A furious stroke of genius

When you speak of a solitaire, it is true, as this work in its encyclopaedic structure and abundance - we find comparable works by Stravinsky or in the visual arts by Picasso - reflects in a gripping way the development of music history as such and in particular that of the 20th century with all its crises and horrors in its entire breadth. The unique musical collage-like form and language also addresses the central issues of destruction and self-destruction, of apocalyptic annihilation, which still concern us worldwide today. It is therefore a profound, eternally valid, retrospective and at the same time prophetic piece. It is also prophetic in formal terms when you think of the brutality and vulgarity of the use of language, which anticipates much of what we find in social media today. Basically, Ligeti's Grand Macabre, like Bernd Alois Zimmermann's Soldaten, is about human misery, about essential moral and ethical values. However, Ligeti preferred to approach the justified concern about a possible end of humanity from a distance and with a sense of black humor. With the help of the grotesque, the macabre and satire, Ligeti conveys a certain optimism. And he also provides entertainment. I think it's wonderful that we're celebrating the centenary of György Ligeti's birthday by confronting his genius and his greatness with this opera.

This designation was, among other things, a reaction to Mauricio Kagel's anti-opera Staatstheater. Ligeti wanted to emphasize that it is still possible and permissible to write operas in the present day that are derived from traditional rules and roots. At the same time, however, he was also interested in revising these traditional foundations and pillars. Nothing was further from his mind than a platform for ornamental singing; Ligeti was much more interested in creating a strong connection to language, to rhetoric, to a rhetoric of messages.

I think that in this work he has even succeeded completely. Why? Because he deliberately ignores any musical expectations, any formal congruence. For example, there are only very few moments in which the flow of the music is not constantly interrupted: No sooner does he seem to draw an arc, a phrase, than it comes to an abrupt end again after just two or three bars; the musical coloration is constantly changed, any organic development brutally undermined. This gives the listener the impression of absolute spontaneity. In addition, there are extreme dynamic contrasts and equally extreme tempos. Some of the music is almost unplayable and unsingable for the performers - both on stage and in the pit - due to these high demands. In any case, it never becomes comfortable for the performers. Moreover, Ligeti superimposed layers upon layers of the most diverse forms, contents and sounds. Here a quote from music history, there individual instruments have to play different micro-tempi at the same time, there familiar forms appear in an unusual style.

No, not at all. It is precisely because the music is extremely demanding and complex that Ligeti takes the audience by the hand and gives them handholds to help them find their way. As I said, much of the music sounds spontaneous, natural and improvised, but in reality - precisely to create this impression - it is extremely precise and exactly notated.

No, there's more to it than that - the "irregular" refers to the extremely unusual orchestration, perhaps one of the most unusual I could find in the entire opera repertoire. It virtually negates the centuries-old tradition in this respect. A disproportionately small string section, which in turn is mostly divided into individual parts, is contrasted with a very large, colorful wind section - including instruments such as two piccolo flutes, an oboe d'amore and a contrabassoon. There is also an incredibly diverse percussion section. Each of the three percussionists has around 30 instruments to play, including the most exotic, bizarre and extravagant ones imaginable: a large hammer as in Mahler's 6th Symphony, for example, is juxtaposed with very simple things such as simple newspaper pages to produce sounds. There is also a separate keyboard instrument section, consisting of harpsichord, piano, electric piano and organ. All of this is refined by a harp and a mandolin. What is important, however, is that each of these instruments always serves the respective moment of the drama. Nothing is show or spectacle.

Only a medium-sized one, as the large string section is missing. Sometimes it's even really chamber music.

Ligeti was a cosmopolitan, he lived in different countries, was familiar with the most diverse styles and developments, all of which he absorbed. The clever utilization, transformation and adaptation of this diverse material - including clear quotations from earlier works - is what runs like a red thread through his oeuvre and defines his personality, regardless of his ongoing development. In this, as I said, he is very similar to Stravinsky.

Grand Macabre is indeed an extremely complex, musically and rhythmically hyper-precise score in which there must be absolute, immovable synchronicity between stage and orchestra pit. Singers have to react to timbres from the orchestra and, conversely, individual instruments quote the words and rhythms of the singers. Every fermata, every pause has its own specific length, prescribed to the nearest second, which in turn is interlocked with what is happening on stage. As already mentioned, there is a constant oscillation between extremes - in the dynamics, the emotionality, the atmospheric impression, the tempo. Perhaps 30 years ago, I conducted Ligeti's Aventures in Los Angeles. In this extremely exciting work, the footnotes in which Ligeti explains the sound design take up more space than the actual piece. This is not so extreme here with Grand Macabre, but it is clear that Ligeti had very clear, dramaturgically conditioned ideas about every last detail. My principle is to follow these indications as passionately as possible in order to unleash and recover the full power of this music. But all of this always has to happen in the context of a production - and that's where the interpretative freedom is found that ensures that strong, lively theater is created in the end.