Relevancy

For my last blog entry for the semester, I would like to talk about the key things that I learned from this class. Obviously this class was taught more in the form of an honors seminar, where the students get to discuss ideas about American Opera. This can become frustrating. A more straight forward class, where we would be given direct information and then be expected to regurgitate, would require us to actually think less. In this format, we are encouraged to go learn on our own, discover things that might not be covered in a typical literature or history class. This class was exciting, because we covered topics that could really stir up the blood, both pushing our political, musical, and conceptual ideas to the max. Again, this is very similar purpose to the honors classes that I took at my undergraduate college. We have not been necessarily been shown the great works of American Opera, but rather examples of what American Opera can be. We have examined what makes an opera successful, or unsuccessful, how they can influence political thought, and we have examined how our own culture views opera and how companies market their products by using this genre. It has been eye opening and inspiring. This class would honestly be the most useful for those who produce, market, and stage opera. Just by looking outside of the box, which is never comfortable, we can glean new ideas to continue the dissemination of our wonderful art form. Let's face it, the conservative opera lovers are going to be dead soon. Then what? Opera has always until recently been derived from the resources of the day and influenced by the trends in political thought, literature, and popular music. Let's continue to make our art form relevant. I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't get angry. Listen, think, and learn. For my last blog entry for the semester, I would like to talk about the key things that I learned from this class. Obviously this class was taught more in the form of an honors seminar, where the students get to discuss ideas about American Opera. This can become frustrating. A more straight forward class, where we would be given direct information and then be expected to regurgitate, would require us to actually think less. In this format, we are encouraged to go learn on our own, discover things that might not be covered in a typical literature or history class. This class was exciting, because we covered topics that could really stir up the blood, both pushing our political, musical, and conceptual ideas to the max. Again, this is very similar purpose to the honors classes that I took at my undergraduate college. We have not been necessarily been shown the great works of American Opera, but rather examples of what American Opera can be. We have examined what makes an opera successful, or unsuccessful, how they can influence political thought, and we have examined how our own culture views opera and how companies market their products by using this genre. It has been eye opening and inspiring. This class would honestly be the most useful for those who produce, market, and stage opera. Just by looking outside of the box, which is never comfortable, we can glean new ideas to continue the dissemination of our wonderful art form. Let's face it, the conservative opera lovers are going to be dead soon. Then what? Opera has always until recently been derived from the resources of the day and influenced by the trends in political thought, literature, and popular music. Let's continue to make our art form relevant. I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't get angry. Listen, think, and learn.

We don't have to compromise

So I figured it was about time that I posted a cool video on my blog. I waited until the last two, but hey, better late than never. It's Simone Kermes singing a Vivaldi piece. What I love about it is that it has an appropriate group of period instruments, they play in a stylistically appropriate way, but Simone is dressed in a mix of punk rock and formal style. She also plays up the punk rock actions but also appropriately with the music making a fun, lively performance. This makes for a perfect example of how a classically trained singer can reach out to new audiences without completely changing styles using modern instruments and poppy/belty style. This is awesome. In class, as we've been looking at how our society views opera and how it uses opera to market, I also think about how we can market opera to the masses. This can be done through the similar means of using the fantastic, the beautiful, the outrageous and blurring genres a little bit to invite curiosity. I don't think that a production like Repo will gain interest from the crowds to go to an opera. However, we can learn from the production what is getting people interested to come to such a production. Perhaps the biggest criteria we must examine is the relevancy to modern day. At artists, we must always remember that the operas we are putting on are people and are still relate-able to us today. Simone does a fabulous job of taking an aria that is very old and finding meaning in it that would be enjoyable to a vast variety of peoples. So, we don't have to compromise the music of opera, we just have to remember that we are in the 21st century and find some way to surprise and interest people today, just as the operas of the last three centuries thrilled their audiences.

Vivaldi: Agitata da due venti (Griselda)

Why even bother?

First of all, I must say, that I have only seen a few videos about American Idiot, which have included a preview and a discussion with the director. It is therefore really difficult to make my own final pronouncement about whether or not it's great or art and whether I think it will last or only be a footnote in weird stuff people tried at one point. I will say that it sounds like a freaking awesome way to present the music of Green Day. As I listen to the videos, my blood get stirred up, but it's also the in the same way I get excited when I see Met previews for their productions. I think there is a similarity here, in that American Idiot has a grandiosity to it that is similar to opera. American Idiot seems to be the kind of work that is cool on its own, however, and getting hyped up about whether or not it should be called an opera is unimportant at this point. Only time will tell. What I do have a problem with, are those people who think that this is a good way to introduce people to the more conservative and/or older types of opera. I don't think that will work. Most people who have never been to an opera will still continue to be stuck in their precepts of thinking because American Idiot is so different. They themselves will think, “oh this isn't really opera.” Not us, the ones arguing about whether it is an opera or not. In my experience, most people just need to be shown a good production of an opera, with surtitles, and they're hooked. We don't need help from rock stars. There's a cliché saying about how we like what we know; well, how can we learn to like something we don't? Someone must teach us.

New endeavors

It was really great to have Kaya come and talk to our class about her compositions. There were several things that she said that really stood out to me. The first was that she composes for what's available or needed. I really think this is where ingenuity comes in. I talked before about how Barber had unlimited resources granted to him when composing Anthony and Cleopatra, and this is one of the reasons it was such a big flop. When you have limitations such as staging and even what type of performers are available, you have to be creative about how to overcome those issues. We see examples of this all throughout Western music history. Entire new genres of music were created based on one person's or even a group's particular need. This is why we must be open minded to composers like Kaya, who are willing to step out of the bounds simply to be able to make a living at composing. It is a worthwhile endeavor and extremely important to our culture if we are to continue the creative process without depending solely on the cinema for our entertainment (something I fear is the future for our civilization). The other concept I really enjoyed was her mixing of genres. As we live in a society today that is becoming more global, and more resources than ever are becoming available to us, we must try to make some sense to the sensory overload that is ever present. While I will always be a fan of older operatic styles and feel it is very much worthwhile to see these productions and educate others so that they might also enjoy, I feel like it is still important to always be creating. Finding new ways to say things that is also accessible to others is a worthwhile endeavor.

More ideas

I've been thinking more about what I would like to do for my opera presentation. I mentioned earlier that I would really like to emphasize the educational aspect of the opera, with all of its possibilities. One of Alice Parker's activities is that she travels around to different churches and takes their hymnals and teaches them new hymns that they probably have never heard before. She does this with a call and response format. She emphasizes the aural communication of music over teaching how to read notes. So I was thinking maybe I could do a similar thing where I teach a class one of the choral sections in a similar manner and then do an interactive reading with some other students. It would be a great way to get everyone involved! The only problem is that I only have fifteen minutes so I might not have enough time. There is a section near the beginning that includes a Gregorian chant; perhaps I could teach this quickly and talk about other aspects of the opera as well. There's just such a variety of styles and ideas in the opera that it's difficult to just pick one aspect for fear of misrepresenting the entire opera. Perhaps I could do both the Gregorian chant teaching and sing one of the arias. This would give a better idea of the variety. It would show how Parker incorporates quotations of music as well as compose her own melodies and such.
I've also been thinking of one other idea. The opera incorporates a harmonium in the score. I didn't realize what a harmonium was until I looked it up online. My parents actually have one in their living room! We just always referred to it as a pipe organ. It might be interesting to get a recording of my mom playing it so I could have the class listen to it and give a better idea of how the scores sounds “American.” I think that might be worth while.

Opera Education

For my opera project I decided to look at Alice Parker's opera Martyr's Mirror. It's really interesting because it's written mainly for amateurs in a church setting. But it's extremely adaptable, so it could really work practically anywhere except for a large opera house. I've been scraping my mind as to what to do for my presentation. I haven't quite put my finger on what I would like to do. Of course, there's an aria or two that might be fun and it would be interesting to show Parker's composition style outside of arrangement. However, they are short and do not fully give an idea of what the opera is like or how it incorporates popular tunes from the time period in which it is set. What I would really like to focus on is the education aspect of the opera. I have been very interested, for a while now, in education in opera for people who wouldn't typically go to see opera (which is very nearly everyone, let's be honest). Interesting, is that Alice Parker is also interested in music education and certainly uses the amateur opera to educate, not only about opera, but also about various forms of music. This is not to mention the benefit of a community coming together to work towards the production. I think her opera is a perfect way to get new people in the doors who wouldn't ever step foot into an opera house otherwise. It gives them something they can connect to which would hopefully lead them to making connections to more types of music in their future. So, all this is to say, I would like to present something about the educational aspect of this opera, but I am not quite sure about how to go about that. More about this later.

Crazy ladies

I would like to talk further about the subject of portrayal of women as unstable in opera. I would suppose that if you took a survey of the number of operas which portray women as “loosing it,” or possibly “have already lost it,” and compare it to the number of operas where men “loose it,” (there are a few, Rigoletto comes to mind) there is an overwhelming majority on the side of women “loosing it.” Of course there are reasons for this; mainly the overwhelming continuation of the Aristotelian perpetuation, which makes me wonder did we ever even have a chance to prove ourselves? But I believe there is still redeeming value to these operas which show ladies “flying off the handle.” There is a reason they do. They continue to live and work in environments that are hostile to them, that make them do things that they would rather not do, and deal with people that are unreasonably difficult. It's everybody else's fault. If men were not so difficult and were not so incapable of understanding others (as women are portrayed to be able to do). In the case of A View from the Bridge it's the men who don't do wise things, are unable to take time out to understand. Beatrice has been living in an extraordinary situation. It's understandable that she would have a negative reaction. I think perhaps it would be unrealistic and boring if she didn't. I think we saw examples of her throughout the opera where she tried to make a stand, but this was made impossible but the over-imposing men of the story. We are sympathetic with her and if anything, we come to view men in a more negative light. I am curious to see an opera with a strong women character to see how it would be received. Perhaps this is another example of not being able to see the oppression until it is rejected.

Key to success

After listening to Bolcom's A View from the Bridge I can really see the similarity in styles of writing to Carlyle Floyd and Willie Stark. Maybe I just get caught up in the colloquial use of accents (who would of thought you can actually sing operatically with a New Jersey/New York accent!) The music is wide and disjunct, while still remaining in a frame of tonality. The text is set well, though not particularly with memorable melodies; still the shape of the phrase matches the inflection of the language making it difficult to perceive the story being set in another language. But I would have to say that this story is much more successful than Willie Stark. I feel like I have a better connection with the characters, as if they were people that I could possibly know. I didn't need someone to tell me outside the story to grasp and understand where these people are coming from (though the lawyer was a great touch for setting up the scenario; it was seamless). I was caught up in the story wondering what was going to the characters now. I really feel that this success comes from a good collaboration between composer and librettist. Both need to understand how an opera works theatrically and be able to establish connections for the characters in a short amount of time and therefore make the characters believable and understandable. In Willie Stark, as I said before, I often felt pulled in several different directions; the characters were really unfocused in theirs actions, something that could be attributed to bad acting, but I don't think this is the case. In this opera Bolcom has clearly indicated that he understands the theater, and certainly having a librettist and author who are on board makes for an infallible trio. To fail with such means would be truly regrettable.

It's all about the music

Have you ever noticed that when you go to an opera, even if it's in English, that you get a synopsis of each act? They give the ending away! We know that the lady coloratura is going to go off the deep end, or the lyric is going to die of lung disease and that the tenor is going to stab himself and continue to sing for fifteen minutes but we watch anyway, and somehow we're still intrigued. I suppose it's similar to the movie Apollo 13; unless you are completely devoid of any historical knowledge, you know that they're going to get back and they're going to be okay. (Sorry if you are one of those people.) Still the drama is so exciting that I get drawn in every time. Is Steven Spielberg just that much of a genius, that he can keep us engaged in the story, or is simply a good performance. I'm not writing this blog to analyze Steven Spielberg, but I think it is a worthy comparison. I can't count how many times I've seen Traviata but every time I'm enraptured in the music. Though I haven't seen all of The Aspern Papers I can see how this would also be the case. Just from these two scenes I found myself completely absorbed in the story even though what they were saying was not particularly interesting or deep. It was definitely the music that pulled me in and held me leaving me wanting more. And when you think about it, that's what opera is, a story that is amplified by the music. The music makes it a better story, or why else would we spend all of our time doing it? Argento has certainly proved himself an apt composer for incorporating bel canto elements into a more modern style. I would like to hear more.

Revisiting an old question

For this post I would like to discuss the question posed by Alyssa in class the other day. She re-asked the question of what constitutes an American opera? In the case of the Aspern Papers, we see an American composer setting a novel by an writer who is really an amalgamation of both American and English properties and the setting of the book is definitely not set in an American atmosphere. So quite justly the question is asked, can this still be considered American? We posed the same question at the beginning of the semester and many of the answers were things such as American opera includes more indigenous or folk-like elements, deals with such ideas as Manifest Destiny etc. But I would argue that American opera has to include many other elements that would not necessarily be defined as American. I would also have to say that the idea of America of the 80's and 90's (is it safe to say we all grew up around this time?) is much different from the idea of America that is evolving. It is an America that is rejecting nationalistic notions and embracing a more global perspective. Certainly we've seen foreign subjects set by composers already in this class. John Adams recently composed an opera called The Flowering Tree sets an Indian folk story. Of course, Adams notes that even though a composer may take considerable effort not to impose their own musical idioms reaped from his or her own culture upon a subject from a different perspective, those influences are inevitably going to sneak in. Really, in the end the one qualification for American opera must be that the composer is primarily American or has had significant exposure to American culture.

Believable

For the past couple of days I've pondered upon Carlyle Floyd's opera Willie Stark and whether the story was successful to me from the music or from the story. I was entertained with the story; not entertained with laughing or enjoyment, but I was engaged with the story, empathized with the characters and took away a new perspective on a few subjects that our society tends to grapple with. It was fascinating to see a character that apparently began with good intentions, but for various reasons shown to the audience was pulled down a long road of corruption. It is my opinion that the concept is very engaging, however Carlyle Floyd's talents do not rest in reworking a story for a libretto. We only see the sub-story or background through the radio announcements, something that really interrupts the action of the story, took me by surprise every time and left me thinking “what the heck?” The only character that was really well fleshed out was Willie Stark. All the other characters were not and therefore they were not as believable. One could attribute this to poor acting, but I believe that the singers in the LSU production were pretty decent. The music displays a lot of mood swings, or change of thoughts, leaving me thinking that the characters were not well driven and frankly lacked an attention span. One character that did work was the secretary lady, but we are only introduced to her in the last act, which also threw me for a loop. Also, the love triangle was most peculiar. I didn't believe that Anne loved Willie. This may have been intentional, but I am left with no other thoughts as to what might have been going on there. I want to know why. She had lots of monologues but I don't really remember what she said, nor was I moved by her situation. I think that this can be tied back to the ability of the music to tie the story together as a whole. Music has the ability to help pull the audience in and heighten the drama of the story helping to connect the proverbial dots. The music, while perhaps interesting and helpful at some points, fails as a collective in this opera. I really wish the Floyd had gotten at least a lyricist to help him with this one. It has so much potential.

The Universal Big Bang Theory

I would like to talk more about the clichés and stereotypes brought up in class regarding Willie Stark. I think that just because certain aspects are commonplace or recognizable does not necessarily make is a blatant stereotype. I really enjoy watching The Big Bang Theory which is about four physicists. Normally, we would all think that such group could never be accessible to the public let alone funny and entertaining. Yet these four characters exhibit characteristics that we all see every day. Everyone knows a Sheldon. Some would say that these characters are stereotypical. But it is exactly this that allows others who are not physicists to enjoy this show. While I was watching Willie Stark I was swept up in the story because the character of Willie Stark was so believable. I recall a certain pastor from my childhood who used many of the same rhetorical tactics to preach the gospel to his congregation. Even more so, I began to make connections to thoughts about recent politics. I began to ask why someone goes into politics and I began to see another side to why politics become so corrupt. Because these stereotypes had so much truth to them, I was able to make connections and sympathize with figures previously beyond my fathoming imagination. I believe that stereotypes are what make stories universal and timeless. Like a Mozart Opera or a Jane Austin novel, there has to be elements for the reader to make connections. What's important is that there is intention or reason behind the stereotype in order to make believable. That is something debatable in Willie Stark. For sure, good acting is an essential part of this opera. The music by itself does not carry the story well. In the end, I think that Carlyle Floyd could have used a little help in the writing of the libretto. Some aspects were just very strange like the use of the radio to tell the back story.

A Clarification

Last class time I blurted out everything I thought about staging Satyagraha. Because most of the time I think much faster than I can speak everything comes out a gurgly mess. (If we can use the f-word, I'm hoping that I can use the word gurgly.) Therefore I would like to clarify the things I liked about the German production and things I would like to see in another. First, I felt that the first act was way too busy and distracting. While this was really frustrating at first, I felt it conveyed well, the lack of focus in the world and possibly also Gandhi's life. Some of the text from the Bhagavhad-Gita talked about finding meaning in your life's work. This showed that even the smallest jobs can take on a deeper meaning in one's life. However, if I were staging this, I might not make the vignettes so strange to not shock the audience. I feel like it distracts from the main purpose of the first act. A lot of the staging was purely artistic such as the scenes with the letters and the scene towards the end with the continuously adjusting ribbons of color. The process of formation of these scenes really amplified the music, making me actually pay more attention to the music. I think we can all agree that the neon light sign with Martin Luther King's name in the third act was a bit silly. Even though this act was very powerful with the progressive snap shots showing Gandhi's ideas spreading, showing Martin Luther King's encounters with Gandhi (reading a book about him, seeing him in the news at a movie theater, etc.) would have made the third act especially moving. I could also see mirror actions, implying both of their assassinations. Certainly, I think that cheaper production could be made using multimedia images pertaining to the grand ideas of the Bhagavhad-Gita and still have a very moving performance. Some suggested in the last class that Cirque-du-soleil would be a nice addition. While, I have every confidence that a show of this type could be very well adapted to the music of Philip Glass, I feel that the extraordinary feats would really detract from the story. Though, sad to say, I have never seen a Cirque-du-soleil show.

Stubborn

One of the first things I think about when I see a production of an opera is what other people will think of it. Perhaps I should focus on whether I enjoyed the production or whether it inspired me in some way. I can't particularly help it. I'm a big believer in the genre of opera and one of my career goals is to educate others to look beyond the stereotypes that most people think of for opera. I want people to know that if they open their minds a little bit, they can attend an opera and not only understand what is going on, but actually enjoy it. So often when judging an opera I would prefer if it were more accessible to the masses while maybe pushing their expectations a little further from their comfort zone. But after watching Philip Glass's Satyagraha, I think I may have to change my mind. I'm not going to lie; when I first watched it, it put me in a state of depression. It had almost the same effect as alcohol, amplifying the mood you're already have. The opera has such long scenes of repeated text not to mention the fact that it centers on a culture that is so beyond my comfort zone that I have a hard time remembering the simplest, most common facts. But in the end I'm glad I watched it. I learned from it, and by exposing myself to another culture and its literature I feel ready for another venture to push myself in a similar way. In the end, I don't think really anyone likes to be pushed to try new things. And while we may kick and scream at change, ultimately I think we at least come to a better understanding. Or maybe I'm just stubborn.

Give me a plot!

So decided to look a little at the music of the opera Vanessa, Barber's successful opera that started the path to his commission for Antony and Cleopatra. I wanted to see how the music and libretto was different and if this contributed to the disappointment of the later. In the first few minutes I can see why Antony and Cleopatra was such a flop especially if the Metropolitan director was such a traditionalist and wanted something more accessible. Antony and Cleopatra is much more text and idea driven, whereas Vanessa is much more plot driven. Let's face it, Shakespearean language is not impossible to understand but these days it requires the average person to use more brain power to ponder the words in order to fully appreciate its power and efficacy. Certainly when it is performed well and with proper intent, the text becomes more accessible however, most likely the audience still misses some important statements and ideas. When I say it is not immediately accessible, I am not saying that audiences are not able to appreciate or understand at all, but rather than in comparison to opera that focuses on action, audiences are more likely to “tune out” and become bored. An opera such as Il barbier di Siviglia would be much more enjoyable to an audience first experiencing opera because there is a lot of action; one doesn't have to think as much and therefore the experience is more entertaining. Vanessa provides the perfect balance of action for entertainment but also a bizarre story that makes the audience think without necessarily being aware of it. I would never suggest someone go to see a Wagner opera for their first opera; that is not to say that there is not value or that it is completely inaccessible. But generally the first thing people think of when they think of opera is Brunhilde with a Viking helmet and boring, therefore it is not immediately accessible. Barber's Antony and Cleopatra is also in this same vein. Put in context with the audience for this performance it is certainly understandable why the opera was not a success. This does not undercut the fact that the music does not have worth or is able to touch audiences when properly staged which we all know was a big factor in its accessibility.

Infinite

One of my favorite films of all time is The Legend of 1900. I highly recommend it. It's about this boy born on a ship traveling between England and the United States. He is raised by a crew member and never leaves the ship. However, he somehow learns to play the piano and creates wonderful music unlike anyone has ever heard. As the grown musician considers the daunting prospect of leaving the confines of the ship and exploring the infinite world he remarks that there are 88 keys on a piano and on those 88 keys you can play infinite music, but what would happen if you had an infinite number of keys? How would you choose even one? Commonly, when we create a work of art in the form of staging we have limited resources. There's only so much money you can spend on performers, musicians, props, costumes and staging. You have a limited amount of time that you can rehearse and often times the performance space is very limited. Yet with these limitations countless of memorable, fabulous, touching performances are achieved for the audiences. Mozart's operas come to mind as I think of how he many times composed operas so quickly out of necessity yet they are of the most memorable in the opera repertoire. This may explain why I think that Barber's Antony and Cleopatra was such big flop. Perhaps for the first time in the history of opera, there was practically unlimited resources available for production of an American Opera for the inauguration of the new Metropolitan Opera House. The eyes of the world was on this production. Barber had unlimited resources at his disposal; he could have any poet he wanted, practically any subject matter he wanted yet he chose a dead, English poet that is often the fall back for many composers. Zeffirelli as well had unlimited resources which he certainly managed to show off. The unfortunate disconnect between the introverted music and the bombastic staging is the most obvious reason for the failure. But I would hypothesize that the greatest art is created when elements are synced purely out of the necessity to create, inspire and entertain. This opera from the beginning of its production missed the point of the art form and therefore was a failure.

Pushing Politics

I find it fascinating that we don't remember the works Aaron Copland produced after he stepped down from the political spot-light. However, Leonard Bernstein who continued to push his point of view also continued to produce works that are still conscious in our minds. After thinking of other composers of the past, I wonder if this is a constant connection between endurance of works through the ages and a political point of view that the composer is trying to stress. I wonder if such modern day groups as U2 and Green Day would be quite as popular if they did not convey a political message. Though there are also many successful artists and groups that have not pushed political agendas. Think about Beethoven 9's brotherhood of mankind, or his Symphony no. 3, originally dedicated to Napoleon; or perhaps Mozart, though his political views may not be quite as apparent in his works, he still conveys Masonic ideals in his operas and orchestral works. Even Johann Sebastian Bach in a way conveyed a political perspective through his constant devotional music which showed support for the Lutheran church also a political institution. In the end while it may not be necessary for a work to be political to popular during the composer's lifetime, it is almost without exception that we remember the works of composers who pushed the proverbial creative envelope. Those who were not only a product of their culture but those who reacted and used their medium as a form of persuasion.

Productions for profit

Class discussions today focused on production aspects from the productions we have watched and our own thoughts as to what would constitute not only a fabulous performance but a meaningful one as well. Discussion seemed to focus on the pros and cons of three different performances. The first is the London Symphony Orchestra with Bernstein conducting and Jerry Hadley as Candide and June Anderson as Cunegonde. The staging is by far the most simple as the singers are arranged in an oratorio form, dressed for concert with the chorus standing behind the orchestra. The second production is the Live on Broadway performance with Kristen Chenoweth as Cunegonde and Patti LuPone as the old lady. While the staging is minimal the characters are dressed in costumes and interact with orchestra and chorus. The third produced at Le Chatelet in France is by far the most complexly staged and politically poignant productions. The conversation quickly turned to aspects we liked and disliked with some pointing out that the Broadway version was too optimistic and made its primary focus the too huge stars of the show rather than focusing on the real meat of the story, Candide's loss of innocence and discovery of balance with Cunegonde. Criticism was also given to the Le Chatelet version as it was too pessimistic and political making too many references to modern day politics. I think that all three are valid and enjoyable. They each focus on certain points they want to make a direct attention using the material available through the story. The Broadway version is directed more towards being light entertainment; there's not much to shock the audience or necessarily make them think. Though it could also be said that the Chatelet version is directed to a certain audience with a specific political and world view and therefore doesn't urge them to think as well. There are many themes and ideas that can be brought out of this story. I watched the oratorio styled performance all the way through and learned from it the importance of balance especially in optimism and pessimism (we see this in Pangloss's antithesis) and the importance of continuing to struggle and make a better world in the face of misery and strife. I took away these themes without pretty costumes or cool effects, anything added perhaps directs focus only. For instance, in the oratorio production I particularly enjoyed the scene with the kings singing about the simple life. I was brought to consider the possibility that leaders may show great pomp speaking well and fluently, but they might not have much to say that is really important. This is really emphasized by the king who simply grunts recalling an idea of a cave man king who may seem important to other cave men but looks rather silly to us. The Chatelet version characterizes the kings as important political figures such as Boris Yeltsin, George W. Bush and Tony Blair but dialogue had to be added and various aspects of the original music had to be changed including the exclusion of the cave man saying “ug” only to be included towards the end with Boris Yeltsin taking the part which is doesn't really make as much sense. In the end, it is most important that a production should keep the balance of both the optimistic and pessimistic aspects of the opera. The music and story will take care of itself in maintaining its poignance.