Talk:Fierrabras (opera)

message: From  (an Austrian doctoral dissertation abstract):
:Erst 1897 erfolgte die Uraufführung durch Felix Mottl am Karlsruher Hoftheater. Mottl bearbeitete das Werk entsprechend dem damaligen Zeitgeschmack. Aufgrund dieser Ergänzungen und Veränderungen der Musik sowie der Bearbeitung des Textbuchs durch Otto Neitzel wird häufig erst die Aufführung unter Claudio Abbado anlässlich der Wiener Festwochen 1988 als eigentliche Uraufführung angesehen. Abbado hat sich intensiv mit der Oper auseinandergesetzt und anhand des Autographs Fehler in der Partitur ausgebessert.
This implies that the 1897 premiere was not "original", since Mottl (the conductor of that performance) had adapted the work ("completions and changes to the music, as well as editing of the libretto by O. Neitzel") to the tastes of the time (something that is less clear in the English translation of the abstract).  I've seen comments in some online resources that the 1897 performance was somehow modified -- this is the first thing I've found that comes close to detailing the modifications that may have been made, and by whom.  I don't think I've seen this in any reliable sources, unless this dissertation database qualifies.  (The Cambridge Companion to Schubert, p. 318, says the performance is "shortened".)
The dissertation abstract goes on to say that those who don't view the 1897 performance as authentic tend to view Abbado's 1988 performance as the true premiere, which implies that the intervening performances were probably based on Mottl's adaptations.
Alfred Einstein, in Schubert: A Musical Portrait (Oxford University Press, 1951) (p. 210), gives a different account of the plot than is currently described.  Some of the same basic plot elements are there, but in a different order, and with more detail.  (For example, he has Eginhard and Roland being sent off to negotiate with the Moors at the end of Act 1, where the current description implies this happens much earlier.)  This could be based on original research (i.e. it is an authentic description), or on familiarity with Mottl's version (i.e. it is inauthentic).
Does anyone else have a reliably sourced plot synopsis, perhaps based on Abbado's work?  I'm reluctant to use Einstein's as allegedly authoritative.
Magicpiano (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I discovered this after removing the synopsis unref tag. On the first point I'm sure you are right, but then I doubt whether any 1897 revival of a much earlier work would be regarded as 'authentic' today. Perhaps it would be a good idea to work your criticism into the article?  As for the synopsis, I basically agree. I removed the unref tag because I thought it meant that the sourcing was the problem. There is a much longer synopsis in Grove which could be the basis of an improved description here. Best. --Kleinzach 00:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured I would deal with the plot (and "first performance") criticism in the article once more sources were in hand.  Until then, one description is as good as another, considering how convoluted the plot is.  I don't have Grove, or a copy of the Abbado recording, so this will wait (at least on my end) until someone else (you?) provides more sources, or I get to the library again to poke at this. Magicpiano (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It would be best to do a synopsis on the basis of the Abbado recording. --Kleinzach 14:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The synopsis as I've updated it pretty much agrees with (or is partly based on) most of the sources I was able to track down.  As far as the "first performance" business, I've not seen any credible source (and I looked at several post-1990 sources) claim anything other than the 1897 date, although one source was useful in describing the type of changes made.  I think my rework to include the note that the Abbado staging was probably the first to use all of Schubert's material covers the issue. Magicpiano (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Premiere and synopsis

message: So is there any reason for the fact both seem to be common? Deutsch uses one r as does the Chwialkowski book, but the score on IMSLP uses two, as do all three of the listed recordings. Since it's based off of Fierabras, it seems the one r is more correct...I guess it probably doesn't matter much, but I'm really curious if anyone has insite. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fierrabras is the spelling used by McKay in Grove as well as Oxford. --Kleinzach 13:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief "Google war" on books.google.de yields almost equal results for "Schubert Fierabras" and "Schubert Fierrabras".  Two notable early usages: Kreissle called it with two r's, Hanslick with one.  Confusion reigns; I think there are also modern references that use one. Magic♪piano 14:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fierabras vs Fierrabras....