From: velde2@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Francois Velde)
Subject: Re: in praise of Monteverdi (was Re: in praise of Harnoncourt
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:23:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.070453.12742@hemlock.cray.com> knight@cray.com (Steve Knight) writes:
>
>Baroque stage conventions, of course, would have prevented any overt
>physical sensuality between Nero and Poppea.  It would have been
>left to the libretto and music to portray the depths of their feelings,
>which "Pur ti miro" does splendidly.

As a matter of fact, this restriction on staging probably accounts for
the overwhelming sensuality of the music. A case of productive censorship ;-)

>The recent staging of "Poppea" here in Minneapolis-St. Paul by the
>baroque opera company Ex Machina actually put a different spin on
>this.  Starting at the da capo, Poppea directed her loving words to
>the crown and scepter she had just been awarded, not to Nero!  For
>modern actors and audiences concerned with "realistic" motivations in
>characters, this is perhaps more consistent with Poppea's scheming
>throughout the opera to ascend the throne.

That leaves Nero out in the cold, though. What does he do while she sings
to her crown? It breaks the symmetry of the duet. Also, the text describes
possession (pur ti stringo, pur t'annodo), consistent with Poppea lusting
for power, but also submission (io son tuo, tua son io). (but that's not
sung in the da capo, admittedly). I dunno. It's a cute idea, but I'm not 
convinced. 

>Harnoncourt's relatively lush orchestration, while definitely
>pleasing to our modern ears, is probably somewhat inauthentic--
>although, to be fair, it's hard to determine this reliably, and
>perhaps even harder to make the case that it matters more than a
>little...  Nevertheless, pay records for Venetian opera houses of the
>time indicate that the standard orchestra consisted almost
>exclusively of continuo instruments, with a few members of the violin
>family present, and those primarily to play on the sinfonias and
>ritornelli.

In the liner notes, Harnoncourt explains that, for Monteverdi's operas,
orchestration is a matter of performance: there are no clear indications,
and evidence from the time (including Monteverdi's letters) indicate, 
that the actual choice of instruments depended on circumstances and taste.
He does not, I think, justify the two recorders on other than purely 
personal grounds. I don't mind too much, really.

> [J. Wikla writes:]
>> The ending duetto of 'Incoronazione di Poppea' is really good stuff,
>> as usually all Monteverdi when performed well. Anyhow, I cannot
>> resist commenting one thing: The liner notes of some of the
>> recordings mention (sorry I don't remember which one) that just that
>> duetto 'Pur ti miro' IS NOT by Monteverdi, but that he has borrowed
>> it from somebody else, perhaps from Benedetto Ferrari.

I think the Jacobs/Molinari-Muller recording makes that attribution. The 
liner notes describe it as an interesting hypothesis.

>Apparently, the current candidate for Most Likely Composer of "Pur ti
>miro" is Francesco Sacrati, composer of other Venetian opera at the
>time (including, I believe, "Bellerofonte," which eclipsed "Poppea"
>as the big hit of the 1642-3 Venice season).

Has it survived? Any recording? 

>Having said all that, though, I feel compelled to add the disclaimer
>that I am *not*, myself, a musicologist, and only parrot what I read
>from others.  And none of it detracts in any way from the fact that
>"Poppea" in general, and "Pur ti miro" in particular, are fine things
>and well worth seeking out, in whatever form they're available.

Ditto.

-- 

	Francois Velde