CommentMarch07 - Page: 1 of 1

The sin is this, and we’ll state it simply: continuing a tradition of the Boston Symphony Orchestra of bringing to Boston and the Berkshires far too much atonal, unpleasant, “ear-bending” music. Most recently Mr. Levine brought us John Adams’ “El Nino” at Christmas, no less, along with Schoenberg’s dreadful and mordant “Moses & Aaron,” and not long after that he squeezed in, in early February, the same composer’s harsh and expressionistic “Enwartung,” salvaging the Symphony Hall program only by sandwiching Schoenberg’ very unpleasant experimentations in sound in between Beethoven’s more melodic and elevating Symphony No. 8, “Ah! Perfido,” and the overture of “Coriolan.” It didn’t hurt that soprano Deborah Voigt was there to lend a hand, but even she had to be somewhat disappointed that such a fine voice was used for so little effect.

What is the BSO thinking? What is Mr. Levine thinking? We are not impressed, even though the most recent program received an obligatory nod from the major press in town. The Boston Globe, for example, headlined the work as sheer “Brilliance.” Jeremy Eichler, the Globe’s columnist, wrote of it: “this score. . . boils over with novelty and possibility.” Other than it being possibly some of the worst music ever written, we don’t know of what possibilities Mr. Eichler was referring. The Herald was equally deferential. Keith Powers covered Schoenberg’s work but could muster only that it was both a “more substantial selection” than the other two and taxing on Deborah Voigt’s voice. Neither reviewer could find adequate superlatives – and for good reason.

We, here, at OperaOnline.us have a little more latitude. Once again, the BSO and, in this case, Mr. Levine, apparently forgot for whom the concert was being performed. It's what happens when one's back is to the audience too often; it becomes habit-forming. And lest we seem harsh, it isn't just Maestro Levine or the BSO that is at fault; it's common for conductors to offer these programs. But why?

As we have said before: when you have to explain what the composer intended in the Playbill, it’s already dead. Ear-bending, abstract work is okay for rehearsals to challenge (or torture) an orchestra, but when performing for a paying audience, this work is the surest way to drive people away from symphony music, especially when there is so much more out there that could be offered in its place. It is frustrating to have to keep repeating the obvious, but here goes: music selection should be geared toward the audience’s tastes, not what the composer or music director thinks will challenge that audience. For these offenses against good taste, Mr. Levine is entirely to blame. It is his sin.

Are we wrong? Somebody tell us we’re wrong! And that’s all we have to say about that, for now.

Composer Tan Dun's "The First Emperor," when it opened at the Met, was greeted with almost unversal criticism for its score. We listed some of those reviews in our own publication when we reviewed it in January (see Previous Reviews) and restated our opinion in February, that the score needed work. Since then we have searched the Internet and newspapers for any indication that Mr. Tan got the message or that, as composers before him have done, has withdrawn the work to retool it. The sound of silence from Mr. Tan and the Met has been stunning. Apparently, the public be damned, the composer will not relent and the Met wants to revive the show this Spring and take it on tour to China in 2008. Well, so be it! If the Met has that kind of money to throw around, it will throw it into sink holes which "The First Emperor" clearly is and, after its various premiers around the country, this opera, like so many contemporary companions, will disappear from the repertoire. What a waste!

Our criticism is not meant to be mean-spirited. We truly enjoy opera and get as excited as anyone when a new one is introduced. But, like others, we are deeply disappointed when composers fail to meet the first test of music composition: to write music for the audience's enjoyment and pleasure. We wonder: if the audience isn't the object of this exercise, then to whom is the music geared? Composers who write for themselves hardly need a commission to satisfy their own egos.

If OperaOnline.us exists for no other purpose, it exists to add our voice as a counterbalance to those who think melody is pedantic and unworthy of our attention. We have news for those who hold that view: it is the only music worth the investment made in it, let alone our time.

Alan Riding opining recently in the “The International Tribune,” argued that “if opera is not to become a ‘museum art,’ it must renew its repertory.” He continued: “while new works are routinely commissioned, many opera lovers resist experimental contemporary scores, preferring the evergreens of Mozart, Verdi and Puccini. Indeed, the principal novelty of recent seasons has been the revival of Baroque composers, notably Handel."

We see things a little differently, as we have stated in past Commentary. Indeed, before we throw out the baby and the bath water, we should make a few distinctions about what is worth preserving and what is not, what is worth commissioning and what is not, and go from there.

The “evergreens” Mr. Riding writes about, could use some pruning, to be sure; but in our haste to seduce a new audience lets not abandon the tried and true altogether.

As for newly commissioned pieces, we see pursuing that avenue, not a reversion to a style that is difficult on the voice, gender challenged (trouser roles) and vocally out of sync (countertenors) with what contemporary audiences expect to hear and see when they attend a performance, is where opera will, and is struggling to grow. Face it, while Baroque period pieces, and lets include in that grouping much of Mozart and Handel’s work, to name two, have an audience, the Baroque style is not likely to attract larger audiences because the style is no longer in fashion. That’s to take nothing from its advocates and followers; rather it’s just to admit a truth too many want to ignore.

No, the future of opera, as we have noted in the past, is going to be comprised of a balance between three strategies alluded to above: one, find the best of the current available selections and expand that pool by adding infrequently or never performed operas of merit that for some unexplainable reason have been ignored, and fit them to contemporary audiences by; two, eliminating from those operas both trouser roles and countertenors, since these roles and vocal styles are simply out of style – permanently, along with white powdered makeup and white wigs and; three, commission new works with the audience in mind, meaning: search for those composers who are capable of writing great melodies for opera and having them get started sooner rather than later.

That’s it! Preserve and expand the best, trim the arcane from what remains, and grow new music that elevates the spirit.

Your comments?