They've done Sweeney Todd...

They've done The Magic Flute quite a lot ...

But virtually every version staged nowadays is further arranged by somebody else, for ever increasingly strange instrumental combinations : following Reiner's argument we shouldn't we also have to pour similar scorn on Wolfie's Messiah, or Shostakovich's take on Boris? It's one of those pieces which can be updated in countless ways: the Britten one deserves to be heard occasionally on its own terms as an example of the work of a particularly skillful arranger - the last professional London performances I'm aware of were in the late 60s by the E.O.G.

It's about as much of a musical as is Zauberflöte, for my money....

I'm not pouring scorn, Ron - but in both those cases, the originals do get heard very frequently    I love MESSIAH with clarinets, believe me - but not every time, please? 

Of course the ROH have performed SWEENEY TODD (and I'm delighted they've done so!) - but I am not sure Sondheim meets the requirement of "a proper operatic composer", since he's not written any operas (or at least, works, that he's chosen to designate as such).

I can't remember hearing FIDELIO called a "musical" either, somehow.  Don B, I believe it was the ROH Press Release that used the term "musical", wasn't it?

No reference to the fatal m word in the press release that I can see.  As it was first performed at Covent Garden in 1732 and its previous success had enabled Rich to build the theatre in the first place (according to the press r) it sounds highly appropriate on ground of historic piety.  I am not sure that the original orchestration, if any, of the airs survive, in which case there is bound to be a realisation played.  And the Britten one surely deserves an outing in its own right.

And it was!  They'd substantially reworked the piece (lots of cuts, re-orchestrated, original vocal material turned into dance numbers etc).  I have no problem with them doing any of this - if it produces a gripping evening in the theatre then the ends justify the means.  However, often the results are poor - I saw a "musical" version of PORGY & BESS which was so poor I left at half-time.  I fear that in many cases impresarios wits are turned by the hope of big bucks from the word "musical".

But it would be desirable that the original also remains in the repertoire too... and in the case of THE BEGGARS OPERA, the original's been shunned

It's being staged at the Linbury, which is an ideal venue for this kind of work.  I noticed they've kept schtumm about who's singing Lucy Lockit...  I rather hope they might have a sparky singing actress up their sleeves for this?  You're absolutely right there's a danger of it becoming bogged-down in the grand-egos of singers who want to show off their vocalism, and it mustn't become that.  The piece stayed in constant repertoire until the 1830s at least, and was a great favourite with public.  It was usually performed then by singing actors, rather than by opera performers - with the exception that Macheath was usually a popular singer such as Kelly or Braham. By the end of the C18th it was also given in "panto" cross-dressing versions, with men playing Lucy Lockit and Jenny Diver, and a female Macheath (a role in which Sarah Siddons excelled).  Burlesque versions (with the players dressed as animals) were also popular.

I like "anti-opera"   It mocked the entire "opera" genre, presenting cutpurses, highwaymen, crooked lawyers and molls where one expected to find the heroes and heroines of classical literature.

(To be honest, I'd rather see the National Theatre stage the piece, with a small baroque band).


"The Beggar's Opera Burlesqu'd" - note the size of the band, just a continuo group

Edit: concurrence with Ron about doing it at the NT before seeing his post