Talk:Boris Godunov (opera)

Synopsis: Cathedral Scene Intro

Working of political machinery? I hope noone will object the deletion of this sentence.Red Plum 23:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that remark. It is obviously a subjective interpretation. Nevertheless, it is an apt interpretation. Mussorgsky's intent in making the addition to the preceding scene (Novodevichiy Monastery) of the policeman (not present in the Pushkin drama), with his insistent hammering motif, is to depict the agents of Boris engineering his accession to the throne by force, if necessary, against the will of the powerless, ignorant, and exploited people. The mysterious and somewhat sinister introduction to the "Coronation Scene" evokes (to me at least) a great mechanical wheel (or clock) of fate that has been set in motion, initiating the tragedy that unfolds later in the opera. Regarding this passage as merely a colorful introduction of bell sounds does a disservice to the composer's psychological genius. However, since Wikipedia does not condone subjective remarks or personal research, you may remove it if you wish. Ivan Velikii 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Boy Soprano

1) Would the person who added "Boy Soprano" to the Roles-Fyodor-Voice section (or anyone else for that matter) please give evidence that the composer provided this option? It may be an occasional practice (the Rostropovich recording is the only example of which I am aware), however unless the composer sanctioned this practice in written form, it should not be mentioned, IMHO. Ivan Velikii 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2) I have reverted an edit made to add "boy soprano" to the roles table for the second time, and will continue to do so until the anonymous editor quotes a musicological authority who provides a historical justification for this practice. Ivan Velikii

Duplicate scene

Regarding edit by Pompervoor: Undid your revision removing duplicated scene (Yurodiviy & Urchins) from synopsis. That is the way the composer left the score. Perhaps you are making the synopsis conform to the cut version of Act 4, which is used only when including the "St. Basil's Scene" and "Kromi Scene" in the same performance (see under Performance Practice) Ivan Velikii 07:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian Names

Please don't change the spelling of the Russian names in this article, unless you at least identify yourself and provide a very good reason. I have reverted the edits of Fyodor to Feodor, Kseniya to Xenia, and (oddly) Mityukha to Mitiukha. I did change the -skiy suffixes to the conventional -sky as I can see I am fighting a losing battle on that front. However, Kseniya, Fyodor, and Mityukha are superior to Xenia, Feodor, and Mitiukha, because they are:

1) More Russian

2) More accurate transliterations

3) More accurate pronunciations

Perhaps these changes were made to conform to the spellings often encountered in recording librettos, or are more traditional. These are both poor reasons to change these spellings.

I know 'Fyodor' is sometimes pronounced with 3 syllables (even in the opera by the title character!) but the 2-syllable version is more consistent. And yes, 'Xenia' was perhaps derived from a Greek/Byzantine name which used an 'x', but anyone can see the Russian version has a 'k' at the beginning ('Aleksandr' is superior to 'Alexander' for similar reasons). And 'Mitiukha' can acquire a 4th syllable with this spelling (BTW: Can anyone explain why the chorus leaves off the 3rd syllable in the 1st scene?)

I have been working on this article for some time, and am personally responsible for more than 99% of the text (and all the pictures) as it now stands. I think that entitles me to some latitude in small matters of spelling.

With all the lacunae in Wikipedia, I think there are better places to make contributions or edits, unless you have something really important to say about this work. Ivan Velikii 06:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky Vs. Mussorgsky

If I remember correctly, Tchaikovsky has made some comments concerning Boris Godunov, and on Mussorgsky in general, and vice versa. Does anyone can quote? AdamChapman 18:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Calvocoressi: "...there was in Moscow a strong opposition to Mussorgsky's music. Tchaikovsky, while acknowledging that it did not lack power, deplored its clumsiness and ugliness. Sergey Taneyev ...loathed and derided it." Mussorgsky in a letter quotes some remarks Tchaikovsky (whom he refers to as "Sadyk-Pasha", and a "worshipper of pure musical beauty") made upon hearing the him play portions of 'Boris' at a gathering. Hearing the 'Parrot Song' he "effervesced furiously" and was shocked by the Polonaise. Tchaikovsky's comments, overheard by Mussorgsky, were "Has power... but wastes it" and "...would be useful to work at ...a symphony (in regular form, of course)." If I remember correctly, Tchaikovsky makes some interesting comments about Mussorgsky in his letters to N. von Meck (which I do not have at hand, perhaps someone else can quote). Ivan Velikii 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The remarks by Tchaikovsky that I put at the beginning of the Critical Reception section sum up pretty well his attitude towards Mussorgsky, his music, and Boris Godunov. Ivan Velikii 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Marina's part

The article puts Marina as a mezzo-soprano. I know her role is quite low for a soprano, and that in Rimsky-Korsakov's score she is a mezzo indeed, but originally the part was written for Julia Platnova, who was I believe a soprano. Moreover, the part has also been sung by sopranos afterwards, like Vishnevskaya, who recorded both Rimsky's version and the original. So is it truly a mezzo role, or soprano, or both? AdamChapman 15:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked, but cannot find the answer to this mystery. Somebody please solve this one. Ivan Velikii 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I possess three scores for BG: Two Rimsky versions (one piano/vocal, the other full score) and one 1872 Mussorgsky (piano/vocal). All three label Marina a mezzo role. All of the recordings I can see of the Mussorgsky orchestrations cast mezzos in the part. Given what the scores say and the performance history, I'd say calling the role mezzo is perfectly fair until there's evidence presented otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.187.255 (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Number opera

It's written in he article that "Boris Godunov is essentially a number opera". There are indeed numbers in the opera, but I think that calling it a number opera is exaggerated. AdamChapman 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I put that remark there, mainly after reading Wikipedia's article on musical numbers. But truthfully, I am not qualified to make that remark and will remove it (there are probably many more of my remarks that need support by musical authorities). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can call this one. Ivan Velikii 08:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That remark seems to fit The Fair at Sorochyntsi a lot better, come to think of it, with so many detachable numbers (the Parobok's and Parasya's dumkas, Khivrya's song, the Gopak, just to mention the ones I thought of immediately!). Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Performance history outside Russia

I will be happy if someone could add information about the performance history outside Russia. I mean premieres in France, USA, UK, etc. It will be also nice if someone can provide with some of the critical receptions of these performances. AdamChapman (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can add what I know, but I only know that Rimsky's second version had its premier in 1908 in France with Chaliapin as Boris and Diaghilev's ballet. There is also an interesting point to make that one of Mahler's "songs of the earth" begins exactly like the scene in the cell from Boris Godunov. It is mentioned in the backcover of Ferrier's LP recording. I wonder if Mahler has heard Boris Godunov at all by that time, because both had their premiers in 1908. AdamChapman (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The US Premiere of Mussorgsky's original score isn't mentioned, presumably because it was a concert performance and not an operatic production. Also, it was a conflation of the two editions. On November 29, 1929, Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra gave what his biographer described as "the first such performance outside Russia of a compendium of the two versions. Stokowski kept the dark and primitive quality of the first edition and retained the very effective Polish Scenes, just as Shostakovich did over two decades later, although they are not part of the first version." (Oliver Daniel: 'Stokowski', published 1982, page 219.) The cast included Richard Crooks as Dimitry and Shuisky, Sophie Braslau as Marina, George Baklanoff as Boris, and Herbert Gould as Pimenn. The performances (there were three altogether) took place in the Philadelphia Academy of Music. In 1952, Stokowski recorded highlights from the Rimsky-Korsakov edition, with Nicola Rossi-Lemeni as Boris and the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra and Opera Chorus (Cala Records). Stokowski also devised a 25-minute purely orchestral Symphonic Synthesis of Boris Godunov which introduced some of the opera's themes to concert audiences. He recorded it several times and it has also been recorded by Oliver Knussen, Jose Serebrier and Matthias Bamert. Philipson55 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Instrumentation

Why all instruments are with caps like Oboe, English horn, and not oboe, english horn, etc.? OboeCrack (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Performance History

I removed recent additions to the Performance History section, for the following reasons:

1. The title of the table is "Important Premieres". The performances added may be notable, but are not premieres. The table lists the St. Petersburg and Moscow premieres of each important version of the work, as well as the first performance abroad (Paris), and also premieres in English-speaking countries (this is English Wikipedia).
2. The page is already long (I have read complaints about it), and the Performance History section is already growing too large. If we continue to add performance data, we will soon (if we have not already) overwhelm readers with too much detail. I have not started the Analysis section yet, nor several other sections that may be cause for more grumbling over article length.
3. Additions to the table featured Cyrillic versions of names and links to Russian language Wikipedia. Although I am comfortable with that, I believe there is a policy that forbids this practice.
4. There were a few factual errors concerning versions and conductors.

Finally, my actions can always be reversed by majority rule. Although I reverse a lot of changes, most of my actions are justifiable. I do not have a lock on this page. --Ivan Velikii

Division of Synopsis in Acts/Scenes

I removed the recent addition of Acts/Scenes to the synopsis for the following reasons:

1. It makes the table of contents long, complicated, and unsightly. The few people who need to read about only one particular scene will not mind scrolling around a little to find it.
2. The composer made two versions of the opera (this is the reason I did not originally list the acts and scenes). The division as applied arbitrarily chooses the 1872 version. Readers should make up their own minds which version should take precedence.
3. The division as applied sanctions the practice of conflation. Readers should make up their own minds about the acceptability of conflation.
4. The composer designated the Kromi Scene Act 4, Scene 2 (not Scene 3 as listed). Is the anonymous editor ready to claim Musorgsky did not know what he was doing, and that allotting three scenes to Act 4 is a more effective plan?
5. The two ways the composer allotted the Acts/Scenes are discussed in detail in the "Versions" section (it isn't as if this vital information has been left out). Also, the basic function of the Synopsis is unaffected by this issue.

71.111.28.14 (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Ivan Velikii

If any version is going to take precedence, it probably ought to be the 1872 one, as the 1869 version was enthusiastically recasted and expanded to form the 1872 one by Musorgsky himself. I am against conflating the two versions, although I can understand why this anonymous editor would have done so some years ago – for (unfortunately), that is the way the opera is commonly performed (which avoids sacrificing beautiful music like the confrontation between Boris and the yuródivïy in the St. Basil's scene at the expense of causing a ridiculous repetition), and so would likely be more familiar than either the pure 1869 or the pure 1872 version to him or her. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe not so ridiculous after all. It is very affecting... Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflation

An editor cut the last paragraph of "performance practice", the one stating that conflating the two versions of the opera and restoring all cuts (creating the so-called "super-saturated" version) has negative consequences.

1. Should an editor cut correctly footnoted, factually correct, and relevant material without investigating the veracity of the information?
2. Conflation in Boris Godunov is a controversial issue and is worthy of more discussion. Two regrettable consquences of presenting the super-saturated version are provided in the cut paragraph. Indeed, let readers make up their own minds whether conflation is acceptable. Giving a list of pros (already given in the first paragraph) and cons (the paragraph under dispute) gives a reader a balance of facts to consider before deciding.
3. By "editorial comment" does the editor mean my (I wrote it) comment? In a footnoted statement the opinion expressed is assumed to belong to the footnoted author, in this case Taruskin. Are you saying Taruskin's opinion is irrelevant? Perhaps you should check the book before assuming "editorial comment".
4. In restoring the paragraph, I have changed the words slightly to avoid any possible appearance of "editorial opinion".

I will address the issue of leitmotiv deployment in another section of the article, and will link the material to this paragraph for more clarification. This is a fascinating aspect of Boris Godunov and deserves more discussion, not cutting. This is one of the more unjustifiable edits to this article I have seen in a while. --Ivan Velikii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.19.28 (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I made the edits in question, and I stand by them, although a compromise can probably be devised. I don't think the fact that the paragraph was sourced changes the fact that they are unsuitably editorial and subjective in terms of why the conflation is "negative." In particular, the statement about the "overexposure" of the Dmitri leitmotiv is entirely personal opinion. How can one objectively determine "overexposure" to a musical theme? Considering the St. Basil scene doesn't even actually have the Dmitri leitmotiv stated properly (It's only barely noticeable for a moment in an altered form in the men's chorus that opens the scene), I can easily make the case there is no such "overexposure" there. Also, the paragraph describing the positive aspects of conflation is careful enough to denote it's a matter of subjective opinion ("This practice is popular because...," denoting public taste as the justification). So if the last paragraph even said something to the effect of, "some critics of the conflated version argue that...," I'd find it better, but such opinions should not be stated in the voice of the article itself. I don't believe the Wikipedia article should be dictating to the reader what is or isn't "regrettable" when it comes to musical tastes. As for an expanded section on the leitmotiv deployment in the opera, I'd love to see that, as I've read others who have described it more as a haphazard used of "mottos" that the composer himself came to realize weren't particularly important (Forman). Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.187.255 (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that the 1869 and 1872 versions have a very different attitude as to how to employ the Dmitry leitmotif. In the 1869 version, it can refer to either the real (e.g. its first appearance in Pimen's narrative – usually it then appears in minor) or the false (e.g. the Inn scene – in this guise it's usually in major) Dmitry – and this ambiguity is exploited, as in Boris' mind they merge, as we see to terrifying effect in the Terem Scene.

In the St. Basil's scene, figures 13 to 15 (the crowd discusses the Pretender's advances) are actually heavily based on the Dmitry leitmotif. In contrast, when the crowd mentions the Requiem for the dead Tsarevich in figures 10 to 11, the Dmitry leitmotif is notably not heard, as to the crowd it means the Pretender, in whom the Tsarevich supposedly lives! The same happens when the boyars discuss this popular view, where the Dmitry leitmotif means the Pretender, only for it to become ambiguous again once Boris arrives on stage. So what exactly the motif refers to depends on who is using it.

But in the 1872 version things are notably different and substantially more clearcut: it means the Pretender to everyone but Boris, to whom it means the dead Tsarevich – and even then only after Shuisky informs him of the Pretender's existence, before which he would not confuse reality that way. This is so only because of all the cuts, and so restoring the material through conflation completely negates this clarification. Of course, this is by no means the only reason for the cuts: the Dmitry motif is so prevalent in the newly added scenes from the 1872 version (being literally shouted from the rooftops alla polacca in the Fountain and Kromy scenes), that the cuts affecting its employment in the other scenes do prevent it from being a complete spamfest. Additionally, to Mussorgsky it would almost certainly be unacceptable ideologically for the Dmitry motif to represent the legitimacy of the Tsar after its polonization (except in Boris' deluded mind), as it's now being identified with the Catholic Poles that the opera frankly demonizes.

(This whole comment is heavily indebted to Taruskin's Musorgsky vs. Musorgsky, the fifth chapter of his Musorgsky: Eight Essays and an Epilogue.) Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

In favour of conflation

Now, after having become acquainted with this word and reading what Taruskin had to say about it, it strikes me that we should also include the arguments in favour of conflation: their thesis is that Mussorgsky did not know what he was doing, and I find myself agreeing with it. Some are to be found in the booklet accompanying the first recording of Mussorgsky's original, conducted by Semkow: I don't have it to hand right now, but one important reason given was that the St. Basil's scene ties together many of the opera's disparate threads (focusing in turn on the people, then the Simpleton, then Boris, and then the Simpleton again, IIRC), and that the lament of the yurodivy in the Kromy scene is more effective (certainly it has much greater pathos!) as a reprise. The first time it seems to predict what will happen if Boris continues as ruler; then the second time we find out that it was actually predicting the chaos Russia would be thrown into by his death.

I can think of a few more, incidentally, and will go look for sources for them when I have the time – at least, if anybody else realised this. I cannot believe that the cuts in the Novodevichy Scene and the Cell Scene were undertaken by Mussorgsky willingly; but then again Stasov thought he was spineless when he submitted to all of Nápravnik's cuts, so who knows. The simple fact is that they make nonsense of the action: not even Gergiev's recording of the 1872 dares to take the cut in the Novodevichy Scene anyway, although unfortunately it does take the cut in the Cell Scene. With the cuts the crowd just appears in the next scene at Boris' coronation without explanation; and, even worse, after Pimen's historical narration regarding the Tsars Ivan and Feodor, he mentions how the Russian people had sinned by putting a regicide on the throne of Russia, and just when everything is pointing to a historical narration of that murder, we skip over it and the whole climax of the rather quiet and restrained Cell Scene is gone.

I would even make the case similarly that Mussorgsky, whether intentionally or not, basically vandalised his own work with the cuts: the added material in the 1872 revision shows his great musical understanding, so this must have been a case of second-guessing in a fit of self-doubt in the face of opposition. (Which is more common than one might dare to expect: consider all the disfigurements Schumann did to his earlier works late in life.) A case in point is the hilariously complicated significance of the Dmitry motive Taruskin argues for. Perhaps a literature-minded individual, or one concerned with underscoring the illegitimacy of the false Dmitry's rule, might have suggested to Mussorgsky to clarify the significance of that motive by making it always refer to the Pretender, except in Boris' mind where it refers to the murdered Tsarevich, but no one listens to music like that. Music is not a language like English or Russian is: you cannot tell the listener who is being referred to. A motive inherently suggests other motives in some sort of section of the space of all possible motives (it can after all be distorted in several ways while keeping its shape), and it simply suggests a character at the most rather than being his signature. (In Khovanshchina Mussorgsky will create chains of motives connected to each other so wide-ranging that one is still able to hear snatches of the Dawn in the immolation scene at the very end, even though one would naïvely note that the two events are very different.) But, most importantly, the distinction is pointless and ridiculous given that it is not just Boris who confuses the two. The vagabonds in the Kromy Scene clearly believe that Grigory Otrepyev is the Tsarevich Dmitry, and that does not stop the motive from being used.

As for the symmetrical scene structure of the revised version, it seems to fall apart when one considers that the False Dmitry does not actually appear in one of the scenes in which the character focus is said to be on him: Act 3, Scene 1. A much more sensible candidate for the character focus of that scene would actually be Marina, given that we get a very clear picture of her from her soliloquy; at least, that takes care of the first half. The second half seems to be more focused on Rangoni, as we are then shown what he is up to with his machinations.

But, I really wonder if anyone has actually noticed this and written about it; but I will look for such sources. Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Taruskin in 2016 seems to now retroactively state that he preferred the conflated Boris all along, in Russian Music at Home and Abroad: New Essays (p. 74), considering the reprise of the yurodivy's lament (created by the conflation; if you use either of the authorial versions it is never reprised) to be "perhaps the crowning stroke of musicodramatic genius". "And they are right," he says, referring to audiences and directors ignoring "redundancies and contradictions". He writes: "Although unforeseen and seemingly disallowed by the author (even though it uses only material he composed), it is, I believe, a greater work than either of the two authorial versions. And if that is musicological heresy, so be it." And in his next paragraph he claims that the supersaturated Boris is a masterpiece only in terms of how audiences measure greatness, by "what it does to them", because (supposedly) it is a "travesty" when measured "the modernist way" in terms of "internal unity and elegant form". But, as we have seen, there is no conflict, because when one is finally willing to admit that the composer might inadvertently vandalise his own work in his second-thoughts of self-doubt, one stops looking for half-baked ways to claim that either the 1869 or the 1872 Boris is better constructed. Then again, given Taruskin's generally anti-modernist stance, one would probably look in his book for notes on the structural greatness of the supersaturated version in vain. Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Recordings table format

The format was changed to reflect these guidelines found in all other opera articles. The arbitrary revert has been re-reverted. Do not make any further changes without discussing your reasons here.Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor User talk:50.39.178.94 objects to the reverting of his preferred format. The section has been returned to its original form. This is the place (not my "talk" page) where he/she needs to justify his/her opinion of how a "recordings" table should be set up. Then discussion can follow.

Meanwhile, he/she should be aware of the fact that a group of editors involved with the WikiProject Opera have agreed on guidelines for what a recordings table should look like:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Article_styles_and_formats#Recordings_.28table_style.29

Every other opera article uses this format.

Any further reverting on his/her part without further discussion and consensus may be regarded as vandalism. Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boris Godunov (opera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114061640/http://www.historicopera.com/listing_composers_conductors.htm to http://www.historicopera.com/listing_composers_conductors.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boris Godunov (opera). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060520170129/http://www.ceo.spb.ru/libretto/classic/posle_glinki/godunov.zip to http://www.ceo.spb.ru/libretto/classic/posle_glinki/godunov.zip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Analysis" section

The section is full of assertions without any sources. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)