From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Subject: Re: L'Incoronazione de Poppea
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:12:23 GMT

In article <CB.92Sep10103902@tamarack13.timbuk> cb@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:

>Jon Conrad writes:

>   Harnoncourt is quite good, but be careful that you're dealing with his
>   FIRST recording.  He made two, and the second (it went with a Ponnelle
>   tv production) is a butchered edition and a far inferior performance.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>By "butchered" do you only mean shortened?  

No.  He plays scenes out of order, jumps from the middle of one to the
middle of another.  It's been a while since I saw the film, but one
exposure was enough.  It was a real surprise coming after Harnoncourt's
other recording.

>Isn't some tightening up of those early operas legitimate?  

Matter of opinion.  I don't get upset about a carefully considered
job of abridgement.  On the other hand, the "two measures in, 1 measure
out, 3 in, 5 out" school of adaptation (like Leppard) seems to be trying
to turn it into a different sort of opera, which seems pointless.  Any
work (musical or other) sets up its own world, and Monteverdi just ain't
gonna hop along like Puccini.


>Some are many hours long, but not all
>that time is filled with the kind of material we're accustomed to in
>opera.  

What do you mean by that?  (Genuine question, not feigned ignorance.)
As I recall Poppea, it's all material that seems very much like what we
expect of opera.  And it isn't "many hours long" -- it's no longer than
many standard-rep pieces.

>I've read that it was quite acceptable in that era to socialize
>during the long stretches between highlights.  

I'll defer to more of a historical expert on this, but I associate that
behavior with more the early 18th century (like Handel's public), and
maybe some later times too.

>Britten's edition of Purcell's Fairy Queen 

Specifically labeled as a Concert Edition, please note (truth in
packaging), not as a usable version for stage performance.  In fact,
when the Aldeburgh Festival finally staged The Fairy Queen, Britten
readily agreed that his edition was not appropriate.  I have no problem
with someone making their own use of someone else's work, as long as we
are clearly informed up front what they've done.

>and the short version of Poppea (Raymond Leppard?)
>are enjoyable recordings.  

Here's a truth-in-packaging problem.  Leppard made a stage edition of
Poppea for Glyndebourne in the early 1960s, much arranged.  (I don't
revile him for that; this was practically the introduction of Monteverdi
to the "regular" opera stage in our time, and the edition served a
practical purpose in easing the passage.)  The *recording* that was made
was only "highlights" from Leppard's edition, about half of it.  It does
not at all represent his full stage version (itself an abridgement).
Unfortunately the US pressings were never very clearly labeled in this
respect, and one might mistakenly assume this to be all of it.  That
would be like assuming that the original cast album of South Pacific
contains everything one would see in the theater.

>I'm not enough of a purist to object.

Fine, but both Britten and Leppard would.  Britten, because his version
was intentionally a "suite," not an edition for staging.  Leppard,
because the recording is only half of his edition, and unperformable as
it stands.

There are many good recordings of Poppea.  They have their slight
differences as to what they include, and bigger differences as to how
they realize the original scores.  But as an edition, and as a
performance more importantly, the second Harnoncourt is near the bottom
of the list.

Jon Alan Conrad