Ever since its inception in the late sixteenth century, Opera has been considered the ne plus ultra of art. For centuries all around the world, opera has captivated audiences through intricate set designs, provocative costumes, and casts of talented actors/singers. But what is it about Opera that makes it so special? Is it the composition of the words or music that creates this effect? This question is at the very heart of Richard Strauss swan-song opera, Capriccio, which was recently performed by Curtis Institute of Music in conjunction with Opera Philadelphia.
Richard Strauss' Capriccio, however, was not the first to pose such a question regarding Opera. This argument seemed to first surface in eighteenth century. Christoph Gluck, who was a brilliant composer wanted to stress the importance of the words in opera, and therefore starting with his epic 1762 production of Orfeo, where with doing away with dry recitative, he was able to make the movement of the drama more significant, and therefore was able to make the claim that words were at the heart of Opera. This technique was something that was perfected later in the works of Ricard Wagner. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, emerged a true musical genius W.A. Mozart who gave the world some of the most memorable operas known to man. In part, these tremendous works of art are so memorable due to the music. The swaying sounds of Mozart's arias truly lifts the soul and provides an invaluable set of emotions that leaves one in utter awe of the beauty in the world.
In comparing the works of Gluck to that of Mozart in order to decide which is better words or music,, one could simply say that it is merely a matter of taste and that both the words and music are crucial aspects to the production of opera. But for some critics of art and music, the true of form of opera must have a base which projects the centrality of the work as a whole. Thus enter the dilemma of Richard Strauss' delectable one-act Opera Capriccio, which first began as a debate with his librettists, Clemens Krauss, in 1933, during the rehearsals of Arabella. Six years later, Strauss and Krauss took the debate to the stage and gave the world Capriccio.
The story is sort of an opera-within-a-opera insomuch as the characters are involved in the world of the stage. Set in the late eighteenth century, Strauss seems to be highlighting the timeframe in which this debate first surfaced. The story begins at the birthday party of Countess Madeleine, who when I saw it was played by the very talented Heather Stebbins. The Countess was being courted by two lovers-- the poet, Olivier (Dogukan Kuran) and the musician, Flamand (Evan LeRoy Johnson), who in order to compete for the love of the Countess were going to write an opera to which Madeleine will decided the next day by 11 a.m. who she will choose to marry. Essentially she is choosing which is better, the music (Flamand) or words (Olivier).
Richard Strauss' Capriccio, however, was not the first to pose such a question regarding Opera. This argument seemed to first surface in eighteenth century. Christoph Gluck, who was a brilliant composer wanted to stress the importance of the words in opera, and therefore starting with his epic 1762 production of Orfeo, where with doing away with dry recitative, he was able to make the movement of the drama more significant, and therefore was able to make the claim that words were at the heart of Opera. This technique was something that was perfected later in the works of Ricard Wagner. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, emerged a true musical genius W.A. Mozart who gave the world some of the most memorable operas known to man. In part, these tremendous works of art are so memorable due to the music. The swaying sounds of Mozart's arias truly lifts the soul and provides an invaluable set of emotions that leaves one in utter awe of the beauty in the world.
In comparing the works of Gluck to that of Mozart in order to decide which is better words or music,, one could simply say that it is merely a matter of taste and that both the words and music are crucial aspects to the production of opera. But for some critics of art and music, the true of form of opera must have a base which projects the centrality of the work as a whole. Thus enter the dilemma of Richard Strauss' delectable one-act Opera Capriccio, which first began as a debate with his librettists, Clemens Krauss, in 1933, during the rehearsals of Arabella. Six years later, Strauss and Krauss took the debate to the stage and gave the world Capriccio.
The story is sort of an opera-within-a-opera insomuch as the characters are involved in the world of the stage. Set in the late eighteenth century, Strauss seems to be highlighting the timeframe in which this debate first surfaced. The story begins at the birthday party of Countess Madeleine, who when I saw it was played by the very talented Heather Stebbins. The Countess was being courted by two lovers-- the poet, Olivier (Dogukan Kuran) and the musician, Flamand (Evan LeRoy Johnson), who in order to compete for the love of the Countess were going to write an opera to which Madeleine will decided the next day by 11 a.m. who she will choose to marry. Essentially she is choosing which is better, the music (Flamand) or words (Olivier).
The Curtis Institute of Music through the production of Opera Philadelphia provided a remarkable backdrop for this concept. By modernizing the set to the early twentieth century, which seemed to reflect the Bauhaus Movement with candid white furniture and simplicity, this production truly showcased the notion that form follows function. An idea that underscores the debate in the opera. Even the characters were clad in all-white, and around the set appeared a barrier of tattered and torn furniture pieces of the previous era, emphasizing the notion that while on the surface the answer might seem to be clear, under the surface it is not so discernible. At the center of the set laid a giant mirror, which characters often sat in front of showing the reflection of their face to the audience that broadcasted the state of confusion which the debate over words and music created.
This simplistic, yet highly useful set design allowed the audience to focus on the very capricious action of the Opera, which is mostly about this highly artistic discussion. The Countess, Madeleine is not the only one brought into this debate, but rather the entire cast, including her brother the Count (Jarrett Ott), his superficial actress girlfriend, Clairon (Lauren Eberwein), the director of the theatre, La Roche, (Tyler Zimmerman) and an ensemble of servants who provided an array of comic relief. The entire cast of the production, at Opera Philadelphia was nothing short of stellar. Their vocal timbre was on-point, they annunciated the German ever so elegantly, and provided both a tense quality to the discussion, as well as a comic side to the silliness of deciding such a question. Tyler Zimmerman, who played the director, La Roche was especially fantastic in this production. As a fan of Bass roles, I have a very short list of those who are delightful to listen to on a regular basis, and I can say with certainty that Mr. Zimmerman provided the audience with a worthwhile performance.
For majority of this one-act opera rests the dialogue that seems to be like a see-saw where the conversation swings back and forth in a capricious fashion. At times, both the librettist, Clemens Krauss and the composer, Richard Strauss fill the audience with a sense of utter confusion, which we can see in the sudden shifts of mood in Madeleine who clearly is torn by this dilemma. Feeling trapped by the decision she must make, she utters in her final aria "choose one and not the other? Impossible!" So she turns to the mirror of counsel, but the mirror has no answer either.
This simplistic, yet highly useful set design allowed the audience to focus on the very capricious action of the Opera, which is mostly about this highly artistic discussion. The Countess, Madeleine is not the only one brought into this debate, but rather the entire cast, including her brother the Count (Jarrett Ott), his superficial actress girlfriend, Clairon (Lauren Eberwein), the director of the theatre, La Roche, (Tyler Zimmerman) and an ensemble of servants who provided an array of comic relief. The entire cast of the production, at Opera Philadelphia was nothing short of stellar. Their vocal timbre was on-point, they annunciated the German ever so elegantly, and provided both a tense quality to the discussion, as well as a comic side to the silliness of deciding such a question. Tyler Zimmerman, who played the director, La Roche was especially fantastic in this production. As a fan of Bass roles, I have a very short list of those who are delightful to listen to on a regular basis, and I can say with certainty that Mr. Zimmerman provided the audience with a worthwhile performance.
For majority of this one-act opera rests the dialogue that seems to be like a see-saw where the conversation swings back and forth in a capricious fashion. At times, both the librettist, Clemens Krauss and the composer, Richard Strauss fill the audience with a sense of utter confusion, which we can see in the sudden shifts of mood in Madeleine who clearly is torn by this dilemma. Feeling trapped by the decision she must make, she utters in her final aria "choose one and not the other? Impossible!" So she turns to the mirror of counsel, but the mirror has no answer either.
Unfortunately the opera ends without the audience finding out which lover, and therefore which art form, Madeline chooses. This was the second time, I have seen this opera, and if you ask me, I believe she chooses the musician, as his music seemed to be so much more uplifting than the German Sonnet. Of course, I am not claiming to be a definitive source on the matter, which is why I think that Strauss left it up to the audience to decide. Perhaps he was reflecting the notion of beauty as that which is in the eye of the beholder. To this end, I am reminded of final line of John Keats poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn" where he remarks that "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." In other words, both the words and music are beautiful in their own right.
Well one thing is for sure, I was certainly moved by both the words and music, as well as the artist design in this production. Bravo to the cast of Capriccio, I was wholly impressed by the show. To the producers at Opera Philadelphia once again well-done, you left me very much looking forward to seeing L'elisir D'Amore this May!
Well one thing is for sure, I was certainly moved by both the words and music, as well as the artist design in this production. Bravo to the cast of Capriccio, I was wholly impressed by the show. To the producers at Opera Philadelphia once again well-done, you left me very much looking forward to seeing L'elisir D'Amore this May!