Discussion:
Pelleas Et Melisande - Debussy
(too old to reply)
Paul Goodman
2006-08-08 03:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
--
Paul Goodman
***@qtm.net
***@comcast.net
Donald Grove
2006-08-08 10:33:09 UTC
Permalink
I agree that it's an excellent DVD.

I was the same way. I was converted to P & M after seeing it at the
Met in 1988 (with Von Stade and Jose Van Dam). I went back and saw it
two more times that season, and I always go back to see it in any
season where it is being done. It's hard to follow the music unless
you have a clear idea of the drama. It's funny to think I couldn't
get it from reading the libretto, but in my case, I had to see it on
stage.

The Welsh National Opera DVD has a really strong cast, and an
excellent production.
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
2006-08-08 20:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Grove
I agree that it's an excellent DVD.
I was the same way. I was converted to P & M after seeing it at the
Met in 1988 (with Von Stade and Jose Van Dam). I went back and saw it
two more times that season, and I always go back to see it in any
season where it is being done. It's hard to follow the music unless
you have a clear idea of the drama. It's funny to think I couldn't
get it from reading the libretto, but in my case, I had to see it on
stage.
I wish there were a DVD of the Met production (with van
Dam)! I have the Lyon Opera version (set in a home for
dipsomaniacs) and a pirate VCR tape of the Robert Wilson
Paris production (his usual homage to Kabuki), but it would
be nice to have it in (more or less) the intended context!
AlisonC
2006-08-08 11:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
Thanks for the recommendation. It's already on my list of DVDs that I'm
going to rent from Amazon so perhaps I'll promote it to the top, even
though I don't need persuading of the virtues of Pelleas and Melisande
:-)

Must say I think DVDs are a great way of familiarising yourself with a
new opera, or one that you haven't seen for a long time. It's so much
easier to take in a plot that way than from a written synopsis, plus
you find out how the music relates to the plot. I don't always want to
watch a particular recording more than once or twice before switching
to CDs, though, which is why rentals are a good solution for me.
Robert Storm
2006-08-08 14:54:01 UTC
Permalink
I saw that production on VHS. Personally I thought it was OK but not
more than that. I've also seen the DVD conducted by John Eliot
Gardiner. I think that apart from the Désormière recording it was
musically the best Pelléas et Mélisande I've heard. However, I didn't
think the production was very interesting. There are two more DVD's
that I would like to see.

It was the Désormière recording that made Pelléas one of my favorite
operas. But there are several other great recordings of this opera.

Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
m***@hotmail.com
2006-08-08 15:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Storm
I saw that production on VHS. Personally I thought it was OK but not
more than that. I've also seen the DVD conducted by John Eliot
Gardiner. I think that apart from the Désormière recording it was
musically the best Pelléas et Mélisande I've heard. However, I didn't
think the production was very interesting. There are two more DVD's
that I would like to see.
It was the Désormière recording that made Pelléas one of my favorite
operas. But there are several other great recordings of this opera.
The Gardiner is the only DVD with Van Dam in his prime, he's
overwhelming. But the production is really stupid and hard to ignore.
At least the rest of the cast are French speakers, which is important
in this opera, though nobody but the Yniold sings well. Gardiner went
back to an early score of the opera; he shortened the interludes to
what they were originally (Debussy lengthened them due to scene change
time), and he also uses an early orchestration, though it's not clear
the version he used really represents Debussy's best and final
thoughts. The perf is available cheap from Encore, it's in OK
condition, not as good sonically as the 'real' DVD would be. The other
DVD I know is the from Glyndebourne -- I found the idiotic Vicks
production unwatchable, and only Richard Clark (Pelleas) and again the
Yniold are any good. But nobody is wonderful in the declamation.

Mrs John Claggart
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
2006-08-08 20:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
The Gardiner is the only DVD with Van Dam in his prime, he's
overwhelming. But the production is really stupid and hard to ignore.
Is that one I don't know about, or that silly Lyon Opera
version?
m***@hotmail.com
2006-08-08 22:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Post by m***@hotmail.com
The Gardiner is the only DVD with Van Dam in his prime, he's
overwhelming. But the production is really stupid and hard to ignore.
Is that one I don't know about, or that silly Lyon Opera
version?
It is alas the idiotic Lyons version. I'm with you, I wish there were
an official or even an in house shoot of the Met Von Stade, Van Dam
performances.

Mrs. JC
d***@aol.com
2006-08-08 20:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@hotmail.com
Gardiner went
back to an early score of the opera; he shortened the interludes to
what they were originally (Debussy lengthened them due to scene change
time), and he also uses an early orchestration, though it's not clear
the version he used really represents Debussy's best and final
thoughts.
It most certainly does not. Gardiner is an idiot.

-david gable
a***@aol.com
2006-08-08 16:00:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
--
Paul Goodman
I regard this work as one of the most wondrous scores written for any
operatic orchestra - a real thrill and joy to play, so subtle is
Debussy's writing. My only regret is that I have only done it about a
dozen times or so.

I am glad you have come to enjoy it. It is one of the great
masterpieces, in my opinion.

I have two recordings of the work - one conducted by Mr Desormiere and
the other by Mr Ansermet. The orchestra need freedom of expression in
this piece to properly realise Debussy's score and not to be bound too
much by time signatures but allowed elasticity of tempo. Both these
conductors achieve this, I believe.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Donald Grove
2006-08-08 22:35:21 UTC
Permalink
I went through a phase about ten years ago where I didn't listen to
anything but Pelleas for a couple months. I couldn't get it out of my
mind.

This year I did chorus in a production of Il Tabarro, which definitely
has splashes of harmony that sound like an hommage to Peleas. I
wonder what it must have been like for composers of that time, some of
who were striving to develop new forms and ideas. After a long wait,
out comes Pelleas. It must have been very exciting. To my ear, it is
a more radical piece than other regularly performed Debussy works.

EvelynVogtGamble wrote
"I wish there were a DVD of the Met production (with van
Dam)! I have the Lyon Opera version (set in a home for
dipsomaniacs) and a pirate VCR tape of the Robert Wilson
Paris production (his usual homage to Kabuki), but it would
be nice to have it in (more or less) the intended context!"

Van Dam was spectacular, Flicka Von Stade was fabulous, and Douglas
Ahlstedt was quite a good Pelleas, although his voice in not to my
taste. But that production was really quite pedestrian. Somewhat
abstract scenery, and sort of furry medieval costumes. But dressed in
just about anything, Van Dam and Von Stade could have carried that
opera.

The new (well, newer) production at the Met is interesting, but
doesn't bring much to the piece. Set in a vast, lugubrious mansion
that appears to be around 1910.
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
--
Paul Goodman
I regard this work as one of the most wondrous scores written for any
operatic orchestra - a real thrill and joy to play, so subtle is
Debussy's writing. My only regret is that I have only done it about a
dozen times or so.
I am glad you have come to enjoy it. It is one of the great
masterpieces, in my opinion.
I have two recordings of the work - one conducted by Mr Desormiere and
the other by Mr Ansermet. The orchestra need freedom of expression in
this piece to properly realise Debussy's score and not to be bound too
much by time signatures but allowed elasticity of tempo. Both these
conductors achieve this, I believe.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
d***@aol.com
2006-08-08 23:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Grove
I
wonder what it must have been like for composers of that time, some of
who were striving to develop new forms and ideas. After a long wait,
out comes Pelleas. It must have been very exciting. To my ear, it is
a more radical piece than other regularly performed Debussy works.
That's a surprising opinion. Pelleas is really fairly early, more than
five years before La mer for example. Do you relly find it more
"radical" than Jeux or the Etudes?

-david gable
Donald Grove
2006-08-09 12:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Wow, tough question to answer. I can't bring much study to my
response, but I can try to explain what I mean from a personal
perspective. I will freely show my ignorance of history and harmony
with that understanding.

I will admit that I didn't give much thought to what I was saying when
I said "frequently performed", and when I think about it, I was
referring to his standard rep piano pieces, the Images, Preludes, Pour
le Piano, etc. It's not a chronological thing. I have no real idea of
how Debussy's compositions relate to each other chronologically. I am
familiar with La Mer, which isn't what I had in mind, but definitely
counts as as frequently performed work, and I think stands as an
interesting standard for what I meant by calling Pelleas "radical".

I think it has to do with how I hear "strucutre" and the development
of thematic ideas. By radical, as an uneducated listener, I meant a
departure from the standard structural forms we are exposed to and by
which we identify, broadly, reductively, simplistically, melody, tune,
theme, etc. It took me years of exposure before I could follow the
Ring, for instance, because structurally, the music demands a
different kind of attention than, say, Un Ballo In Maschera or even
Tannhauser.

In the case of Pelleas, this thread was started with a point that rang
very true for me. I needed to see it performed in order to follow
what was happening musically. By the time I first saw it, I loved the
"frequently performed" works I mentioned, and I had struggled to play
many of them (badly) myself on the piano. I had some idea of how
Debussy was "modern" but no formal schooling in it. And I had tried
many times, back in the days of vinyl discs, to "hear" what was so
appealing about Pelleas. Couldn't get it. But when I saw it
performed, the whole thing came together, and Pelleas rapidly became
one of my favorite works.

A piece of the musical structure in Pelleas is the plot, the action,
the dialog itself. That is probably true of many good operas that
preceded it. But to my ear, Pelleas takes a big leap in a new
direction. It uses the same sort of structural methods, perhaps, as
Wagner, but much more subtly. Are there writers who talk about
"leitmotifs" in Pelleas? I wouldn't know. But there are themes, and
they don't so much refer to plot elements as a growing, fatal struggle
between conflicting characters, motives and moods. Pelleas is all
passion, shifting strong colors. Melisande is malleable, wary, but
with a subtle consistency. She wants what is light, both in terms of
what she says, and in terms of harmony and orchestration. Golaud is
very solid, dark, brass. Arkel has the same sort of coloristic
foundation as Golaud, but the orchestrations have a quality of
bottomlessness, descent, ambiguity and despair. A great moment,
though is when Arkel "becomes young" again, asking Melisande for a
kiss. All the weight of his orchestral style is dragged suddenly
upwards into a conversion of Arkel's themes harmony into something
that sounds momentarily more like Pelleas' music.

These things contrasting qualities of character and music were
portrayed visually extremely well in that Welsh National Opera
production. No easy task. I don't think either Met production I have
seen did such a good job.

Following the music with the libretto didn't help me when I first
listening to Pelleas. Seeing it did. Even with my high school
french, and a lack of subtitles, I followed the opera extremely well
when I first saw it. It didn't hurt that the cast was excellent.

The only way I can compare how I hear these things to Debussy's poorly
named (by me) "frequently performed" works is to say that because they
are generally shorter, perhaps, there "structure" is easier for me to
grasp. That is certainly true with La Mer, or the Images. Pelleas'
music is more spread out, diffused, and laid over a very carefully
constructed text, upon which it relies, not just for words, but for
character.To me, that is what makes Pelleas more radical.

Has anyone ever tried to make a piano reduction of excerpts from
Pelleas, as a performance piece? That would be an interesting
challenge.
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Donald Grove
I
wonder what it must have been like for composers of that time, some of
who were striving to develop new forms and ideas. After a long wait,
out comes Pelleas. It must have been very exciting. To my ear, it is
a more radical piece than other regularly performed Debussy works.
That's a surprising opinion. Pelleas is really fairly early, more than
five years before La mer for example. Do you relly find it more
"radical" than Jeux or the Etudes?
-david gable
d***@aol.com
2006-08-09 00:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Grove
I
wonder what it must have been like for composers of that time, some of
who were striving to develop new forms and ideas. After a long wait,
out comes Pelleas. It must have been very exciting. To my ear, it is
a more radical piece than other regularly performed Debussy works.
That's a surprising opinion. Pelleas is really fairly early, more than
five years before La mer for example. Do you relly find it more
"radical" than Jeux or the Etudes?

-david gable
c***@aol.com
2006-08-09 22:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Grove
I went through a phase about ten years ago where I didn't listen to
anything but Pelleas for a couple months. I couldn't get it out of my
mind.
==================
The phrase "out of my mind" has, perhaps, unfortunate overtones
Donald. ;-)

But then, so does the opera.



Pat
Donald Grove
2006-08-09 22:38:07 UTC
Permalink
My friends all say the same thing. What's a compulsive Pelleas
listener to do? I tried Fledermaus therapy, but it just gives me a
headache. The only thing I can really listen to after a good Pelleas
that isn't more Pelleas, is maybe the original Mussorgsky scoring of
Boris.

dsg
Post by c***@aol.com
Post by Donald Grove
I went through a phase about ten years ago where I didn't listen to
anything but Pelleas for a couple months. I couldn't get it out of my
mind.
==================
The phrase "out of my mind" has, perhaps, unfortunate overtones
Donald. ;-)
But then, so does the opera.
Pat
Sergio da Silva
2006-08-09 17:25:31 UTC
Permalink
I have many recordings but not the ones you have :-)
I find each one has something to offer.
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
--
Paul Goodman
I regard this work as one of the most wondrous scores written for any
operatic orchestra - a real thrill and joy to play, so subtle is
Debussy's writing. My only regret is that I have only done it about a
dozen times or so.
I am glad you have come to enjoy it. It is one of the great
masterpieces, in my opinion.
I have two recordings of the work - one conducted by Mr Desormiere and
the other by Mr Ansermet. The orchestra need freedom of expression in
this piece to properly realise Debussy's score and not to be bound too
much by time signatures but allowed elasticity of tempo. Both these
conductors achieve this, I believe.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
d***@aol.com
2006-08-08 20:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Goodman
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
The Peter Stein production is terrific, but I don't find this to be the
most thrilling performance Boulez ever lead.

-david gable
Solomon Epstein
2006-08-09 15:38:32 UTC
Permalink
I read with great interest the postings about Pelleas et Melisande. I
also had trouble with the opera, until I got perspective on the work
from reading various critiques, analyses, and biographical material on
Debussy.( If interested, read the excellent critical biography of
Debussy by Edward Lockspeiser).

What impressed me especially about the Pelleas postings was how
strikingly intuitive many people were who claimed to have no formal
musical training.

Several people mentioned that they just couldn't get Pelleas from
CD's, but it all made sense when they saw a performance (usually on
video). It may interest these people to know that Debussy himself
forbade a proposed concert performance of Pelleas. He said that music,
text, and stage picture were absolutely integrated in this work, and
that a concert performance would fail utterly ---- that the music alone
would make no sense to an audience.

Of all composers, Debussy was among the most literary and visual.
Just the titles of so many of his purely instrumental works indicate
that. Debussy was close friends not only with French composers, but
also with many of the leading French painters and authors of the day.



Debussy had a career-long, profound love-hate relationship with
Wagner's work (like so many French artists --- as well as non-artists
--- of the day).He made three "pilgrimages" to Bayreuth, where he heard
Tristan, Meistersinger. and Parsifal.

Despite Debussy's sarcastic writings on Wagner, Pelleas may well be
the most fully achieved Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk. The orchestral
writing is a tissue of leitmotiven, though of course far more subtle
than Wagner's usage, in terms of both texture and instrumentation.

I found it very helpful to listen once to Pelleas while concentrating
on the orchestra ( mentally blocking out singing and words), so as to
get the musical continuity, the leitmotven and their frequent dramatic
"comments", and Debussy's precise use of orchestral color to embody
dramatic meanings.

The vocal writing is of course often a subdued "Sprechgesang",so the
occasions when the voice suddenly bursts out passionately are deeply
thrilling.

The stereotype still widely persists that Pelleas is too subdued and
pale throughout. Nonsense. Underneath the surface of the deceptively
quiet music, a suppressed violence or eroticism often lurks. When these
passions burst out, therefore, they blaze.

The scene where the paranoid Golaud drags Melisande around the room by
her hair is really terrifying, far beyond being merely rhetorical or
melodramatic. When Pelleas findly declares his love to Melisande, voice
and orchestra pour out gloriously. Golaud's scene with Yniold beneath
Melisande's window is hair-raising. Golaud and Pelleas alone in the
subterranean caverns beneath the castle is menacing.

The scene immediately following has Pelleas almost hysterically
repeating that now he can breathe "out here in the open air"---- while
Golaud says almost nothing. Pelleas is pitiable in his self-deception,
while Golaud's long silence is far more ominous than any words could
be.

I finally got one scene that never seemed to fit before. This is the
scene with Yniold alone, playing with a ball and then losing it when it
rolls under a rock. His attention then turns to the sheep going home
for the evening, and he remarks that the sheep "have stopped talking".
As the Shepherd passes, Yniold asks him why the sheep have become so
silent. The shepherd answers,"They are not going back to the stable
tonight," and moves on. Yniold says to himself, "Then where are they
going? Where will they sleep?"

Of course the (unstated) implication is that they are going to the
slaughter. And now the scene makes perfect sense ---- it foreshadows
the love scene between Pelleas and Melisande, at the end of which
Golaud rushes out from the bushes and stabs Pelleas with his sword.

Like so many French artists and intellectuals from Baudelaire onward,
Debussy was fascinated with Edgar Allan Poe. We're all disappointed
that Debussy never completed his two one-act Poe operas, "The Fall of
the House of Usher" and "The Devil in the Belfry".

What is not well known, though, is that Debussy had "Usher" in mind
when writing "Pelleas". The mysterious castle of Allemonde, its sunless
forests,subterranean diseased caverns where "the water is stagnant",
were all influenced by Debussy's preoccupation with "Usher".
Inarticulate Melisande, who dies of a mysterious illness, is a sister
to Poe's shadowy women, such as Ligeia, Annabel Lee, or Lenore. Pelleas
himself is consciously modelled on the neurasthenically hypersensitive
Roderick Usher.

There's more that's fascinating about this amazing, unique opera.
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
--
Paul Goodman
d***@aol.com
2006-08-10 07:37:49 UTC
Permalink
In a long post, Solomon makes some interesting points and one rather
dubious one: that the slaughter of the sheep foreshadows Golaud's
murderous attack of Pelleas and Melisande.

The death of the sheep does NOT foreshadow the attack on P & M. It
would take more than the shared fact of death for that . . . unless you
think that "Golaud leads P & M to death like lambs to slaughter" is an
adequate summary of Maeterlinck's play, which it is not. (Golaud
doesn't matter-of-factly lead P & M to slaughter: he attacks them in a
rage.)

Nevertheless, the fact that the sheep are lead to slaughter is a
significant detail within a web of similar details. Sheep are lead to
slaughter. Their death is inevitable. This is a fact of the culture
that Yniold is not resigned to. The sheperd accepts it. It disturbs
Yniold. "I've got to tell somebody," he says to himself. In other
words, somebody ought to know that this monstrous thing has happened in
the world. In his failure to accept the inevitable, Yniold resembles
Golaud. Golaud can no more passively accept what goes on around him
than Yniold can accept the routine slaughter of sheep. Neither is
resigned to the inevitable, which is to say, fate. They fight it, if
only, in Yniold's case, for a brief moment.

Arkel preaches passive acceptance of fate, resignation. Those who
suffer in Allemond are those who rebel against fate or at least the
inevitable, but what is inevitable is fated. The attraction of P and M
has a fated quality. It happens because they find themselves under the
same roof and the attraction is there. They don't go in search of it,
but they do nothing to resist it. They don't will it or move mountains
to enable it to happen, as Romeo and Juliet did. They allow it to
happen. They passively slide into a relationship by degrees regardless
of the consequences, not heroically or defiantly, but because there is
no point in fighting it. If it leads to their death, well, that's
inevitable, too. No use fighting it.

P & M practice what Arkel preaches. Golaud is the one who does not
belong in Allemond. He protests. He doesn't passively accept. He
rages at the way of the world. He rejects the rupture of his
relationship with M and the fated love of P & M. He is also the only
character really to suffer, because he is not resigned. In Allemond,
the more you are resigned, the less you suffer.

-david gable
Sergio da Silva
2006-08-10 15:36:05 UTC
Permalink
That is a good analysis. It reminds me that when Goulad first meets
Melissande he is traveling (away from Allemond) and I believe the libretto
suggests he's been away for quite some time (saddened by the death of his
first wife). And he ends that meeting by saying "Je suis perdu aussi" ....
I'm also lost (when Melissande says that she is lost)....
Post by d***@aol.com
In a long post, Solomon makes some interesting points and one rather
dubious one: that the slaughter of the sheep foreshadows Golaud's
murderous attack of Pelleas and Melisande.
The death of the sheep does NOT foreshadow the attack on P & M. It
would take more than the shared fact of death for that . . . unless you
think that "Golaud leads P & M to death like lambs to slaughter" is an
adequate summary of Maeterlinck's play, which it is not. (Golaud
doesn't matter-of-factly lead P & M to slaughter: he attacks them in a
rage.)
Nevertheless, the fact that the sheep are lead to slaughter is a
significant detail within a web of similar details. Sheep are lead to
slaughter. Their death is inevitable. This is a fact of the culture
that Yniold is not resigned to. The sheperd accepts it. It disturbs
Yniold. "I've got to tell somebody," he says to himself. In other
words, somebody ought to know that this monstrous thing has happened in
the world. In his failure to accept the inevitable, Yniold resembles
Golaud. Golaud can no more passively accept what goes on around him
than Yniold can accept the routine slaughter of sheep. Neither is
resigned to the inevitable, which is to say, fate. They fight it, if
only, in Yniold's case, for a brief moment.
Arkel preaches passive acceptance of fate, resignation. Those who
suffer in Allemond are those who rebel against fate or at least the
inevitable, but what is inevitable is fated. The attraction of P and M
has a fated quality. It happens because they find themselves under the
same roof and the attraction is there. They don't go in search of it,
but they do nothing to resist it. They don't will it or move mountains
to enable it to happen, as Romeo and Juliet did. They allow it to
happen. They passively slide into a relationship by degrees regardless
of the consequences, not heroically or defiantly, but because there is
no point in fighting it. If it leads to their death, well, that's
inevitable, too. No use fighting it.
P & M practice what Arkel preaches. Golaud is the one who does not
belong in Allemond. He protests. He doesn't passively accept. He
rages at the way of the world. He rejects the rupture of his
relationship with M and the fated love of P & M. He is also the only
character really to suffer, because he is not resigned. In Allemond,
the more you are resigned, the less you suffer.
-david gable
Sam
2006-08-10 16:07:12 UTC
Permalink
This from BRO was quite helpful to me in understanding the opera.

Debussy, 'An Introduction to Pelleas et Melisande'. (From the 'Opera
Explained' series written by Thomson Smillie and narrated by David
Timson, principal themes and arias from the complete Naxos recording
are explored. Total time: 78'53')
Add to cart | Price: $ 3.99 | Country: GERMANY | D/A code: D | Code:
8.558172 | BRO Code: 129498 | Label: NAXOS
Genre: Musical Instruction
AlisonC
2006-08-10 18:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam
This from BRO was quite helpful to me in understanding the opera.
Debussy, 'An Introduction to Pelleas et Melisande'. (From the 'Opera
Explained' series written by Thomson Smillie and narrated by David
Timson, principal themes and arias from the complete Naxos recording
are explored. Total time: 78'53')
I saw that advertised and wondered what it was like. What sort of
commentary is it - about the music mainly, or about the plot, or both?

Evidently someone has managed to find some arias in P&M :-)
Sam
2006-08-10 21:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlisonC
Post by Sam
This from BRO was quite helpful to me in understanding the opera.
Debussy, 'An Introduction to Pelleas et Melisande'. (From the 'Opera
Explained' series written by Thomson Smillie and narrated by David
Timson, principal themes and arias from the complete Naxos recording
are explored. Total time: 78'53')
I saw that advertised and wondered what it was like. What sort of
commentary is it - about the music mainly, or about the plot, or both?
Evidently someone has managed to find some arias in P&M :-)
It covers both the story and music. I remember an extended discussion
of how features of the French language relate to things in the music.
Probably nobody has successfully presented the opera in another
language.
AlisonC
2006-08-11 11:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam
It covers both the story and music. I remember an extended discussion
of how features of the French language relate to things in the music.
Probably nobody has successfully presented the opera in another
language.
Thanks, Sam. I might invest $3.99 or equivalent, then! I read somewhere
that the musical examples on it are from a pretty good recording, as
well.
Solomon Epstein
2006-08-09 15:38:35 UTC
Permalink
I read with great interest the postings about Pelleas et Melisande. I
also had trouble with the opera, until I got perspective on the work
from reading various critiques, analyses, and biographical material on
Debussy.( If interested, read the excellent critical biography of
Debussy by Edward Lockspeiser).

What impressed me especially about the Pelleas postings was how
strikingly intuitive many people were who claimed to have no formal
musical training.

Several people mentioned that they just couldn't get Pelleas from
CD's, but it all made sense when they saw a performance (usually on
video). It may interest these people to know that Debussy himself
forbade a proposed concert performance of Pelleas. He said that music,
text, and stage picture were absolutely integrated in this work, and
that a concert performance would fail utterly ---- that the music alone
would make no sense to an audience.

Of all composers, Debussy was among the most literary and visual.
Just the titles of so many of his purely instrumental works indicate
that. Debussy was close friends not only with French composers, but
also with many of the leading French painters and authors of the day.



Debussy had a career-long, profound love-hate relationship with
Wagner's work (like so many French artists --- as well as non-artists
--- of the day).He made three "pilgrimages" to Bayreuth, where he heard
Tristan, Meistersinger. and Parsifal.

Despite Debussy's sarcastic writings on Wagner, Pelleas may well be
the most fully achieved Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk. The orchestral
writing is a tissue of leitmotiven, though of course far more subtle
than Wagner's usage, in terms of both texture and instrumentation.

I found it very helpful to listen once to Pelleas while concentrating
on the orchestra ( mentally blocking out singing and words), so as to
get the musical continuity, the leitmotven and their frequent dramatic
"comments", and Debussy's precise use of orchestral color to embody
dramatic meanings.

The vocal writing is of course often a subdued "Sprechgesang",so the
occasions when the voice suddenly bursts out passionately are deeply
thrilling.

The stereotype still widely persists that Pelleas is too subdued and
pale throughout. Nonsense. Underneath the surface of the deceptively
quiet music, a suppressed violence or eroticism often lurks. When these
passions burst out, therefore, they blaze.

The scene where the paranoid Golaud drags Melisande around the room by
her hair is really terrifying, far beyond being merely rhetorical or
melodramatic. When Pelleas findly declares his love to Melisande, voice
and orchestra pour out gloriously. Golaud's scene with Yniold beneath
Melisande's window is hair-raising. Golaud and Pelleas alone in the
subterranean caverns beneath the castle is menacing.

The scene immediately following has Pelleas almost hysterically
repeating that now he can breathe "out here in the open air"---- while
Golaud says almost nothing. Pelleas is pitiable in his self-deception,
while Golaud's long silence is far more ominous than any words could
be.

I finally got one scene that never seemed to fit before. This is the
scene with Yniold alone, playing with a ball and then losing it when it
rolls under a rock. His attention then turns to the sheep going home
for the evening, and he remarks that the sheep "have stopped talking".
As the Shepherd passes, Yniold asks him why the sheep have become so
silent. The shepherd answers,"They are not going back to the stable
tonight," and moves on. Yniold says to himself, "Then where are they
going? Where will they sleep?"

Of course the (unstated) implication is that they are going to the
slaughter. And now the scene makes perfect sense ---- it foreshadows
the love scene between Pelleas and Melisande, at the end of which
Golaud rushes out from the bushes and stabs Pelleas with his sword.

Like so many French artists and intellectuals from Baudelaire onward,
Debussy was fascinated with Edgar Allan Poe. We're all disappointed
that Debussy never completed his two one-act Poe operas, "The Fall of
the House of Usher" and "The Devil in the Belfry".

What is not well known, though, is that Debussy had "Usher" in mind
when writing "Pelleas". The mysterious castle of Allemonde, its sunless
forests,subterranean diseased caverns where "the water is stagnant",
were all influenced by Debussy's preoccupation with "Usher".
Inarticulate Melisande, who dies of a mysterious illness, is a sister
to Poe's shadowy women, such as Ligeia, Annabel Lee, or Lenore. Pelleas
himself is consciously modelled on the neurasthenically hypersensitive
Roderick Usher.

There's more that's fascinating about this amazing, unique opera.
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
--
Paul Goodman
Donald Grove
2006-08-09 16:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Solomon Epstein
Despite Debussy's sarcastic writings on Wagner, Pelleas may well be
the most fully achieved Wagnerian Gesamtkunstwerk. The orchestral
writing is a tissue of leitmotiven, though of course far more subtle
than Wagner's usage, in terms of both texture and instrumentation.
Is "leitmotif" a word Debussy would have used? If not, how did
Debussy describe his use of "themes"?
Post by Solomon Epstein
The vocal writing is of course often a subdued "Sprechgesang",so the
occasions when the voice suddenly bursts out passionately are deeply
thrilling.
Re:Yniold's dream scene
Post by Solomon Epstein
Of course the (unstated) implication is that they are going to the
slaughter. And now the scene makes perfect sense ---- it foreshadows
the love scene between Pelleas and Melisande, at the end of which
Golaud rushes out from the bushes and stabs Pelleas with his sword.
Yniold sees lambs, who are either "innocent" or "mindless" as they
head down the wrong path. And Yniold is the other end from Arkel, who
is either truly blind or simply wishes not to see, because of his
weariness and age. Yniold doesn't "see" the erotic side of what his
mother and his uncle are doing, but is forced to serve as they eyes of
his father. And like the lambs in Yniold's dream going down the wrong
path, in their last encounter the lovers meet in the dark, can't tell
where they are, can't see what is coming. At the same time, Pelleas
declares his love more passionately than ever, and sees the stars and
the night (very Tristan!). This all plays into the light/dark,
youth/age, passion/suppression, known/unknown swirl which is the
world of Pelleas.

Debussy takes classic opera plot forms (royalty, adultery, kinship)
and blends them with qualities of the mundane. To me, that is why the
sprechgesang is so important: much of the subject matter in the
interactions in Pelleas is explicitly mundane. "Are you comfortable",
"Help me climb this path", "The weather", "Ticking beard", "Grey
temples", "It doesn't matter", "adjust the light" etc etc. Even the
famine in the countryside is treated as something distant, rather
dull, and best avoided. Debussy balances a world of symbolist ideas
in a vast, ancient castle with a King and magical princess on one
hand, against the almost monotonous accumulation of mundane activity,
slights, hurts, hints, mixing with the passions of adultery, desire,
and rage (as well mundane feelings like boredom, disappointment,
frustration and loss) on the other hand.

It's somewhere between Ibsen's Wild Duck and Shakespeare's King
Lear.<g> It also reminds me of what Sondheim was trying to accomplish
(not as successfully, but still with great insight) in his piece
"Passion".
Post by Solomon Epstein
Like so many French artists and intellectuals from Baudelaire onward,
Debussy was fascinated with Edgar Allan Poe. We're all disappointed
that Debussy never completed his two one-act Poe operas, "The Fall of
the House of Usher" and "The Devil in the Belfry".
That is one of those tormenting "What if" things. Arrrrrgh!
Post by Solomon Epstein
There's more that's fascinating about this amazing, unique opera.
Truer words was never spoke!
alcindoro
2006-08-09 17:30:01 UTC
Permalink
It may interest these people to know that Debussy himself forbade a proposed concert performance of Pelleas. He said that music, text, and stage picture were absolutely integrated in this work, and that a concert performance would fail utterly ---- that the music alone would make no sense to an audience. Of all composers, Debussy was among the most literary and visual.<
Speaking as an illustrator/artist: Very young, I saw PELLEAS ET
MELISANDE onstage before I really got to know it, and it just sort of
went past me. Then I listened with libretto in hand (the second
Ansermet Decca set) and I distinctly remember thinking "This is a
flickering black-and-white film that occasionally turns into
hand-tinted color and only once, and when the lovers actually sing in
unison, a moment of Technicolor, before resolving back into
black-and-white ..." Sorry if this sounds sappy, but it's true. If I
had a spare couple of million bucks lying around I'd produce such a
thing. The "spying" scene with Yniold and Golaud always makes me cry. I
deeply love this opera, but have learned you cannot listen to it during
the day or with the lights on.

Recommended recordings: Desormiere (absolutely!); Ansermet II
(Spoorenberg, Maurane, London); Abbado (Ewing, Le Roux, Van Dam);
personal favorite:
Baudo (Dormoy, Command, Bacquier).
Robert Storm
2006-08-09 18:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by alcindoro
Baudo (Dormoy, Command, Bacquier).
This is a recording I need to hear. And also the ones conducted by
Dutoit and

One recording that I really like (but which probably is an acquired
taste) is the Karajan live recording from Rome, 1952. I like Ernst
Haefliger is Pelléas and Elisabeth Schwartzkopf is Mélisande.

The Cluytens recording is quite good. Of the stereo recordings Abbado
is probably my favorite. Boulez has a very good Pelléas (Shirley) and
Mélisande (Söderström). Ansermet is good too though his Yniold is
almost unlistenable in her mock childishness. Karajan is good if you
happen to like his studio recordings. But my favorites are Désormière
and the soundtrack of the Gardiner DVD. Even though almost all Pelléas
recordings I've heard are good, I think these two are the best sung and
conducted.

Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Donald Grove
2006-08-09 18:32:24 UTC
Permalink
A couple years ago I downloaded a recording of a 2003 live performance
in concert with the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

Melisande: Lorrain Hunt Lieberson
Pelleas: Simon Keenlyside
Golaud: Gerard Finley
Arkel: John Tomlinson

Despite Debussy's insistence that the piece not be done in concert,
I've enjoyed listening to this performance many times.

dsg
Post by Robert Storm
Post by alcindoro
Baudo (Dormoy, Command, Bacquier).
This is a recording I need to hear. And also the ones conducted by
Dutoit and
One recording that I really like (but which probably is an acquired
taste) is the Karajan live recording from Rome, 1952. I like Ernst
Haefliger is Pelléas and Elisabeth Schwartzkopf is Mélisande.
The Cluytens recording is quite good. Of the stereo recordings Abbado
is probably my favorite. Boulez has a very good Pelléas (Shirley) and
Mélisande (Söderström). Ansermet is good too though his Yniold is
almost unlistenable in her mock childishness. Karajan is good if you
happen to like his studio recordings. But my favorites are Désormière
and the soundtrack of the Gardiner DVD. Even though almost all Pelléas
recordings I've heard are good, I think these two are the best sung and
conducted.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Donald Grove
2006-08-09 18:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Doh!

Bernard Haitink conducting.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:32:24 GMT, Donald Grove
Post by Donald Grove
A couple years ago I downloaded a recording of a 2003 live performance
in concert with the Boston Symphony Orchestra.
Melisande: Lorrain Hunt Lieberson
Pelleas: Simon Keenlyside
Golaud: Gerard Finley
Arkel: John Tomlinson
Despite Debussy's insistence that the piece not be done in concert,
I've enjoyed listening to this performance many times.
dsg
Post by Robert Storm
Post by alcindoro
Baudo (Dormoy, Command, Bacquier).
This is a recording I need to hear. And also the ones conducted by
Dutoit and
One recording that I really like (but which probably is an acquired
taste) is the Karajan live recording from Rome, 1952. I like Ernst
Haefliger is Pelléas and Elisabeth Schwartzkopf is Mélisande.
The Cluytens recording is quite good. Of the stereo recordings Abbado
is probably my favorite. Boulez has a very good Pelléas (Shirley) and
Mélisande (Söderström). Ansermet is good too though his Yniold is
almost unlistenable in her mock childishness. Karajan is good if you
happen to like his studio recordings. But my favorites are Désormière
and the soundtrack of the Gardiner DVD. Even though almost all Pelléas
recordings I've heard are good, I think these two are the best sung and
conducted.
Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
alcindoro
2006-08-11 00:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Baudo (Dormoy, Command, Bacquier). This is a recording I need to hear. <
I am very fond of it. Would be very interested to hear what you think
of it.
And also the one conducted by Dutoit<
Extremely efficient, beautifully recorded, and, sorry to say with so
much extraordinary talent involved, completely dispensable. If you had
no other options AND didn't know or suspect any better, you'd probably
be content.
d***@aol.com
2006-08-11 01:15:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by alcindoro
Extremely efficient, beautifully recorded, and, sorry to say with so
much extraordinary talent involved, completely dispensable.
That sounds like all of Dutoit's recordings!

-david gable
Robert Storm
2006-08-11 10:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Storm
This is a recording I need to hear. And also the ones conducted by
Dutoit and
I was going to say "Dutoit and Jordan" but forgot to add Jordan's name.

Robert Storm
http://www.geocities.com/roope75/indexenglish.html
Andrew T. Kay
2006-08-10 06:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by alcindoro
I
deeply love this opera, but have learned you cannot listen to it during
the day or with the lights on.
It has to be a certain kind of day. It's a good choice for a cold
February afternoon under slate-colored skies, perhaps with a bit of a
drizzle. That was how I first experienced it on a recording, and I
found/find it mesmerizing. It works very well via sound-only
recordings; it's such an intensely participatory and imaginative
experience anyway, even in the theater. You get more out of it if you
bring more to it. There are great operas you can just let "wash over
you"; this isn't one. (Well, the wholly passive approach *may* work for
some, but I believe it's more rewarding to try to come to terms with
its mysteries, ambiguities, and psychology.)

Todd K
Sergio da Silva
2006-08-09 17:23:10 UTC
Permalink
This is one of my favorite operas.
Although I like the Boulez DVD what got me hooked was his recording with
Soderstrom (I listened to it on LP).
My favorite DVD is not the Boulez one but the one at Glyndebourne, although
the production is controversial, the singers are much better than Boulez's
(the singers for Boulez are good though).
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
--
Paul Goodman
La Donna Mobile
2006-08-09 18:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Goodman
Hello,
This is an opera that I never really seemed to get from just listening
to recordings. However, I recently bought the DVD with Pierre Boulez
conducting this work with the Welsh National Opera. Being able to
actually SEE what is going on has really changed my outlook on this
work. Not only do I not think that it is boring anymore, I find
myself wanting to see and hear it again and again. I highly recommend
this performance. It has really opened my eyes to what a great opera
this can be.
I have the Gardiner DVD in my pile of 'as yet unwatched' but no doubt I
shall get round to it before attending performance(s) at Covent Garden
in the Spring. Shamelessly, I shall be going with my Primary objective
being the cast and the work only secondary. I shall return to this
thread to inform my watching of the DVd and most importantly the live
attendance.

Thanks for starting an interesting discussion
--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/
Mrs T xx
2006-08-09 21:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by La Donna Mobile
I have the Gardiner DVD in my pile of 'as yet unwatched' but no doubt I
shall get round to it before attending performance(s) at Covent Garden
in the Spring. Shamelessly, I shall be going with my Primary objective
being the cast and the work only secondary.
I have to join you in the shameless stakes then. But I'm still
struggling with my own personal dilemma of whether it's best that I see
the work for the first time totally cold or actually listen to a CD of
it to familiarise myself with the music first. SJT kindly wrote me a
10,000 word dissertation on the various options but I'm still as yet
undecided.

Mrs T xx
La Donna Mobile
2006-08-09 22:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by La Donna Mobile
I have the Gardiner DVD in my pile of 'as yet unwatched' but no doubt I
shall get round to it before attending performance(s) at Covent Garden
in the Spring. Shamelessly, I shall be going with my Primary objective
being the cast and the work only secondary.
I have to join you in the shameless stakes then. But I'm still
struggling with my own personal dilemma of whether it's best that I see
the work for the first time totally cold or actually listen to a CD of
it to familiarise myself with the music first. SJT kindly wrote me a
10,000 word dissertation on the various options but I'm still as yet
undecided.
Mrs T xx
You could come round to mine one day and we could consume bottles of
wine and watch it.

I'd have to remember to dismantle the shrine, though, before allowing
you in...
--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/
Mrs T xx
2006-08-10 07:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by La Donna Mobile
You could come round to mine one day and we could consume bottles of
wine and watch it.
Wine and opera DVDs are always a very good combination. Much as I love
the atmosphere of sitting in a theatre for a live performance there's
also a lot to be said for watching an opera on DVD while stretched out
on a comfortable sofa with a nice glass of wine and where you don't
have to spend 10 minutes queuing to go to the toilet after Act 1.

However, with Pelleas I still wonder if we should both perhaps wait and
see it for the first time in the theatre......although it looks a bit
of a silly production, judging by the clown costumes and enormous
trousers. But maybe a SOSSLED evening ought to be considered to watch
the Villazon/Netrebko Traviata.......
Post by La Donna Mobile
I'd have to remember to dismantle the shrine, though, before allowing
you in...
I'd actually be quite interested in seeing your collection of signed
Andrea Bocelli photos :-)

Mrs T xx
a***@aol.com
2006-08-09 22:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by La Donna Mobile
I have the Gardiner DVD in my pile of 'as yet unwatched' but no doubt I
shall get round to it before attending performance(s) at Covent Garden
in the Spring. Shamelessly, I shall be going with my Primary objective
being the cast and the work only secondary.
I have to join you in the shameless stakes then. But I'm still
struggling with my own personal dilemma of whether it's best that I see
the work for the first time totally cold or actually listen to a CD of
it to familiarise myself with the music first. SJT kindly wrote me a
10,000 word dissertation on the various options but I'm still as yet
undecided.
Mrs T xx
If the orchestra eff up you've had it whoever is doing it or singing
it.

This is not your average common or garden opera.

Think harmonics. Sadly there are no arias, either. There are
declamations but not an aria to be heard.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
La Donna Mobile
2006-08-10 00:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by La Donna Mobile
I have the Gardiner DVD in my pile of 'as yet unwatched' but no doubt I
shall get round to it before attending performance(s) at Covent Garden
in the Spring. Shamelessly, I shall be going with my Primary objective
being the cast and the work only secondary.
I have to join you in the shameless stakes then. But I'm still
struggling with my own personal dilemma of whether it's best that I see
the work for the first time totally cold or actually listen to a CD of
it to familiarise myself with the music first. SJT kindly wrote me a
10,000 word dissertation on the various options but I'm still as yet
undecided.
Mrs T xx
If the orchestra eff up you've had it whoever is doing it or singing
it.
This is not your average common or garden opera.
Think harmonics. Sadly there are no arias, either. There are
declamations but not an aria to be heard.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Oh lighten up Alan. Of course we're going for the opera as well. If we
just wanted to ogle the singers, don'tcha think we're quite capable of
spending the evening getting tanked up and wending our unsteady way to
the Stage Door. We have encountered aria-less operas before, and anyway
the star-studded cast (and conductor) is not an excuse to gaze at stars
but a motivation to become familiar with an unfamiliar work.

I'm sorry if it offends you if there is some levity in the comments that
I write but I do enjoy opera, all aspects of it, and Mrs T is very
knowledgeable. But we've both got a lot of learning to do, and
appreciate informative comments from people on rmo. The constant
put-downs can be a bit tedious but I'm afraid to say, on an unmoderated
newsgroup, I'm not - in general - going to change the way I express myself.

But, if the truth be told, if this opera was being put on by a bunch of
also-rans, has beens and never-weres, I would probably give it a miss
being that there are numerous calls on money, time and energy. Can't do
everything so have to prioritise. Got Ring Cycle tickets to consider.
--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblog/
a***@aol.com
2006-08-10 23:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by La Donna Mobile
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by La Donna Mobile
I have the Gardiner DVD in my pile of 'as yet unwatched' but no doubt I
shall get round to it before attending performance(s) at Covent Garden
in the Spring. Shamelessly, I shall be going with my Primary objective
being the cast and the work only secondary.
I have to join you in the shameless stakes then. But I'm still
struggling with my own personal dilemma of whether it's best that I see
the work for the first time totally cold or actually listen to a CD of
it to familiarise myself with the music first. SJT kindly wrote me a
10,000 word dissertation on the various options but I'm still as yet
undecided.
Mrs T xx
If the orchestra eff up you've had it whoever is doing it or singing
it.
This is not your average common or garden opera.
Think harmonics. Sadly there are no arias, either. There are
declamations but not an aria to be heard.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Oh lighten up Alan. Of course we're going for the opera as well. If we
just wanted to ogle the singers, don'tcha think we're quite capable of
spending the evening getting tanked up and wending our unsteady way to
the Stage Door. We have encountered aria-less operas before, and anyway
the star-studded cast (and conductor) is not an excuse to gaze at stars
but a motivation to become familiar with an unfamiliar work.
I'm sorry if it offends you if there is some levity in the comments that
I write but I do enjoy opera, all aspects of it, and Mrs T is very
knowledgeable. But we've both got a lot of learning to do, and
appreciate informative comments from people on rmo. The constant
put-downs can be a bit tedious but I'm afraid to say, on an unmoderated
newsgroup, I'm not - in general - going to change the way I express myself.
But, if the truth be told, if this opera was being put on by a bunch of
also-rans, has beens and never-weres, I would probably give it a miss
being that there are numerous calls on money, time and energy. Can't do
everything so have to prioritise. Got Ring Cycle tickets to consider.
--
http://www.madmusingsof.me.uk/weblog/
http://www.geraldine-curtis.me.uk/photoblo
It's not an opera. It is a work being performed in an opera house.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Andrew T. Kay
2006-08-10 05:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
This is not your average common or garden opera.
By most accounts, it was a *great* Garden opera!

Todd K
Donald Grove
2006-08-10 10:55:18 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Aug 2006 22:48:44 -0700, "Andrew T. Kay"
Post by Andrew T. Kay
Post by a***@aol.com
This is not your average common or garden opera.
By most accounts, it was a *great* Garden opera!
Todd K
Well done!
Silverfin
2006-08-10 09:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Think harmonics. Sadly there are no arias, either. There are
declamations but not an aria to be heard.
I'm interested. What sort of harmonics? Used how?

SIlverfin
a***@aol.com
2006-08-10 19:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Silverfin
Post by a***@aol.com
Think harmonics. Sadly there are no arias, either. There are
declamations but not an aria to be heard.
I'm interested. What sort of harmonics? Used how?
SIlverfin
The piece is virtually a new take on harmonic and rhythmic structure.
The Major/mine scale is abandoned, thrown to the winds, the scores
drifts (and I use the word drifts deliberately) between pentatonic and
diatonic with abstract wholetone moments. It is both old and new at
the same time.

There is much of "mode", primarily Dorian, Lydian and Mixolydian but
rarely quoted accurately. This is mode (arr Debussy).

The very opening measures suggest Dorian. Are we Dorian? More or less
but not for long.

There are key signatures but they mean virtually nothing - in some
cases can change inside just one measure. Consonances and dissonances
collide at random - the boundaries of a particular key are frequently
ignored. Little wonder that Satie (no stranger to harmonic tinkering,
he) abandoned his own operatic plans after hearing the work with the
words: "It has all been written."

Ravel attended every performance he could. I would say this was the
work which took Debussy outside France, internationally in a meaningful
way.

Characters have motifs, of a sort, but they change all the time in
their structure so you cannot really call them leitmotifs in the Wagner
sense. Vaclav Smetacek, who adored this work, once wrote of the music
for Melisande: "It is so gloriously unspecific that I am minded to call
it an impression of a person rather than a depiction of a character."

In this piece Debussy is not interested in contrapuntal effects but he
is interested in blended chords.

It is quite a large orchestra but used so sparingly that many would not
realise that.

After the first performance some outraged French professor described it
as "a filthy score perverted by errors of harmony" thus deliciously
missing the point of the whole thing! There is not a single harmonic
error in this score. Such "errors" are crafted and carefully
calculated each and every time by the composer which makes the score
unique in the opera house.

But is it an opera? I believe the composer preferred the term
lyric-drama and I have seen it argued that you do not necessarily need
opera singers to bring it off - singing actors, it is suggested, can do
so also, given that most of the lyrics are really just extended
recitatives.

I will use a quote from Maeterlinck which may confuse you still
further.

Maeterlinck gave his approval to the Debussy setting in the expectation
that his lover would be the first Melisande. Debussy, instead, went
for the Scottish born Mary Garden (1874-1967) and this so outraged the
author that he personally threatened Debussy with physical violence
(Debussy's answer to this was to faint).

Maeterlinck pledged never to go to a performance but relented and did
eventually hear Garden singing the part.

He is reported to have said: "For the first time I have understood my
play." :):)

There are delicious and important parts for all the orchestra, often of
tremendous subtlety. It is those and the harmonic shifts which drive me
even more bonkers than musicians usually are.

I would also say (and this is a personal opinion not intended to
offend) that if you can play or sing this work or appreciate it from a
playing point of view you may get inside it quicker than if you are
just listening - although I have known people musically pole-axed by
just listening. But playing this delicious stuff is better than just
listening to it - or so I imagine.

There are some magic moments for 1st flute which I feel sure you would
appreciate.

And although La Mer was still to come there are foreshadows
(harmonically) of it, briefly, in Acts I and II in particular.

A symbolist play meets symbolist composer so that even the author
eventually understood it:):)

Whatever people think of it personally, I have found it absolutely
glorious music to play and many musicians hold it in similar regard, I
believe.

If it has not impinged upon the public in such a way that's fine: it's
our "secret", then.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Andrew T. Kay
2006-08-11 08:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
But is it an opera? I believe the composer preferred the term
lyric-drama [...]
Yes, well, he's long gone and he can't hurt us anymore. I'm no more
going to call PELLEAS ET MELISANDE a "lyric-drama" than I'm going to
call PARSIFAL a "festival-consecrating stage play" and insist that
posts about it be diverted to a new newsgroup called
rec.music.Buehnenweihfestspiel. Those works will be performed in opera
houses by opera singers and musicians and attended by opera lovers for
as long as the art form lives. Their musical merits, fortunately, more
than make up for the pretentious affectations of their creators.

Todd K
Silverfin
2006-08-11 13:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Silverfin
Post by a***@aol.com
Think harmonics. Sadly there are no arias, either. There are
declamations but not an aria to be heard.
I'm interested. What sort of harmonics? Used how?
SIlverfin
The piece is virtually a new take on harmonic and rhythmic structure.
The Major/mine scale is abandoned, thrown to the winds, the scores
drifts (and I use the word drifts deliberately) between pentatonic and
diatonic with abstract wholetone moments. It is both old and new at
<snipped>


Thanks for such a detailed essay! V. interesting, & has made me want
to, if not listen to it right now, do so as soon as I have a bit more
free time.

When you said harmonics I was thinking, as in harmonic series.
Overblowing on ww, or that funny thing string players do when they
touch the string lightly. Doesn't he use those quite a bit too?

Debussy is of course great to play on the flute. I've been lucky to
perform both La Mer and L'apres-midi in the last couple of years, and
think I might have done Jeux and Iberia at some time.

Because his style fitted the instrument so well, lots of other stuff
has been arranged for flutes. My quartet has arrangements of some piano
music, which sounds weird at first but actually works very well.
(Although for some incomprehensible reason Clair de Lune is tranposed
from Db to C!)

Silverfin
a***@aol.com
2006-08-11 19:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Silverfin
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Silverfin
Post by a***@aol.com
Think harmonics. Sadly there are no arias, either. There are
declamations but not an aria to be heard.
I'm interested. What sort of harmonics? Used how?
SIlverfin
The piece is virtually a new take on harmonic and rhythmic structure.
The Major/mine scale is abandoned, thrown to the winds, the scores
drifts (and I use the word drifts deliberately) between pentatonic and
diatonic with abstract wholetone moments. It is both old and new at
<snipped>
Thanks for such a detailed essay! V. interesting, & has made me want
to, if not listen to it right now, do so as soon as I have a bit more
free time.
When you said harmonics I was thinking, as in harmonic series.
Overblowing on ww, or that funny thing string players do when they
touch the string lightly. Doesn't he use those quite a bit too?
Debussy is of course great to play on the flute. I've been lucky to
perform both La Mer and L'apres-midi in the last couple of years, and
think I might have done Jeux and Iberia at some time.
Because his style fitted the instrument so well, lots of other stuff
has been arranged for flutes. My quartet has arrangements of some piano
music, which sounds weird at first but actually works very well.
(Although for some incomprehensible reason Clair de Lune is tranposed
from Db to C!)
Silverfin
There are less orchestral devices (I would say) than harmonic shifts -
whole sections have wonderful modulations. Strings and wind carry the
heaviest burden in this piece. When you get around to hearing the work
one day about the first 12-14 measures of the Introduction to Act I
work will spell it out to you I am sure. (And listen out for La Mer in
that, a piece yet to come).

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Sergio da Silva
2006-08-11 16:23:27 UTC
Permalink
"But is it an opera? I believe the composer preferred the term
lyric-drama and I have seen it argued that you do not necessarily need
opera singers to bring it off - singing actors, it is suggested, can do
so also, given that most of the lyrics are really just extended
recitatives"

Yes it is an opera. I think Debussy wanted to confuse everybody on that. He
was trying not to be linked to Wagner and the whole operatic tradition. But
can singing actors sing it? I sincerely doubt it, the vocal writing is
difficult and the way it is written the voice is very exposed. Just an
example, I have listened to Van Dam's different recordings and even the last
MET broadcast, you can easily tell just on a few bars how his voice has
changed and aged (everybody does and not even Van Dam is immune to that).
To me there are "mini-arias" all over the place, the beginning of Act 3 is
it an aria or not? I think folks get too much hung up on the technical
aspects of it.
In essence, although Debussy would hate me for saying this, it is very
similar to Parsifal.
Singing actors sing musicals (they can't even sing operetta) and Pelleas et
Melisande is far from being just a musical.
Take care :-)
d***@aol.com
2006-08-11 18:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio da Silva
Yes it is an opera. I think Debussy wanted to confuse everybody on that. He
was trying not to be linked to Wagner and the whole operatic tradition.
I don't think he aimed to confuse, although it's perfectly clear that
he wanted to distance himself from Wagner on the one hand the whole
operatic tradition on the other. It's not unreasonable to attempt to
define exactly what kind of opera you've written when you label its
genre.

The generic term "opera" has rarely been used by a composer to
designate what he's written, even by Italian composers. Ernani is a
dramma lirico, Rigoletto a melodramma, Trovatore simply a dramma.
Entfuehrung is a Deutsches Singspiel, Don Giovanni a dramma giocosa.
Lohengrin is a Romantisches Oper, Tristan a Handlung. La favorite is
an opéra, Carmen an opéra comique.

-david gable
REG
2006-08-11 19:35:52 UTC
Permalink
I heard the piano version a couple of years ago, maybe less - I guess it's
the way Debussy first thought of the piece - and it's not nearly so
effective as the orchestral version. I don't see how it ever could have
been.
Post by Sergio da Silva
Yes it is an opera. I think Debussy wanted to confuse everybody on that. He
was trying not to be linked to Wagner and the whole operatic tradition.
I don't think he aimed to confuse, although it's perfectly clear that
he wanted to distance himself from Wagner on the one hand the whole
operatic tradition on the other. It's not unreasonable to attempt to
define exactly what kind of opera you've written when you label its
genre.

The generic term "opera" has rarely been used by a composer to
designate what he's written, even by Italian composers. Ernani is a
dramma lirico, Rigoletto a melodramma, Trovatore simply a dramma.
Entfuehrung is a Deutsches Singspiel, Don Giovanni a dramma giocosa.
Lohengrin is a Romantisches Oper, Tristan a Handlung. La favorite is
an opéra, Carmen an opéra comique.

-david gable
g***@aol.com
2006-08-11 21:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Sergio da Silva
Yes it is an opera. I think Debussy wanted to confuse everybody on that. He
was trying not to be linked to Wagner and the whole operatic tradition.
I don't think he aimed to confuse, although it's perfectly clear that
he wanted to distance himself from Wagner on the one hand the whole
operatic tradition on the other. It's not unreasonable to attempt to
define exactly what kind of opera you've written when you label its
genre.
The generic term "opera" has rarely been used by a composer to
designate what he's written, even by Italian composers. Ernani is a
dramma lirico, Rigoletto a melodramma, Trovatore simply a dramma.
Entfuehrung is a Deutsches Singspiel, Don Giovanni a dramma giocosa.
Lohengrin is a Romantisches Oper, Tristan a Handlung. La favorite is
an opéra, Carmen an opéra comique.
-david gable
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yet another cachalot discussion of classifications. (The term arises
from a silly panel discussion where experts argued over what kind of
acquatic mammal Moby Dick was supposed to be instead of centering on
the points Melville was trying to make.)

Bear in mind: while Da Ponte characterized DON GIOVANNI as "dramma
giacosa", Mozart recorded it as an "opera buffa."

As Verdi said, "Opera is opera and symphony is symphony."

Debussy wrote a magnificent work and I am encouraged to read how many
people of discriminating taste cherish it.

==G/P Dave
David Melnick
2006-08-11 22:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@aol.com
I am encouraged to read how many
people of discriminating taste cherish it.
I am not of discriminating taste, and yet I cherish it too.

Best,

Snorri
d***@aol.com
2006-08-11 20:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio da Silva
In essence, although Debussy would hate me for saying this, it is very
similar to Parsifal.
Of course it is.

"As a young man of 30, Debussy made a considerable reputation for
himself playing the operas of Wagner on the piano in public, mainly
Tristan and Parsifal. Even earlier, Gounod, who had already called him
a genius, refused to speak to him because of his admiration for
Lohengrin. Yet Debussy spent his life fighting the influence of
Wagner. [. . .] Debussy's capacity for assimilation was immense, but
his need to reject was even greater. [. . .] As we might expect, his
music never owes so much to Wagner as when he is fighting that
influence. He was distressed at Klingsor turning up in Pélléas. [.
. .] Hommage à Rameau was written when Debussy was revising one of
Rameau's works: musically it recalls Rameau in nothing except its
majesty and in the fact that it is a sarabande. The opening derives
from Gregorian chant, but the whole work could not have been written
without Chopin and Wagner. The middle section, in particular, shows
what Debussy took from Wagner, as a climax builds in a series of
surging waves, each receding and successively greater. Even the
faintly religious tone of the music recalls Parsifal." -Charles Rosen

-david gable
Mrs T xx
2006-08-11 20:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
"As a young man of 30, Debussy made a considerable reputation for
himself playing the operas of Wagner on the piano in public, mainly
Tristan and Parsifal. Even earlier, Gounod, who had already called him
a genius, refused to speak to him because of his admiration for
Lohengrin. Yet Debussy spent his life fighting the influence of
Wagner. [. . .] Debussy's capacity for assimilation was immense, but
his need to reject was even greater. [. . .] As we might expect, his
music never owes so much to Wagner as when he is fighting that
influence.
Please excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question.......but how
Wagnerian exactly is the Pelleas score?

I've not heard a single note of Pelleas yet but the more I read about
it on RMO then the more intimidated I feel in general about this
complex piece. I'm not sure if I'm going to love it or hate it,
although I really like Wagner so if Pelleas has similarities then maybe
I'll be ok.....

Mrs T xx
a***@aol.com
2006-08-11 21:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
"As a young man of 30, Debussy made a considerable reputation for
himself playing the operas of Wagner on the piano in public, mainly
Tristan and Parsifal. Even earlier, Gounod, who had already called him
a genius, refused to speak to him because of his admiration for
Lohengrin. Yet Debussy spent his life fighting the influence of
Wagner. [. . .] Debussy's capacity for assimilation was immense, but
his need to reject was even greater. [. . .] As we might expect, his
music never owes so much to Wagner as when he is fighting that
influence.
Please excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question.......but how
Wagnerian exactly is the Pelleas score?
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).

As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.

If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Mrs T xx
2006-08-11 21:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.
If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.
Thanks Alan, but it was your earlier essay about the harmonics of it
all that made me so terrified in the first place! :-) I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.

Unfortunately Parsifal is another one of those operas on my "List" that
I don't know yet - although I do have the CDs already. So I suppose I
ought to get to know Parsifal first before I even attempt
Pelleas....... (a daunting task for me, as I'm not generally a fan of
'modern' opera - but as so many of you regard it as a masterpiece then
I shall certainly give it a try!)

Mrs T xx

P.S: Crossposted to rec.music.Buehnenweihfestspiel
a***@aol.com
2006-08-11 22:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.
If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.
Thanks Alan, but it was your earlier essay about the harmonics of it
all that made me so terrified in the first place! :-) I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
Unfortunately Parsifal is another one of those operas on my "List" that
I don't know yet - although I do have the CDs already. So I suppose I
ought to get to know Parsifal first before I even attempt
Pelleas....... (a daunting task for me, as I'm not generally a fan of
'modern' opera - but as so many of you regard it as a masterpiece then
I shall certainly give it a try!)
Mrs T xx
P.S: Crossposted to rec.music.Buehnenweihfestspiel
In my opinion, it is a greater score than Parsifal. If I were you I
would listen to Pelleas first.

Please do not be frightened by "modern". This is a beautiful score.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Sergio da Silva
2006-08-12 03:05:56 UTC
Permalink
I love both but for me Parsifal is the greater, Debussy never got anywhere
near what Wagner achieved in Parsifal, specially Act 3.
Post by a***@aol.com
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.
If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.
Thanks Alan, but it was your earlier essay about the harmonics of it
all that made me so terrified in the first place! :-) I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
Unfortunately Parsifal is another one of those operas on my "List" that
I don't know yet - although I do have the CDs already. So I suppose I
ought to get to know Parsifal first before I even attempt
Pelleas....... (a daunting task for me, as I'm not generally a fan of
'modern' opera - but as so many of you regard it as a masterpiece then
I shall certainly give it a try!)
Mrs T xx
P.S: Crossposted to rec.music.Buehnenweihfestspiel
In my opinion, it is a greater score than Parsifal. If I were you I
would listen to Pelleas first.
Please do not be frightened by "modern". This is a beautiful score.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
d***@aol.com
2006-08-12 04:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio da Silva
I love both but for me Parsifal is the greater, Debussy never got anywhere
near what Wagner achieved in Parsifal, specially Act 3.
In Pélléas or in his entire life? Because Parsifal is late Wagner
and Pélléas is early Debussy. In that sense, the more fair
comparison might be Pélléas and Le vaisseau fantôme.

-david gable
Sergio da Silva
2006-08-12 21:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Cannot be compared due to the time they were written, it makes a lot of
difference (I mean Der Fliegend Hollander with Pelleas). Plus Debussy
composed only one opera while Wagner did several (and superb ones among
these).So, in essence Wagner outclasses Debussy as an opera composer ... but
that is expected, right?
Post by Sergio da Silva
I love both but for me Parsifal is the greater, Debussy never got anywhere
near what Wagner achieved in Parsifal, specially Act 3.
In Pélléas or in his entire life? Because Parsifal is late Wagner
and Pélléas is early Debussy. In that sense, the more fair
comparison might be Pélléas and Le vaisseau fantôme.

-david gable
Sergio da Silva
2006-08-12 02:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Pelleas is far from modern nowadays. It is different but I wouldn't say it
is modern. The music is accessible (at least to me).
Don't be afraid of it.
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.
If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.
Thanks Alan, but it was your earlier essay about the harmonics of it
all that made me so terrified in the first place! :-) I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
Unfortunately Parsifal is another one of those operas on my "List" that
I don't know yet - although I do have the CDs already. So I suppose I
ought to get to know Parsifal first before I even attempt
Pelleas....... (a daunting task for me, as I'm not generally a fan of
'modern' opera - but as so many of you regard it as a masterpiece then
I shall certainly give it a try!)
Mrs T xx
P.S: Crossposted to rec.music.Buehnenweihfestspiel
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
2006-08-12 04:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.
If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.
Thanks Alan, but it was your earlier essay about the harmonics of it
all that made me so terrified in the first place! :-) I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
That surrealism is probably why it is the only opera I've
encountered that seems to emerge more-or-less unscathed from
a Robert Wilson production! (Better, actually, than it does
from that asinine Opera Lyons video of it.)
AlisonC
2006-08-12 09:49:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
Thanks Alan, but it was your earlier essay about the harmonics of it
all that made me so terrified in the first place! :-) I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
I don't think there's anything to be intimidated about in P&M. I'm a
musical ignoramus but I think this music's beautiful - like something
you might hear in a dream. So you could always try just listening first
and reading up on the technicalities afterwards if necessary.
Mrs T xx
2006-08-12 10:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlisonC
I don't think there's anything to be intimidated about in P&M. I'm a
musical ignoramus but I think this music's beautiful - like something
you might hear in a dream. So you could always try just listening first
and reading up on the technicalities afterwards if necessary.
But I'm worried if I just listen to the music first without seeing it
on stage or DVD then I might be put off. Several other posters said
they had real trouble getting "into" it and someone mentioned that it
was only when they saw it as well as heard it that it made sense.
Post by AlisonC
From what others have written, it doesn't seem to be one of those
operas that is easily accessible the first time you hear it and
probably takes a lot of listening to in order to appreciate it
properly.

Yet first impressions of any opera are always very important so I want
to ensure that the first time I see Pelleas (either live or on DVD)
then I see a really good production with good singers.

Mrs T xx
AlisonC
2006-08-12 10:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
But I'm worried if I just listen to the music first without seeing it
on stage or DVD then I might be put off.
Would you really be put off if you didn't like it the first time? I
suppose that's an individual thing. I had to listen to "Wozzeck" about
12 times before I started to get it, but I don't hold it against it now
:-)
Post by Mrs T xx
From the plot point of view, watching a DVD might certainly be a good
idea as the action is rather, er, non-linear. But if you can hear the
words clearly on CDs (as you can on the old Desormieres recording I've
been listening to) then it probably wouldn't be hard to follow what's
going on, especially as you've already read the libretto.
d***@aol.com
2006-08-12 20:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
The text is actually more straightforward than some of the more extreme
reaches of surrealist poetry, but the way Maeterlinck's language
works is fairly interesting nonetheless.

Pélléas et Mélisande takes place in a mythic fairy-tale land, and
the playwright's intention to give his story a mythic dimension is
explicit in the setting (Allemond), but the actual dialogue is
reasonably naturalistic if understated and elusive. The trick is that,
largely unbeknownst to the dramatis personae themselves, what they say
has an additional layer of philosophical significance apparent only to
the audience. This technique is not actually new. It ultimately stems
from the centuries-old tradition of pastoral poetry in which simple
Arcadian shepherds and shepherdesses utter truths the profundity of
which they are not themselves aware. (It's this aspect of
Maeterlinck's dramaturgy that Tallulah Bankhead deflated so wickedly
when she remarked of another Maeterlinck play, "There is less in this
than meets the eye.")

-david gable
David Melnick
2006-08-12 20:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Mrs T xx
I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
The text is actually more straightforward than some of the more extreme
reaches of surrealist poetry,
I'm sure you know this, David, but it should be made clear
that Symbolism has very little to do with Surrealism, except
in that the second followed the first by a generation or so,
kind of like the way Restoration poetry followed Milton,
i.e., they were nothing at all alike.

dav

dav
David Melnick
2006-08-12 20:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Melnick
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Mrs T xx
I did
actually read through the libretto in the original French and the whole
thing struck me as very surreal - but I guess that's the point.
The text is actually more straightforward than some of the more extreme
reaches of surrealist poetry,
I'm sure you know this, David, but it should be made clear
that Symbolism has very little to do with Surrealism, except
in that the second followed the first by a generation or so,
kind of like the way Restoration poetry followed Milton,
i.e., they were nothing at all alike.
Oh, you knew what I meant: Surrealism followed Symbolism...!
d***@aol.com
2006-08-12 20:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Melnick
Oh, you knew what I meant: Surrealism followed Symbolism...!
In fact, I read what you meant, not what you wrote!!!!!!

-david gable
David Melnick
2006-08-12 20:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by David Melnick
Oh, you knew what I meant: Surrealism followed Symbolism...!
In fact, I read what you meant, not what you wrote!!!!!!
-david gable
Thanks!

Best,

dav
alcindoro
2006-08-12 21:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Oh, you knew what I meant: Surrealism followed Symbolism...!<

An actress friend of mine informs me that young acting students are
not infrequently presenting scenes from Maeterlinck to work on in
class.
alcindoro
2006-08-12 21:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Oh, you knew what I meant: Surrealism followed Symbolism...!<

An actress friend of mine informs me that young acting students are
not infrequently presenting scenes from Maeterlinck to work on in
class.
a***@aol.com
2006-08-12 22:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Melnick
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by David Melnick
Oh, you knew what I meant: Surrealism followed Symbolism...!
In fact, I read what you meant, not what you wrote!!!!!!
-david gable
Thanks!
Best,
dav
Good luck with Dada/Martinu.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
d***@aol.com
2006-08-12 20:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Melnick
I'm sure you know this, David, but it should be made clear
that Symbolism has very little to do with Surrealism
I agree. For one thing, Mallarmé and and especially Valéry were way
to "classical" for the late late Romantic anarchy of surrealism.
(Rimbaud was enough of a bad boy and destructive enough to make the cut
and enter the surrealist pantheon.)

-david gable
d***@aol.com
2006-08-11 22:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
Mr. Watkins has a vocabulary of his own. It's not Wagner's "harmonics"
but Wagner's harmonies, Wagner's approach to harmony, that he's talking
about. Needless to say, his description of what Debussy did with
Wagner's harmonies is Mr. Watkins' little joke.

Debussy was French. As a musician he grew up with a kind of French
harmonic vocabulary just as he grew up speaking French. Ravel and
Debussy don't sound like Mahler and Strauss.

Although Debussy was French, he was curious, and he encountered other
music including Chopin's and Wagner's. He came to know their music
extremely well, although his experience of their music was filtered
through his own French musician's sensibility.

The early works of young composers tend to be derivative. Wagner was
the single most significant influence on Debussy. (Other influences
included Chopin and Mussorgsky.) The harmonic language of Pelleas is a
late nineteenth-century French language inflected by Debussy's
experience of Wagner. Pelleas is actually a comparatively early work.
Wagner cast a longer shadow over Pelleas than over the later Debussy.
The very idea of writing an anti-opera came from Wagner: much of
symbolism, the French literary movement Debussy admired and
Maeterlinck represented, is Wagnerism disguised by subtle and refined
Frenchmen who wanted to do what Wagner did less hyperbolically, more
subtly and understatedly. More French-ly.

There's nothing random about this process of influence and
assimilation. It's exactly the sort of thing that happens over and
over again in the history of the arts. First we learn from our parents.
Then we rebel against them. Debussy is both the child rebelling
against the parent and the Frenchman rebelling against German culture.
But you can only rebel against something that really had a hold on you
in the first place.

-david gable
David Melnick
2006-08-11 22:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
Mr. Watkins has a vocabulary of his own. It's not Wagner's "harmonics"
but Wagner's harmonies, Wagner's approach to harmony, that he's talking
about.
Is this a British vs. American thing? We've been learning a
good deal about British usage in the past couple of years on
rmo. I wonder whether this is just another case.

dav
a***@aol.com
2006-08-11 22:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
Mr. Watkins has a vocabulary of his own. It's not Wagner's "harmonics"
but Wagner's harmonies, Wagner's approach to harmony, that he's talking
about. Needless to say, his description of what Debussy did with
Wagner's harmonies is Mr. Watkins' little joke.
Debussy was French. As a musician he grew up with a kind of French
harmonic vocabulary just as he grew up speaking French. Ravel and
Debussy don't sound like Mahler and Strauss.
Although Debussy was French, he was curious, and he encountered other
music including Chopin's and Wagner's. He came to know their music
extremely well, although his experience of their music was filtered
through his own French musician's sensibility.
The early works of young composers tend to be derivative. Wagner was
the single most significant influence on Debussy. (Other influences
included Chopin and Mussorgsky.) The harmonic language of Pelleas is a
late nineteenth-century French language inflected by Debussy's
experience of Wagner. Pelleas is actually a comparatively early work.
Wagner cast a longer shadow over Pelleas than over the later Debussy.
The very idea of writing an anti-opera came from Wagner: much of
symbolism, the French literary movement Debussy admired and
Maeterlinck represented, is Wagnerism disguised by subtle and refined
Frenchmen who wanted to do what Wagner did less hyperbolically, more
subtly and understatedly. More French-ly.
There's nothing random about this process of influence and
assimilation. It's exactly the sort of thing that happens over and
over again in the history of the arts. First we learn from our parents.
Then we rebel against them. Debussy is both the child rebelling
against the parent and the Frenchman rebelling against German culture.
But you can only rebel against something that really had a hold on you
in the first place.
-david gable
Thank you for explaining it.

Down in the dark I have often wondered and now it is completely
explained.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
a***@aol.com
2006-08-12 22:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
Mr. Watkins has a vocabulary of his own. It's not Wagner's "harmonics"
but Wagner's harmonies, Wagner's approach to harmony, that he's talking
about. Needless to say, his description of what Debussy did with
Wagner's harmonies is Mr. Watkins' little joke.
Debussy was French. As a musician he grew up with a kind of French
harmonic vocabulary just as he grew up speaking French. Ravel and
Debussy don't sound like Mahler and Strauss.
Although Debussy was French, he was curious, and he encountered other
music including Chopin's and Wagner's. He came to know their music
extremely well, although his experience of their music was filtered
through his own French musician's sensibility.
The early works of young composers tend to be derivative. Wagner was
the single most significant influence on Debussy. (Other influences
included Chopin and Mussorgsky.) The harmonic language of Pelleas is a
late nineteenth-century French language inflected by Debussy's
experience of Wagner. Pelleas is actually a comparatively early work.
Wagner cast a longer shadow over Pelleas than over the later Debussy.
The very idea of writing an anti-opera came from Wagner: much of
symbolism, the French literary movement Debussy admired and
Maeterlinck represented, is Wagnerism disguised by subtle and refined
Frenchmen who wanted to do what Wagner did less hyperbolically, more
subtly and understatedly. More French-ly.
There's nothing random about this process of influence and
assimilation. It's exactly the sort of thing that happens over and
over again in the history of the arts. First we learn from our parents.
Then we rebel against them. Debussy is both the child rebelling
against the parent and the Frenchman rebelling against German culture.
But you can only rebel against something that really had a hold on you
in the first place.
-david gable
Have you ever played Debussy or are you just writing about playing it?

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
alcindoro
2006-08-12 22:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Have you ever played Debussy or are you just writing about playing it?
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Alan, I think you are one of the most interesting posters here. I've
learned a lot from your postings. This is a question I've been meaning
to ask you for a while.
You always speak about being "down in the dark" or "the depths" or
whatever. Of course, this is a website about opera, which at its best
is a visual theatre art-form. Needs the musicians (usually) but it's
basically about the story. My question to you is, how often do you
actually just sit in the audience and watch "the show"? Not worrying
about the guy in the pit with the mallets, but just watch the show?

Regards
A
d***@aol.com
2006-08-12 23:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
Have you ever played Debussy or are you just writing about playing it?
First of all, I completely reject your insulting use of the word "just"
in this sentence. The short answer to your question is "none of your
business," you arrogant snob.

I am not "just" writing about Debussy. I am deeply interested in
music, and therefore I spend all of my time listening to it, studying
it, and playing it. I post here because I love talking about music.
As with any other poster, I am granted the authority to say what I say
by virtue of whatever knowledge of music I have, regardless of how I
acquired that knowledge. What I write stands or falls on its own
merit, not on my merits as a performing musician. The fact that I have
ploughed through the piano-vocal score of Pelleas at the piano many
times and can take a stab at Debussy's piano music is completely
irrelevant.

-david gable
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
2006-08-12 04:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.
If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.
One hopes you know your part from memory, in that case? :-)
a***@aol.com
2006-08-12 10:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)
Post by a***@aol.com
He took Wagner's harmonics (or some of them) from Parsifal, threw them
up in the air, and just did where they landed. And then he invented
harmonics of his own, collisions not generally available in Wagner.
(Which is why it doesn't sound like Wagner).
As posted, this is a big orchestra used with such subtlety, I would
suggest, as you have never heard in an opera house before.
If it helps, you can close your eyes. I have been known to do so while
playing the opening to Act One. It helps me concentrate.
One hopes you know your part from memory, in that case? :-)
I don't close them until I enter with a wind chorus........marked pp -
mf - pp. A beautiful part superbly written for the instrument.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Derrick Everett
2006-08-11 22:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
"As a young man of 30, Debussy made a considerable reputation for
himself playing the operas of Wagner on the piano in public, mainly
Tristan and Parsifal. Even earlier, Gounod, who had already called him
a genius, refused to speak to him because of his admiration for
Lohengrin. Yet Debussy spent his life fighting the influence of
Wagner. [. . .] Debussy's capacity for assimilation was immense, but
his need to reject was even greater. [. . .] As we might expect, his
music never owes so much to Wagner as when he is fighting that
influence.
Please excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question.......but how
Wagnerian exactly is the Pelleas score?
As David Gable commented, Debussy was reacting against Wagner (and also
against verismo). Even so, he was under Wagner's spell, as was the
Symbolist milieu to which Maeterlinck belonged; so it can be argued that
there are Wagnerian influences both in the libretto and in the score, as
well as in the approach, the integration of poetry and music to dramatic
effect.

'Pelléas' is Wagnerian also in the sense that it employs leading-motives
(Leitmotiven) in a way broadly similar way to that in which Wagner used
his motives both in 'Tristan' and in 'Parsifal'. Debussy's often-quoted
comment that he found Wagner's Leitmotiv technique "a little blatant" (un
peu grossière) is a little misleading. This is because, read in its
context, the remark clearly refers to the character-motives ("calling
cards") of the earlier Wagner operas (notably the 'Ring' cycle), which are
less prevalent in 'Tristan' and 'Parsifal'. In an article that Debussy
wrote in 1902 he wrote out some of his leading-motives, one of which he
identified as "thème initiale de Mélisande":

"Notice that the motif which accompanies Mélisande is never altered. It
comes back in the fifth act unchanged in every respect because in fact
Mélisande always remains the same and dies without anyone -- except old
Arkel, perhaps -- ever having understood her."

As a drama of symbols and metaphors, 'Pélleas und Mélisande' might be
called "Debussy's Tristan", more accurately than his 'Parsifal'. In the
use of harmonies it could be said that 'Pelléas' is the next point on a
line that began with 'Tristan' (with its four distinct "Tristan-chords")
and passed through 'Parsifal' (with nearly 100 distinct "Tristan-chords");
to these Debussy added other kinds of harmonies, some of them based on the
Dorian and Lydian modes.

Debussy makes a direct quotation from 'Parsifal' in his score. In the
orchestral interlude as the action moves from the forest to the castle, he
uses a motif from the "transformation music" of Wagner's stage-dedicatory
festival play.
--
Derrick Everett
====== Writing from 59°54'N 10°37'E =======
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/wagnerfaq.htm
d***@aol.com
2006-08-11 22:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Derrick Everett wrote: [interesting post snipped]

I agree with everything Mr. Everett wrote.

-david gable
a***@aol.com
2006-08-11 23:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derrick Everett
Post by Mrs T xx
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by d***@aol.com
"As a young man of 30, Debussy made a considerable reputation for
himself playing the operas of Wagner on the piano in public, mainly
Tristan and Parsifal. Even earlier, Gounod, who had already called him
a genius, refused to speak to him because of his admiration for
Lohengrin. Yet Debussy spent his life fighting the influence of
Wagner. [. . .] Debussy's capacity for assimilation was immense, but
his need to reject was even greater. [. . .] As we might expect, his
music never owes so much to Wagner as when he is fighting that
influence.
Please excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question.......but how
Wagnerian exactly is the Pelleas score?
As David Gable commented, Debussy was reacting against Wagner (and also
against verismo). Even so, he was under Wagner's spell, as was the
Symbolist milieu to which Maeterlinck belonged; so it can be argued that
there are Wagnerian influences both in the libretto and in the score, as
well as in the approach, the integration of poetry and music to dramatic
effect.
'Pelléas' is Wagnerian also in the sense that it employs leading-motives
(Leitmotiven) in a way broadly similar way to that in which Wagner used
his motives both in 'Tristan' and in 'Parsifal'. Debussy's often-quoted
comment that he found Wagner's Leitmotiv technique "a little blatant" (un
peu grossière) is a little misleading. This is because, read in its
context, the remark clearly refers to the character-motives ("calling
cards") of the earlier Wagner operas (notably the 'Ring' cycle), which are
less prevalent in 'Tristan' and 'Parsifal'. In an article that Debussy
wrote in 1902 he wrote out some of his leading-motives, one of which he
"Notice that the motif which accompanies Mélisande is never altered. It
comes back in the fifth act unchanged in every respect because in fact
Mélisande always remains the same and dies without anyone -- except old
Arkel, perhaps -- ever having understood her."
As a drama of symbols and metaphors, 'Pélleas und Mélisande' might be
called "Debussy's Tristan", more accurately than his 'Parsifal'. In the
use of harmonies it could be said that 'Pelléas' is the next point on a
line that began with 'Tristan' (with its four distinct "Tristan-chords")
and passed through 'Parsifal' (with nearly 100 distinct "Tristan-chords");
to these Debussy added other kinds of harmonies, some of them based on the
Dorian and Lydian modes.
Debussy makes a direct quotation from 'Parsifal' in his score. In the
orchestral interlude as the action moves from the forest to the castle, he
uses a motif from the "transformation music" of Wagner's stage-dedicatory
festival play.
--
Derrick Everett
====== Writing from 59°54'N 10°37'E =======
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/index.htm
http://home.c2i.net/monsalvat/wagnerfaq.htm
Thanks for that. It helps enormously with my reading of the pp entry
of the timps in the Introduction.

Many, many thanks. I have it in December and so I am most grateful.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
oldjohn g
2006-08-12 13:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for the best discussion I have seen in this group for years. It
happens to be my favorite opera after hearing the Tower Scene over 50 years
ago. I immediately bought the Desormiere recording and have just about worn
it out. I have many of the others you've mentioned but keep returning to the
Desormiere as scratchy as it is, it is still the best for me.
John
Post by Sergio da Silva
In essence, although Debussy would hate me for saying this, it is very
similar to Parsifal.
Of course it is.

"As a young man of 30, Debussy made a considerable reputation for
himself playing the operas of Wagner on the piano in public, mainly
Tristan and Parsifal. Even earlier, Gounod, who had already called him
a genius, refused to speak to him because of his admiration for
Lohengrin. Yet Debussy spent his life fighting the influence of
Wagner. [. . .] Debussy's capacity for assimilation was immense, but
his need to reject was even greater. [. . .] As we might expect, his
music never owes so much to Wagner as when he is fighting that
influence. He was distressed at Klingsor turning up in Pélléas. [.
. .] Hommage à Rameau was written when Debussy was revising one of
Rameau's works: musically it recalls Rameau in nothing except its
majesty and in the fact that it is a sarabande. The opening derives
from Gregorian chant, but the whole work could not have been written
without Chopin and Wagner. The middle section, in particular, shows
what Debussy took from Wagner, as a climax builds in a series of
surging waves, each receding and successively greater. Even the
faintly religious tone of the music recalls Parsifal." -Charles Rosen

-david gable
a***@aol.com
2006-08-11 20:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sergio da Silva
"But is it an opera? I believe the composer preferred the term
lyric-drama and I have seen it argued that you do not necessarily need
opera singers to bring it off - singing actors, it is suggested, can do
so also, given that most of the lyrics are really just extended
recitatives"
Yes it is an opera. I think Debussy wanted to confuse everybody on that. He
was trying not to be linked to Wagner and the whole operatic tradition. But
can singing actors sing it? I sincerely doubt it, the vocal writing is
difficult and the way it is written the voice is very exposed. Just an
example, I have listened to Van Dam's different recordings and even the last
MET broadcast, you can easily tell just on a few bars how his voice has
changed and aged (everybody does and not even Van Dam is immune to that).
To me there are "mini-arias" all over the place, the beginning of Act 3 is
it an aria or not? I think folks get too much hung up on the technical
aspects of it.
In essence, although Debussy would hate me for saying this, it is very
similar to Parsifal.
Singing actors sing musicals (they can't even sing operetta) and Pelleas et
Melisande is far from being just a musical.
Take care :-)
I think, on balance, I have to disagree with you. I think it is a
lyric-drama performed in an opera house and one of the reasons that it
is not standard repertoire (or so I feel) is that it leaves many people
expecting "opera" somewhat disappointed. It is a work which, I think,
many people find hard to get, not helped by the blanket term "opera".
It shifts in and out of shadows, some of what happens is left to the
imagination, not all is explained.

The only "opera" composer I know who comes close to this is Martinu.

I think on this occasion, and for whatever reason, the composer was
right. And mute parts and the chorus off stage are not always normally
recommended for opera houses:):)


One of the things I admire so much is Debussy's use of a large
orchestra: the orchestration is 3 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, an
English horn, 3 bassoons, 4 horns, 3 trumpets, 3 trombones, bass tuba,
kettledrums, glockenspiel, cymbals, 2 harps, strings. There are less
than ten occasions in five acts when you will find many of them
involved together.

I would bet people would not guess the size of the orchestra for
Pelleas from listening to a recording or a DVD. We are used as a
painter uses a palette of "available" colours.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
d***@aol.com
2006-08-11 20:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@aol.com
I think, on balance, I have to disagree with you. I think it is a
lyric-drama performed in an opera house
Exactly like Verdi's dramma lirico, Ernani.

-david gable
alcindoro
2006-08-11 20:52:32 UTC
Permalink
I think, on balance, I have to disagree with you. I think it is a
lyric-drama performed in an opera house
Post by d***@aol.com
Exactly like Verdi's dramma lirico, Ernani.
-david gable

Perhaps they should build a Lyric Drama House somewhere and present P&M
and E in eternal alternating rep. That should sort out the confusion.

I've always understood that the word "opera" means "work".
d***@aol.com
2006-08-11 22:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by alcindoro
I've always understood that the word "opera" means "work".
Opus, singular, is Latin for work as in a work. Opera is the plural of
opus.

-david gable
d***@aol.com
2006-08-10 06:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Don't read these if you read them the last dozen times I posted them:

Monteux on Pelleas: "It was never a success . . . but, then, a success
was never intended."

Tallulah Bankhead after seeing Maeterlinck's play: "There's less here
than meets the eye."

-david gable
alcindoro
2006-08-10 20:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Monteux on Pelleas: "It was never a success . . . but, then, a success
was never intended."
Tallulah Bankhead after seeing Maeterlinck's play: "There's less here
than meets the eye."
-david gable
Well then, Dahling, try to get it right the next time you post it.
Tallu said "There is less in this than meets the eye" to Alexander
Woollcott after seeing Maeterlinck's
"Aglavaine and Selysette", NOT P&M.
d***@aol.com
2006-08-10 20:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by alcindoro
Post by d***@aol.com
Tallulah Bankhead after seeing Maeterlinck's play: "There's less here
than meets the eye."
"There is less in this than meets the eye" to Alexander
Woollcott after seeing Maeterlinck's
"Aglavaine and Selysette", NOT P&M.
Same difference. What is so brilliant about her remark is that the
dismissal is so clearly comprehending: it's not a clever crack that
could fit anything. It fits Maeterlinck to a T.

-david gable
alcindoro
2006-08-10 22:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Same difference. What is so brilliant about her remark is that the
dismissal is so clearly comprehending: it's not a clever crack that
could fit anything. It fits Maeterlinck to a T.
Nice save, Dahling. Bankhead was always expected to provide a quotable
quote, and the remark was in immediate response to having just seen
what was apparantly an extremely boring and pretentious revival of A&S.
I have no idea what she thought of P&M, play or opera, tho she very
likely had seen either or both. Maeterlinck may be out of fashion now,
but I think he was still well regarded by many at the time, not just
for P&M but other works, poetry, and also his popular children's story
THE BLUE BIRD. I agree with you, tho, there is more to the remark
than meets the eye.

I wonder when was the last time anyone actually did the play of P&M? I
know nothing
about the play A&S, but both Selysette and Melisande are among
Bluebeard's incarcerated wives in Dukas' ARIANE ET BARBE-BLEU.
Lookingglass
2006-08-13 02:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Here is a link to the Gutenberg Project's comprehensive article by Lawrence
Gilman about PELLEAS ET MELISANDE for those who wish to investigate further.

http://tinyurl.com/jsd6y


dave
www.Shemakhan.com
AlisonC
2006-08-13 10:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
Here is a link to the Gutenberg Project's comprehensive article by Lawrence
Gilman about PELLEAS ET MELISANDE for those who wish to investigate further.
http://tinyurl.com/jsd6y
Thank you - looks jolly interesting, and, as you say, comprehensive.
Loading...