Franz Schreker

[minacciosa]

What's the big deal about a tune? It's not that kind of opera. However, there is at least one. Act 3, "Ah, welche Nacht".

Rather confirms my point, not yours!

It would confirms your point if one views all operas from the standard of equality of intent and execution. My point is that not all operas are vessels for tunes, rather the melodic flow is dictated by its material and the aesthetic of the composer. It's interesting that the homespun criticisms leveled at some Schreker operas are rarely aimed at Berg's operas, works that are equally arid in their paucity of stereotypical opera tunes. For these two composers (and others like the aforementioned Respighi) that kind of criticism is wrong because it approaches the works from a perspective that all operas should display the same qualities and satisfy the same expectations without regard to the highly individual orientations and intent of their composers. You cannot judge an apple from the perspective of a persimmon.

[Alan Howe]

Why, then, mention the tune in Act 3 if it's not that kind of opera?

[Mark Thomas]

Minacciosa makes a fair enough point as regards the composer's success in achieving what he wanted to achieve. The other side of the coin, though, is whether the piece works as a rounded work of art in the view of his audience. I must say that I very much enjoy the impression which Schrecker's music gives but that I can remember nothing of it once it has finished. Personally, I find that an unsatisfying experience. So for me, whilst Schrecker might have achieved admirably what he set out to do, what he set out to do isn't what I want from opera. That may make me shallow and unitellectual but there it is.

[albion]

Why, then, mention the tune in Act 3 if it's not that kind of opera?

It is worth mentioning and considering: Ah, welche Nacht stands out quite markedly in Die Gezeichneten as a whole - it is a long, baldy diatonic tune, sung mostly in unison and much more recognisable as the type of long-breathed, easily-assimilated melody one might expect in such a work. Interestingly, Schreker's text and the dramatic situation associate it with the intoxification and decadent artifice of the island of Elysium, and the simple-minded gullibility of the pleasure-seeking populace.

I don't think that Schreker's choice of idiom for this passage is coincidental. It is intended to stand apart from the main body of the (mostly parlando) composition in a way that suggests that the characters singing it and the situation they find themselves in are highly questionable and are clinging hopelessly to a dangerous unreality. With Ah, welche Nacht Schreker confirms that he is more than capable of writing melodies (as he also proved in his early one-acter Flammen, the early Symphony in A minor, the Chamber Symphony and, right at the end of his life, the Vorspiel zu einer grossen Oper), but generally deliberately chose not to so in the operas unless to make a point.

There is no more reason why an opera should have to have wall-to-wall melodies (to be successful in its own terms) than a work in any other genre - many symphonic composers have got along quite nicely without them. Schreker saw his operas first and foremost as psychological dramas: if a sixteen-bar regularly-phrased melody would not suit his (usually) very irregular characters he simply did not think it appropriate to put one into their mouths. By striving to avoid his audience focussing exclusively on music which would detract from the impact of his text and dramaturgy, it might be argued that Schreker produced his own type of verism.

[minacciosa]

Exactly.

[Mark Thomas]

Indeed, and that's fine and no doubt Schrecker does it all very well. I intend no criticism of him when I say that, despite all Schrecker's ingenuity and artistry which Albion has set out so lucidly, the end result does little for me except the enjoyment of the passing musical scenery. No doubt it's my loss but, given the relative popularity of Schrecker and Strauss and his melodies, it's a loss shared by many.

[Alan Howe]

I understand - I think. I just don't find this sort of operatic project terribly successful in listening terms. BTW I'm not talking here of the need for wall-to-wall melodic writing (that would be to misrepresent my point); rather I'm talking about what I perceive not simply to be an artistic choice, but actually an aesthetic shortcoming on Schreker's part. In other words, there's an awful lot of sung conversation to sit through and very little to get hold of on the way. I think I understand the composer's intention, but the question is: does it work? And for me the answer is definitely not. It just induces a yearning for rather more recognisable melodic features on this richly orchestrated, but vocally uninteresting landscape.
The comparisons, incidentally, with Respighi do not pass water at all. Extensive melodic invention is to be found everywhere in his operas, both early (e.g. Semirama) and late (e.g. La fiamma).

[Alan Howe]

There is no more reason why an opera should have to have wall-to-wall melodies (to be successful in its own terms) than a work in any other genre - many symphonic composers have got along quite nicely without them.

I agree - if you extend this forward in time to include the modernists. However, since we have been talking here of Die Gezeichneten (completed in 1915), perhaps you could name some examples of great symphonies (after all, it is greatness that is being claimed for Schreker's operas) written no later than this date which have got along nicely without a fund of melodic invention...?

[albion]

I agree - if you extend this forward in time to include the modernists.

Schreker may be considered ahead of his time. Why should he be 'locked' into a historical straight-jacket (arbitrarily placed c. 1915)?

it is greatness that is being claimed for Schreker's operas

I'm not doing so - the term smacks too much of 'masterpiece'.

perhaps you could name some examples of great symphonies [...] written no later than this date which have got along nicely without a fund of melodic invention...?

Would it be relevant if I could, given the point about historical pigeon-holing?

[Alan Howe]

Methinks there is some wriggling going on here. My rejoinder would simply be that Schreker fails the test of memorability that would apply across the board to the finest compositions of his era - which is a perfectly natural framework against which to assess his music.

[Gareth Vaughan]

I don't want to get enbroiled this discussion, but I would like to say that I enjoy Schreker very much and I rate him highly as an opera composer. But then I also like Berg's Lulu and Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre.

[minacciosa]

Indeed, and that's fine and no doubt Schrecker does it all very well. I intend no criticism of him when I say that, despite all Schrecker's ingenuity and artistry which Albion has set out so lucidly, the end result does little for me except the enjoyment of the passing musical scenery. No doubt it's my loss but, given the relative popularity of Schrecker and Strauss and his melodies, it's a loss shared by many.

Sounds like you're getting into that rating thing. Truthfully, who can say? Strauss had advantages that Schreker did not, such as not being Jewish, not having his works banned at the height of their popularity (which rivaled Strauss'). not having publishers remove his titles from their catalogues and refuse to supply material for performance, not having his life torn asunder by being sacked from an eminent position (which led to Schreker's early death), all which resulted in nearly seventy years of total silence during which Schreker was neither performed nor written about, so completely was he consumed by the Nazis' berufsverbot. Taking this into account makes it impossible to assess relative merits like popularity.

[minacciosa]

I understand - I think. I just don't find this sort of operatic project terribly successful in listening terms. BTW I'm not talking here of the need for wall-to-wall melodic writing (that would be to misrepresent my point); rather I'm talking about what I perceive not simply to be an artistic choice, but actually an aesthetic shortcoming on Schreker's part. In other words, there's an awful lot of sung conversation to sit through and very little to get hold of on the way. I think I understand the composer's intention, but the question is: does it work? And for me the answer is definitely not. It just induces a yearning for rather more recognisable melodic features on this richly orchestrated, but vocally uninteresting landscape.
The comparisons, incidentally, with Respighi do not pass water at all. Extensive melodic invention is to be found everywhere in his operas, both early (e.g. Semirama) and late (e.g. La fiamma).

I have yet to hear it, thought what's there is quite enjoyable. Respighi is great, though an analogy with tennis comes to mind: as a composer he's like the player that has an incredibly whopping big serve that overshadows everything else in his game; nothing else comes close to that level of achievement. Such is Respighi, and orchestration is his big serve. And of course I love his major works.

[albion]

Methinks there is some wriggling going on here.

Sorry, but I can't let this insult stand. I can assure you that there is no wriggling - perhaps my points have not been made with enough clarity. Whether or not Schreker's music deserves the accolade of 'greatness' is not within my remit to say - but I would emphasise that I, and many others (including other members of this forum), clearly do enjoy it and regard it as significant and valuable and should not therefore be continually called upon to belabour 'defensive' points. More immediately, the continuing demand for unsung 'masterpieces' as opposed to unsung composers is quite wearying, especially when repeated attacks are somewhat gratuitously inserted into threads when the antipathy of the author has already been clearly articulated. To request that perhaps you could name some examples of great symphonies [...] written no later than [1915] which have got along nicely without a fund of melodic invention is deliberately provocative and I would once more question its absolute relevance in a discussion which has sought to suggest that Schreker was in many ways an innovator.

My rejoinder would simply be that Schreker fails the test of memorability that would apply across the board to the finest compositions of his era - which is a perfectly natural framework against which to assess his music.

With respect, he fails it in your opinion (which is quite as it should be), but (fortunately for Schreker) your opinion is not universally held. I would have thought that it was patently obvious that if (hypothetically) an author in any discipline is writing ahead of his time and thus innovating he cannot be judged solely by the conventions of his immediate epoch: clearly the idea of the post-Romantic 'modernist' in Schreker appears to immediately negate his value. Nevertheless, his operas (Der ferne Klang, Die Gezeichneten and Der Schatzgraber) were enormously popular with post-1918 audiences who found in them a new voice.

Clearly this is going nowhere in terms of a wider discussion on Schreker and his music, other than "is he a 'good' or a 'bad' composer", which is a pity as other members of the forum clearly have interesting ideas and experiences which they might like to be able to share.

[Alan Howe]

You are probably right, John. The discussion has undoubtedly run its course. Of course, I apologise sincerely that you felt insulted by my remarks. Be assured, though, that I will continue to acquire more recordings of Schreker's music and persist in my quest - also shared by many others - to find in him that which you obviously find so easily, but which remains for me, at present at any rate, totally elusive.