Page 179 - Weiss, Jernej, ur. 2019. Vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališč v 20. in 21. stoletju - The Role of National Opera Houses in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 3
P. 179
“spectacular” challenges of opera in the 21st century
oblige”. It is even programmed “record-breaking for a contemporary op-
era” according to Michael Wyatt. The work has nine different productions
between 1983 and 2011, including three times16. But did Saint-François gen-
erate a general craze? Was it considered the only opera, as one would have
expected in the case of Messiaen, „classical contemporary17“? According to
several „serious“ (administrative)18 sources, the lyrical public would be old-
er and more conservative than any other. This was all the more so in 1980.
The average age of this audience was then, in France, 65 years (it would
have rejuvenated in 2000 to 47 years)19. Frederic Lamantia noted the “igno-
rance of the lyric heritage, mainly French and contemporary, by the French
spectators20”. Do foreign audiences know it more? But Lamantia also wrote:
“The French lyric art: a product that is difficult to export21”. And Adorno, in
1962, was pessimistic (even more so than usual) about the reception of any
new music by the public of the lyric theaters in general22. The reception of a
this his most distinctive work for the reception, like Wozzeck or Lulu for Berg? Or
is it the “operatic effect” (a total work of art, especially literary, which attracts more
comments because more commentators, musicians, artists, philosophers, literary),
especially in the case of a single opera?
16 Michael Wyatt, “Staging the ineffable: Olivier Messiaen’s Saint François d’Assise”,
The opera Quatterly 27, no. 4 (2011): 503. Wyatt quotes, among other things, the al-
ready historic staging, according to him, of Peter Sellars for the Salzburg Festival in
1992 and that of Hermann Nitsch for the Munich Staatsoper in 2011.
17 See Pierre-Michel Menger, in an implicit formulation, who mentions “contempora-
ries already classical, such as Messiaen [first quoted], Dutilleux, Boulez, Xenakis and
some others”. Le paradoxe du musician: Le compositeur, le mélomane et l’État dans la
société contemporaine (Paris: Flammarion, 1983), 204. Also p. 322, Messiaen is called
(this time with Dutilleux) a “classical contemporary”.
18 Gérard Doublet ingenuously notes, as a connoisseur of his professional career (as a
director) and not as a musicologist, that “the expectation of French viewers, with re-
gard to the operatic programming and stagings proposed by the operas, is traditional
and traditional”. Opéra: nouveaux publics, nouvelles pratiques (Paris: BDT, 2003), 15.
An Italian colleague, Lorenzo Ferrero, notes in a parallel and also definitive way: “We
have commissioned many contemporary operas. Perhaps because of the difficult mu-
sical language, these operas did not win the favor of the public”. Les enjeux de l’opéra
au XXIème siècle, table ronde organisée à la Maison de la chimie, 8 octobre 1997, 110.
19 Doublet, Opéra, 14.
20 L’opéra dans l’espace français (Paris: Connaissances et Savoir, 2005), 329. Lamantia
also publishes this table which shows that the motivations leading to the choice of an
opera, motivations sometimes not very aesthetic, are, for 56% of the public questio-
ned, the work, but for 46% the fact of being subscriber (what was predictable or even
mandatory), and for 42% the composer (L’opéra dans l’espace français, 20).
21 What Carmen denies though.
22 Introduction à la sociologie de la musique ( enies though.octobre 1997, p. omme Babel, Bal-
land, 2001; Noé, 2016 show. other seductive synopsis Genève: Contrechamps, 1994), 86.
177
oblige”. It is even programmed “record-breaking for a contemporary op-
era” according to Michael Wyatt. The work has nine different productions
between 1983 and 2011, including three times16. But did Saint-François gen-
erate a general craze? Was it considered the only opera, as one would have
expected in the case of Messiaen, „classical contemporary17“? According to
several „serious“ (administrative)18 sources, the lyrical public would be old-
er and more conservative than any other. This was all the more so in 1980.
The average age of this audience was then, in France, 65 years (it would
have rejuvenated in 2000 to 47 years)19. Frederic Lamantia noted the “igno-
rance of the lyric heritage, mainly French and contemporary, by the French
spectators20”. Do foreign audiences know it more? But Lamantia also wrote:
“The French lyric art: a product that is difficult to export21”. And Adorno, in
1962, was pessimistic (even more so than usual) about the reception of any
new music by the public of the lyric theaters in general22. The reception of a
this his most distinctive work for the reception, like Wozzeck or Lulu for Berg? Or
is it the “operatic effect” (a total work of art, especially literary, which attracts more
comments because more commentators, musicians, artists, philosophers, literary),
especially in the case of a single opera?
16 Michael Wyatt, “Staging the ineffable: Olivier Messiaen’s Saint François d’Assise”,
The opera Quatterly 27, no. 4 (2011): 503. Wyatt quotes, among other things, the al-
ready historic staging, according to him, of Peter Sellars for the Salzburg Festival in
1992 and that of Hermann Nitsch for the Munich Staatsoper in 2011.
17 See Pierre-Michel Menger, in an implicit formulation, who mentions “contempora-
ries already classical, such as Messiaen [first quoted], Dutilleux, Boulez, Xenakis and
some others”. Le paradoxe du musician: Le compositeur, le mélomane et l’État dans la
société contemporaine (Paris: Flammarion, 1983), 204. Also p. 322, Messiaen is called
(this time with Dutilleux) a “classical contemporary”.
18 Gérard Doublet ingenuously notes, as a connoisseur of his professional career (as a
director) and not as a musicologist, that “the expectation of French viewers, with re-
gard to the operatic programming and stagings proposed by the operas, is traditional
and traditional”. Opéra: nouveaux publics, nouvelles pratiques (Paris: BDT, 2003), 15.
An Italian colleague, Lorenzo Ferrero, notes in a parallel and also definitive way: “We
have commissioned many contemporary operas. Perhaps because of the difficult mu-
sical language, these operas did not win the favor of the public”. Les enjeux de l’opéra
au XXIème siècle, table ronde organisée à la Maison de la chimie, 8 octobre 1997, 110.
19 Doublet, Opéra, 14.
20 L’opéra dans l’espace français (Paris: Connaissances et Savoir, 2005), 329. Lamantia
also publishes this table which shows that the motivations leading to the choice of an
opera, motivations sometimes not very aesthetic, are, for 56% of the public questio-
ned, the work, but for 46% the fact of being subscriber (what was predictable or even
mandatory), and for 42% the composer (L’opéra dans l’espace français, 20).
21 What Carmen denies though.
22 Introduction à la sociologie de la musique ( enies though.octobre 1997, p. omme Babel, Bal-
land, 2001; Noé, 2016 show. other seductive synopsis Genève: Contrechamps, 1994), 86.
177
