Customer Reviews

Monteverdi: L'Incoronazione di Poppea / (7) Madrigals

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The previous reviewer (ONE, not two) concentrates on the historical inauthenticity of this version, but I would question the views of someone who misidentifies one of the leading performers (the great Francis Bible, not Elizabeth Bainbridge, sings Octavia). Neverthless, I have to agree to the extent that performance authenticity was a relatively new concept in 1967. I purchased this performance on disc the year it was issued and loved it. Now that it returns on CD, I love it even more. My other CD version of "Poppea" (Gardiner on Archiv) is "complete," "historically accurate," and beautifully sung, but much of it bores me silly. This recording also boasts excellent singers (Bible, Laszlo, Dominguez, and Cava particularly) and is consistently listener friendly. This recording provided my introduction to early opera, and it is responsible for whetting my appetite for more. Furthermore, the terrific bargain price and the addition of some of Monteverdi's finest madrigals, make this an exceedingly attractive package.

I have owned the Seraphim vinyl set of this opera since the early 1980's, and transferred it to CD a few years ago. The EMI double fforte pressing is an OK transfer, but bear in mind this is an analog recording from the 1960's "remastered and noise-shaped" and I think they've overdone the bass emphasis. This is easily corrected by changing tone controls or equalizer settings. That said, this has long been a great favorite of mine.
I also have the Harnoncourt recording on four (at the time very expensive) CD's.
The Harnoncourt recording is superior in many ways: the instrumentation; the singing style; the completeness. Unfortunately, I rarely have time to listen to a complete opera and give it my undivided attention. What generally happens is, I put on a CD while I am working, and have the music as a kind of thinking man's wallpaper. Every now and again, something will come to the foreground and I will think "Wow! What was that?". The Harnoncourt Poppea doesn't do that. The Leppard "realization" does it time and again, however. I could listen to the Nerone/Lucano duet (Hor che Seneca e morto) until my ears fell off. Hugues Cuenod (Lucano), by the way, celebrated his 100th birthday a year or two ago - see http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/Cuenod-Hugues.htm.
I think the real problem with the Harnoncourt production is that opera is so very largely a visual medium, and adjustment must be made when the visual aspect is absent from the recording, to include more vocal or instrumental excitement. Listen to the care that was taken with the Solti / Culshaw Ring cycle, for example. We really feel we are descending into the bowels of the earth in Rheingold, or standing in front of a great hall in the crowd scenes of Gotterdammerung.
Frankly, I don't have any gripes about the performances on this recording. At least it is clear who is singing, unlike the Harnoncourt production, which seems to take a delight in having voices of such similar range and timbre that it is hard to tell whether it's a duet or an aria.
A real bonus of this recording is the madrigals, added to pad out the remaining 43 minutes on the second disc. They are absolutely stunning! Sadly, there is no libretto included with the recording, either for the opera or the madrigals.

I'll start by admitting this disc contains a historically incorrect performance. I'll continue by admitting that that's the way I like it in the case of early opera which I am listening to at home. Extended recitatives are just not musically interesting! I only wish somebody would issue an abridgement or highlights for 'Il Ritorno d'Ulisse in Patria'.

What is important to me is the beauty of Monteverdi's music, especially when it is this well sung, and Leppard's abridgement delivers what is most musically compelling about this work. I just love it. The madrigals that fill out the disc are not in the same league, being kind of stilted, but not bad all the same.

Many opera fans didn't care for Leppard's realization but it is far better, far more interesting and breathes more life into this moldy old thing than many of the authentic instrument versions that trip over each other with their scratchy out of tune violins. And Dominguez' Arnalta is unsurpassed. It's a wonderful production and even though this recording is an abridged version, there is more than enough of it. A little goes a long way.

I have always enjoyed opera, beginning with Wagner, and expanding my interests to Strauss, Verdi, Boito, Puccini, Leoncavallo, and many others. But I came to Monteverdi's L'Incoronazione di Poppea in a rather unusual way. Instead of listening to recorded excerpts to see if I would like the music, my interest was fired by a reading of Patrick J. Smith's 1976 reprint of "The Tenth Muse: A Historical Study of the Opera Libretto". Having never heard any of Monteverdi's music, I became predisposed to enjoy this opera based solely upon a critique of Busenello's drama. The question then for me became what recording of the opera to get. Again, knowing nothing about the various performing editions, I haphazardly obtained a copy of the Leppard-Pritchard recording on Seraphim LP because it was available and affordable. I admit this upfront. It is this recording which I used to familiarize myself with the music, this recording which spurred my interest to learn about the various editions of the music that were out there and to obtain and listen to other recordings, and this recording which has been reissued by EMI on the CD under discussion now.

All great works of art engender critical response. In the case of performing art, any review of a given performance is a simultaneous critique of the work in itself and a critique of the particular interpretation which went into the making of the performance. However, Poppea is a work that has generated more than its share of scholarly debate, debate that bridges the two types of critique indicated above, because of the state in which it has been transmitted down the centuries. I confess that I have not kept current with all the evolving scholarship surrounding this opera. But I think I can safely summarize its main lines.

1) The published libretto by Busenello suggests how the drama in its entirety was originally envisioned. That does not mean that Monteverdi ever set the libretto in its entirety to music.

2) The musical score itself has come down to us in two versions, a Venetian manuscipt and a Neapolitan manuscript. Apparently neither manuscript is complete as to instrumentation, harmony, etc. which leaves much work to the modern editor before a performing edition can be constructed.

3) In addition, there is a great deal of debate concerning the vocal registers, particularly the male leads and the female minor parts. Most notoriously, the role of Nero has been given to female sopranos in the latest recordings, on the premise that it was originally meant to be a castrato role.

4) Finally, there is some debate concerning exactly how many of the pieces that make up the opera as we have it were actually composed by Monteverdi himself, as opposed to other contemporary composers who may have collaborated with him or who may have edited his opera without his consent.

When all is said and done, so many decisions and so much editing must be done in order to construct a performing version of this opera that one may almost be justified in attributing authorship of the work to "Monteverdi - (Modern Editor)". Where I part ways with some others who have offered their reviews of Poppea, is that I believe that, irrespective of whether the editor aims to reconstruct an "authentic" 17th Century performance or aims to tailor it to late-Nineteenth early-Twentieth Century post-Wagnerian listening taste, no editor can rightly claim to absolutely represent the composer's intentions. Admit it or not, even the "authentic" editions are no more than best guesses based upon the information currently available to us. Nothing short of an autograph score, with all the components that are currently missing reinstated, can ever be presumed to be definitive.

The Hickox recording purports to give the Venetian manuscript. The Malgoire and Gardiner recordings purport to give the Neapolitan manuscript. Harnoncourt, in his Vienna recording, aims for completeness by combining the two.

Older recordings tended toward a fuller orchestration. New recordings such as Hickox and Gardiner tend to be considerably leaner in their instrumentation. However, both lush and lean are variously embodied in the various recordings available.

Older recordings assign the role of Nero to a male tenor (Karajan, Harnoncourt's Zurich recording, Malgoire), the role of Ottone to a male register, and the roles of Nutrice and Arnalta to female registers. Newer recordings assign the role of Nero (Harnoncourt's Vienna, Hickox, Gardiner, Jacobs, etc.) to female sopranos, the role of Ottone to male countertenors, and the roles of Nutrice and Arnalta to male tenors.

In my opinion, all of the above decisions are a matter of personal judgement, not a definitive critique of the composer's authentic intentions, and certainly not a critique of the individual performance per se. If a critic prefers "period piece" instrumentation or female registers standing in for castrati in order to aim for what they consider to be a best guess "authentic 17th Century recreation" of the work, and if their appreciation of a recording cannot be separated from these preferences, then they should admit that up front and have done with it there. There is more to a critique of the performance on a recording than the up front editorial preferences. I myself prefer the fuller orchestration, and male roles assigned to male registers, with female roles assigned to female registers. Yet, when a particular recording is at issue, I have to admit, for example, that Gardiner's Neapolitan recording, with its soprano Nero, is more dynamic and ultimately satisfying than Malgoire's Neapolitan recording, even though his Nero is a tenor.

The EMI recording under discussion here is neither Venetian nor Neapolitan. It's an abridgement, and a rearrangement of sorts. Perhaps that should have offended my sensibilities since, as I said above, I came to Poppea first via the libretto. But it doesn't. I think that this arrangement manages to maintain dramatic coherence, albeit in an abridged form, utilizing the core music to create a concise, dynamic performance.

The orchestration is full, without being overly so. The roles of Nero and Ottone are sung by males, while those of Nutrice and Arnalta are sung by females. Those facts are "given"s of this recording. But, when the singers on this recording are compared, for example with their counterparts on the Harnoncourt Zurich recording or the Malgoire, which utilizes some if not all similar registers, the performances here are so much more satisfying. It's more difficult to compare recordings where the registers are different, so I leave that to others to venture their opinion.

Yes, this was the first recording of Poppea that I heard, and, because I hold a sentimental regard for it, perhaps it shines just a little brighter for me than it would have otherwise. At the same time, I can honestly say that, had I chanced to hear one of the other recordings first, I might not have given the work the hearing it was due. It was the quality of this recording that drew me in, and made Poppea and Monteverdi a significant part of my operatic interests. Once hooked, I acquired other recordings of Poppea to hear the music that had been left out and to hear how other editions varied the options. But it's this recording, which so wonderfully embodied the core of this great work and which served as my springboard to other recordings, that continues to give me the most enjoyment. It's not just that I would not be without this recording. It's that this recording will always be a primus inter pares of Poppea recordings for me. If other people feel differently, that's their prerogative.

P.S. For those who agree that this CD is an experience to be enjoyed, there is also a Glyndebourne DVD of the Leppard edition of Poppea available with Maria Ewing in the title role.

Tenth Muse: A Historical Study of the Opera Libretto

Monteverdi - L'Incoronazione Di Poppea / Leppard, Ewing, Bailey, Duesing, Lloyd, Gale, Clarey, Glyndebourne

What is essential for me about opera is that it is a music drama. I saw the Raymond Leppard version of this opera on the stage in San Francisco many years ago. It was a satifying drama set to music. I listen to this performance about every 4 months because this version is one of my favorite operas.

I have seen and heard more "authentic", more complete versions performed and for me the story soon gets lost in the longer versions.

The Leppard version also has a fine cast. The singers convey the emotion of their roles very well. And the instrumentation of this recording while not authentic is well orchestrated. It sounds a bit lush but it still feels right.

Richard Lewis is a great Nerone. This is a tricky role. The singer must depict a tyrant and yet sing beautifully. In doing the former it would be SO easy to make the music ugly or, in doing the latter, to make Nerone "Mr. Nice Guy." Lewis not only avoids pitfalls, he sings Nerone to perfection. Francis Bible is a memorable Octavia. When she sings, "Disprezzata regina," her word painting shows the outrage of being not only a rejected wife but also a rejected queen. Walter Alberti sings Ottone with a warm bass voice. A later recording of "L'incoronazione," much touted for its "historical accuracy," gives the role to a countertenor. Said countertenor squeaks with so little expression that when I heard it, I thought, "No wonder Poppea left him!"

I couldn't be more indifferent to what purists say. Their pedantry and priggishness annoy me. I pay for goose bumps--so did the audiences of Monteverdi's day. All too often live or recorded performances that tout their "historical accuracy" and "authenticity" bore me to the quick. Major opera houses might stage Monteverdi operas more often if it weren't for carping purists. Apparently they missed 17th- and 18th-century accounts of audience reactions to boring performances. Said audiences expresssed their dissatisfaction in terms that left no room for doubt. This CD delivers what people want in an opera: beautiful singing and convincing characterizations. It should be reissued for the best of all possible reasons--its BEAUTY!

The only real drawback in this recording is that it is so truncated. I'm not sure why Leppard took the axe to this great work (not "moldy old thing")to the extent that he did. There is at least one other Glyndebourne recording that is on DVD that should be on Audio CD for comparison. I have heard "historic performances" of many works that are interesting, even thrilling, but this opera is not one of them. Soprano Neros are the best (or worst) examples of one of the reasons why. The most recent performances often sound like parodies rather than realizations. Maybe this is why one reviewer considers it so "moldy."

As you all know or should know (in case you are new to Early Baroque opera), Monteverdi's opera scores were merely laid out in a format that denoted the vocal line and the bass line. Nothing else. No instrumentation. Not even harmony, except for a few small ritornelli scored in 4 or 5 parts, and those are just at the end of certain numbers. So it is up to us to make arrangements based on the information handed down to us. The English conductor, harpsichordist, and musicologist Raymond Leppard was probably the first person to attempt to make an arrangement based on stipulations about 17th-century performance practice; the arrangement was made in 1966 and was soon followed by a production at the Glyndebourne Festival in 1967. Leppard's arrangement sounds nice at first, but it is really pushy and now sounds very dated when one takes into account what we now know about the music of that period. The orchestration sounds quite lush, but it also sounds very contrived and inappropriate to the music. Other oddities include occasional organ fantasy solos, contrived and horribly realized continuo (i.e., the harpsichord, which in this recording has a very annoying metallic sound), and the magnum violation: severe cutting. The Prologue is the first to go, which is more or less tantamount to a historical, ideological, and psychological castration of the opera. Then heavy amounts of music and recitative are cut and rearranged, and the result is disastrous, robbing the listener of a true sense of the genius of the libretto and the unusually close relationship between the text and the music, which in Early Opera were inextricably intertwined. Leppard seems to think that late 17th-century and early 18th-century Scarlattian-Neopolitan principles of clear-cut arias and recitatives apply to Venetian opera: well, they don't.

Now, I've probably made you think that I'm some sort of period practice zealot -- well, I'm not. In terms of pure singing (although not from a musicological viewpoint), I actually prefer the 1967 La Scala highlights recording with none other than Giuseppe di Stefano and Grace Bumbry in the lead roles. This brings me to my next point, which is concerned with the singing of this opera. The singing cast is on the whole quite mediocre. Richard Lewis as Nerone is a frightful bore, and his Italian diction is quite poor. One has only to listen to him sing, "Ottavia e infrigidata ed infeconda" ("Ottavia is frigid and barren" - very charged lines) as if he were merely reading off a laundry list, to get a sense of his total lack of regard for emotion and nuance. Walter Alberti as Ottone is also rather run-of-the mill, as is Elizabeth Bainbridge as Ottavia. Carlo Cava as Seneca does the job, but not with much pleasure. The exception, in my opinion, is probably Magda Laszlo as Poppea herself. She has a very beautiful voice, and her shading and tone colour brings to light some important revelations about the courtesan turned empress. Understandably, a great deal of the blame must be put at the foot of the conductor, John Pritchard, who was of the older generation and understandably somewhat hesitant in conducting Monteverdi. Nonetheless, the RPO plays with polish and beauty, and Pritchard, though somewhat conventional at times, conducts them with ease and intelligence.

But perhaps one should not be so harsh. At the time Leppard made his arrangement of Poppea, the Early Music scene was very much in its proverbial Stone Age. The only other important arrangements before Leppard's were the French-translated d'Indy score of 1904, the gorgeous but excessively Romantic and almost Wagner-esque Benvenuti edition of 1938, and the bizarre and hideous Erich Kraack arrangement for the Wien Staatsoper in 1960 (of which there is a recording, by the way, conducted by none other than Herbert von Karajan). Leppard did a great deal to prompt more research into the operas and vocal works of not only Monteverdi but of other contemporary composers as Cavalli, Caccini, and Cesti. Despite this somewhat saving grace, this should not be anyone's first recording to start with L'Incoronazione di Poppea. Try the Harnoncourt recording on Teldec with Elisabeth Soderstrom and Helen Donath. Or perhaps the Richard Hickox CD with Arleen Auger or the Rene Jacobs interpretation with Jennifer Larmore.

There are a great deal of serious problems with this recording, regarding the voices as well as the orchestration and the overall view of the opera itself.

First of all, Leppard has done a horrible job of "abridging" this score. He cuts out the Prologue, which in my opinion (not that I'm speaking ex cathedra or anything) is tantamount to an ideological and thematic cast of the work as a whole. Cutting the Prologue robs the opera of its proper historical and philosophical context (i.e., that of Venice in 1642). Second, the orchestration, which at first is somewhat delightful in that it is more "digestable" (no well-tempered shawms or viole de braccio here!) than other realisations, just gets plain annoying after a while, not to mention inappropriate. I myself have seen Leppard's realisation in score of the argument scene between Nerone and Seneca, and it is just far too dense and contrived to be entertaining - I mean, all of the continuo is written out in far too great detail to give the listener or musicians any chance to respect the spontaneous spirit of the music. Thirdly, Leppard puts in some just plain bizzare things into the opera, which, to be honest, sounds more like a fuddy-duddy oratorio or cantata than a true Monteverdian work: what's with that odd organ fantasia at the beginning of the scene between Pallade and Seneca? Bizarre. Or all that odd harp playing? Totally inappropriate and out of place, not to mention just plain goofy. The harpsichords have a horribly metallic and unpleasant sound.

Now to the voices. First of all, maybe it's just a bad idea to put a tenor in the role of Nerone in the first place. The only good tenor I've ever heard in the role was the great Giuseppe di Stefano (who, admittedly, does Verdi-fy the role, but whatever works, I suppose) in the 1967 La Scala production with Grace Bumbry - there's a "Highlights" CD on Myto Records, conducted by Bruno Maderna. In any case, Richard Lewis is just plain bloodless and boring; I hate his Italian pronunciation, especially his pronunciation of "infeconda" when he proclaims "Ottavia e infrigidita ed infeconda" in Scene IX with Seneca (that's a sure-fire way of telling how gooding one's pronunciation is). Everything sounds the same. Magda Laszlo as Poppea is okay, but again, kind of boring and nothing to write home about. Of course, some of the blame must be put at the foot of the podium, i.e. Maestro John Pritchard, who was a pretty boring and stuck-up conductor anyway. Everybody else is okay or mediocre. Carlo Cava as Seneca is actually not too bad, but it's obvious that the man is just keeping him down, if you catch my drift. Oralia Dominguez as Arnalta has a pretty nice voice, but I suppose that's her experience speaking.

In conclusion, this is not necessarily the worst performance or recording, but guess what, even though Leppard claims to be more authentic, Benvenuti's 1930s realisation is far better by all means! Of course, my personal favourite recording is the Harnoncourt recording with Soderstrom and Donath. I wish I could find the La Scala 1967 recording somewhere (can you say college research money?). Due to its state and miserable and boring voices and interpretation, this is by all means not the first recording to start with. Good luck. The Virgin Recording with Arleen Auger is also pretty good.