to her bizarre character, Baba the Turk, a bearded lady superstar (fer real, people).

Plot and character development was also entertaining and believable. This opera is "only" three hours long. How is it that this opera could span a year and two continents and make me believe in the growth of the characters, whereas many operas cover one day and unbelievable dramatic changes and it takes 4 or more hours and feels like a lifetime? The lyrics were pretty silly most of the time, often waxing over-poetic, but I didn't mind. I was engaged in the characters, emotionally, and I was amused.

The production was gorgeous. If the four operas I have seen so far are any indication, SFO is going all out on their productions. Obviously opera goers love this stuff and like to applaud for clever set changes. What I appreciated is that while there was a great deal of visual cleverness, it never distracted from the scene. I thought most of the set changes were seamless, although I felt the inflatable trailer to take a little too long.

I would definitely go see this production again, however I would be very careful about where and with what singers I heard this again. It's a difficult, relatively uncommon opera and would be easy to do badly. Thankfully, this was not the case.


As I have recently discovered, the opera reviewer for the SF Chronicle (I can't believe such a literate, major American city has a newspaper this bad) has wildly different opinions than me. Kosman seems to prefer standard opera, with standard productions. He said that "the new production of "Tannhäuser," [was] a far more invasive and off-putting piece of directorial folly". Whoa. This is in stark contrast to my opinion that this production was fantastic, despite one or two indulgences. In fact, it was one of the greatest things I've ever seen on stage. And, I also heard from ctiee that he thinks soprano Ruth Ann Swenson emotionally distant. Kosman and I are from entirely different planets, me thinks.

Comments

[hrafntinna.livejournal.com]

W. H. Auden? Wow.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I also forgot to mention that at intermission I ran into the founding director of my nonprofit and one of our biggest donors. They had empty seats near them.... in the fourth row! So I got to finally see what opera up close is like. The diction was much better, I could distinctly see and hear everything, which was fun. But, honestly, I think the best seats would be either center box seats or 2/3 of the way back on the orchestra level. The fourth row is a bit like going to a movie theatre and sitting in the front row. Were the opera not in English my neck would have hurt a lot from craning to read the supratitles, and I would have missed a lot of the action going back and forth. Plus, I think the voices warm as they spill out into the theatre.

Nonetheless, I am glad I had an opportunity to see what up close is like.

[ctiee.livejournal.com]

I was so happy to read this, thanks for pointing out the ensemble parts.

I would really like to see the old Hockney production of this opera, that this new one displaced. I didn't like Hockney's Turandot or Tristan und Isolde, but I hear that his one for The Rake is very much set in Hogarth's work.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering about that. My first reaction is No. I'm not sure I want to see late 18th century costumes, etc. But that could be because I find this plot very timeless and the music, despite Stravinsky's inspirations, is very modern.

However, a production based on Hogarth's work could be very cool. I think what's most important in this opera is the singers. If the singers are really good, a production could be even quite minimalist and it would be engaging.