What makes a successful opera libretto?

Thanks Parla, Jane and Tagalie.

Parla, even though you were the first to respond, since you said you will send more I'll reply to Jane and Tagalie first.

Jane, you wrote:

"It might be worth thinking about the difference between opera as something we listen to (at home, usually) and something we watch in a theatrical production."

I agree: indeed there is a difference. For me though I think if anything it is the opposite of what you tentatively suggest.  At home, with the libretto in my hand and no stage business to watch (I rarely watch opera on DVD), I am immersed much more in the libretto than in the opera house.  On the other hand a great stage director can do a lot to overcome the problems of a poor libretto (Tagalie, I'll come back to this) but even more to maximise the complementarity between great music and a fine libretto. Think of Zefirelli and Verdi's Falstaff, Peter Stein and Pelleas und Melisande, Chereau with the Ring, Lulu, The House of the Dead (now there's an unlikely libretto!), Ponelle with Figaro.

I suppose you're right Jane about the Handel operas' generic dependence on the opera seria conventions of the day, but even within those conventions there are better and worse examples of libretti, and Handel's seem to me to be amongst the latter.  I've never quite understood though why Metastasio was so highly regarded by composers. And the constant stream of recit, aria, recit, aria: who chose this format, the convention, the librettist, the composer. Gluck and Mozart (Idomeneo but not Clemenza di Tito) managed to break the mould, but Handel, I think he was too lazy? 

As well as the opera seria convention there is this peculiar obsession (starting as early as Cavalli) with pseudo-Greek mythology, where usually little more than the names of the characters has anything to do with the original myths or plays. Is this part of the Opera Seria convention.

Of course, those myths and plays have themselves been a rich source for operas, from Monteverdi to Richard Strauss. So on that cue, next post for Tagalie coming up soon (I'm assuming he'll still be sleeping for a little while).

Chris

Sorry Parla, I did not mean to press you. Rather I felt slightly uneasy about replying to others before you after you had been the first to respond.

So, indeed, back to business:

I suppose I could summarise by saying that paragraph by paragraph I agree with much that you write, but overall would draw some different conclusions.

So paragraph by paragraph, starting with your last statement:

"There are intelligent librettists who collaborated quite well with specific composers, so that the former could contribute to the success of the final product of the latter."

I agree, though I think it undervalues the role of some of the greatest librettists, Da Ponte, Boito, Hofmannstahl.

'Based on the questions I put, you may guess that I don't believe that there is a libretto "successful" per se. As an "auxiliary", a "tool", a "vehicle" for the final product of an Opera or an Operetta or a Musical Theatre etc., it cannot become a work of art by itself. I think we will care less for Der Rosenkavalier, if the music for that Opera was written by another weaker composer than R. Strauss.'

I suppose a libretto could become a work of art by itself, but I agree that is not its purpose. As you say it's a vehicle for the final product. But the vehicle can make a big difference to the product: Rosenkavalier without Hofmannstahl's superb libretto would surely have been a lesser work.

"In the same vein, I don't mind at all if the libretto and the plot of Haendel's Alcina is rubbish. The music transcends the text and make it sound as angel's (or bird's) song. I love more than much Haendel's Operas regardless of the libretti, because the composers in the Baroque era did not composed music for the theatre but music that could be used in the theatre. So, the conventions were bigger and the limitations greater than the Classical and Romantic periods."

Here, I think the most important phrase is the one I highlighted in bold. Handel's operas are full of wonderful music but make poor theatre. The audience went to hear the star singers. As you noted some earlier composers were less tied to these anti-theatrical conventions, most notablty Monteverdi, who had the good fortune to work with fine librettists. Incidentally it is true that Monteverdi, like Mozart put a lot of effort into getting his librettists to modify their texts to suit his needs. I suppose what applies to Handel also is true for many bel canto operas

"Going to more modern periods, we may have cases were we may encounter strong texts of a libretto, almost as a theatrical play. However, poor music make them suffer as the final product sounds awkward and, if they had to be performed as individual theatrical works, a lot of adjustments have to be made. I don't believe, even the greatest loyal of Wagner would bother to attend a performance of the text of the Ring. Probably, the whole think is going to be so "naked" that one may never wish to listen to the actual 'Ring'."

There's a lot in here! I strongly agree with your first sentence. And of course I agree that poor music is a waste of a good libretto. Following on from that, no-one expects a libretto to be a work of theatre in its own right. Even when the source of a libretto is a great play or novel, the art of the librettist is to transform the original text into something possible for an opera. Again I suggest this is the triumph of those librettists I named before (Hofmannstal, Da Ponte, Boito). In the case of Wagner, the situation is slightly different. Certainly few would want to hear his libretto for the Ring as a play, but I guess most people would find it more enjoyable reading Wagner's text than struggling through the Edda Sagas, the Volsung Saga and the Nibelungenlied. I am always astonished at how few inconsistencies there are within this masterly text! A truly masterful libretto by any standard! I really don't believe anyone could claim that the libretto is irrelevant to the success of these Gesamtkunstwerke. Just as an aside, we might consider Wagner 'problem-child', Tannhauser. Surely this work is not musically weaker than those surrounding it, the 'problem' to the extent that there is one, comes from the relatively unsatisfactory libretto.

"Besides, even when great works of literature are used, major adjustments have to be made and, depending on the music of the composer concerned, they become "shadows" or minor works of the original texts. I remember a man of theatre, who listened, for the first time, Verdi's Macbeth. He almost hated it, because he could not recognise the "orignal" thing. Another one almost fainted, when he was exposed to Hamlet by Thomas."

Now, for me this is one of the most fascinating questions. Time and again, composers have been fascinated by great plays, Shakespeare of course, Goethe, Schiller. Often the resulting operas are less than complete successes. Goethe's Faust seems the most extreme case, irresistable to spo many composers but almost impossible to turn into an opera. Of Verdi's two masterpieces with Boito, I always find Falstaff the more successful bercause it manages to transcend the plays in a way that Otello could never hope to.

Needless to say all the above is IMO!

My synthesis would be something like:

A successful libretto is a great work of art, not a free-standing one but one that can raise the level of great music to an even higher plane. The art is something to do with reconciling the needs of the composer with the demands of theatre. It's no surprise that most of the greatest librettists have worked hand-in-glove with the composers, or else, rather more rarely, been the composers themselves, the latter a path fraught with danger!

Jane is right, this is a meaty subject - perhaps too meaty.

Thanks again to all (so far) for your responses,

Chris