Opera - Words or Music?

[Madiel]

Make all vocal music transcribed to "Without Words" and I would be as happy as a clam! 

See you at the karaoke bar.

We don't have to sing, we can just sit and listen.

Another option is to go to some elevators and enjoy the muzak.

[Florestan]

For starters, Charles Burney's and Charles de Brosses' books dealing with the state of music in Europe at their time. Granted, the custom was more widespread in Italian lands than elsewhere. There was even a polemic between an Englishman and an Italian in this respect (the noisy and unruly behavior of Italian audiences) and the arguments of the latter seemed to me more reasonable and convincing than those of the former. I think I read about it in Daniel Heartz's The style galant. Music in European capitals, 1720-1780. I will look it up and come with bibliographical details.

@Madiel

In 1766, an English surgeon by the name of Samuel Sharp published his Letters from Italy, describing the customs and manners of that country, in the years 1765, and 1766. In one of the chapters devoted to Naples he noted the noisy behavior of the audience in the San Carlo theater and their almost complete indifference to what happens on stage, save for the ballets. On a more general note he stated that, contrary to what people thought, the state of music and musical education in Italy was wretched.

Read it here:

https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_letters-from-italy-desc_sharp-samuel_1766/page/76/mode/2up

pp. 77-94

These and other harsh criticisms towards Italian manners and customs contained in the said book attracted the ire of an Italian man of letters, Giuseppe Baretti, who was actually living in London at that time. He published in 1768 An account of the manners and customs of Italy : with observations on the mistakes of some travellers, with regard to that country, in which he endeavored to rebuke or correct point by point what he perceived to be Sharp's prejudices, misunderstandings and errors. The issue of music is addressed in the last chapter of the first volume.

Read it here:

https://archive.org/details/accountofmanners01bare/page/308/mode/2up

pp. 309-317

I must say that, in the context, I find Baretti's arguments unassailable.

[Madiel]

@Madiel

I don't know why you're directing this at me.

[Florestan]

I don't know why you're directing this at me.

In response to the following exchange.

You:

Whether this is true depends very much on the period of time you're talking about. I find earlier opera relatively unsatisfying precisely because the arias stop the action. And it seems to me that the style changed because someone somewhere had the same reaction, that the music ought not be stopping the drama so much.

But I'd also be interested to see your sources for saying people listened to the arias and didn't listen to the recitatives.

Me:

For starters, Charles Burney's and Charles de Brosses' books dealing with the state of music in Europe at their time. Granted, the custom was more widespread in Italian lands than elsewhere. There was even a polemic between an Englishman and an Italian in this respect (the noisy and unruly behavior of Italian audiences) and the arguments of the latter seemed to me more reasonable and convincing than those of the former. I think I read about it in Daniel Heartz's The style galant. Music in European capitals, 1720-1780. I will look it up and come with bibliographical details.

I simply kept my word and presented my sources. 

[Madiel]

In response to the following exchange.

I simply kept my word and presented my sources. 

Okay, but your sources are about notions of "musical education", which really doesn't seem very relevant.

The other thing about it is that what you're establishing is that the habit was a cultural one, not a universal "this is what people did". You seem to be showing something about what Italian people did, and ALSO showing that English people living at the exact same time didn't think much about it (noting that these are sweeping generalisations and no guarantee of what an individual Italian or English person did). Whether one approach or the other got labelled as "educated" or "uneducated" doesn't advance things much.

All that this really tells me is that some people liked listening to arias (which didn't really advance the plot), and some people thought that it was important to follow the story of the opera. Which, judging from this thread, means that the situation then was pretty much the same as it is now, and invoking history doesn't get you far unless you're going to assert that it was the Italians who were educated and the English were getting it all wrong.

[Florestan]

Okay, but your sources are about notions of "musical education", which really doesn't seem very relevant.

The main topic of contention between Sharp and Baretti is audience behavior. If you have time and feel so inclined, please read them both, it's amusing and instructive.

[Madiel]

It's perhaps worth adding that composers of opera and similar that were local to a particular country, or even city, would have most likely composed to fit with the cultural tastes of that location.

The same with other music. We certainly have examples of Mozart and Haydn tailoring their approach to take account that they were in or writing for Vienna or Paris or London or Prague. I'm sure there would be other examples too.

So the statements about what Italian audiences did might well be instructive as to what people cared about in Italian opera, at least before it travelled anywhere else. It doesn't go further than that.

[Madiel]

The main topic of contention between Sharp and Baretti is audience behavior. If you have time and feel so inclined, please read them both, it's amusing and instructive.

Yes, I read the stuff about bringing in a light t read the book and what Baretti thought of that. I get it. M just saying that someone with one practice describing another practice as uneducated doesn't tell you much about who was "right".

Edit: In a non classical context I've had interesting opportunities to see audience behaviour in different cities. To this Canberran, concert goers in Sydney and Melbourne need to up their game regarding support/opening acts.

And I can make a fair guess on where a recording of a Tori Amos concert came from based on the audience noise... it's culture. It varies from place to place. It's noticeable and annoying only when you're in a place that doesn't match how they do things at home.

[Florestan]

Well, then there's some of us that consider, e.g., the "Ring without Words" orchestral CDs an absolute aberration (much as we like Wagner). So yes, listening to the music without the words is, for many of us, as silly as seeing the libretto staged without the music (which, incidentally, has been done on occasion -- Hay gente pa tó  )...

Btw, I have often heard the argument made, that if you take the voices out of Wagner you are still left with great orchestral music, whereas if you take the voices out of Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti and Verdi you are left mostly with accompaniments --- which is supposed to prove Wagner's incontestable superiority. For me the argument cuts exactly the other way around: opera being about singing, taking the singing out of it results in no opera at all. The Italians did what they set about to do: write operas, not symphonies. If what one wants is orchestral music, one should look elsewhere.

[Florestan]

someone with one practice describing another practice as uneducated doesn't tell you much about who was "right".

Sure not, absolutely.

[Madiel]

Btw, I have often heard the argument made, that if you take the voices out of Wagner you are still left with great orchestral music, whereas if you take the voices out of Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti and Verdi you are left mostly with accompaniments --- which is supposed to prove Wagner's incontestable superiority. For me the argument cuts exactly the other way around: opera being about singing, taking the singing out of it results in no opera at all. The Italians did what they set about to do: write operas, not symphonies. If what one wants is orchestral music, one should look elsewhere.

I saw the Ring cycle in the cinema in 2012.

Almost every single Act, I thought the opening was marvellous. And then people would start to sing and gradually ruin it...

...maybe I SHOULD try Wagner without the libretto to see whether I enjoy the singing noises more when I don't judge what they're singing about (for goodness sake Brunnhilde GET OVER IT), or whether I still feel the music goes downhill once the instrumental bit is over.

Night. 

[ritter]

Btw, I have often heard the argument made, that if you take the voices out of Wagner you are still left with great orchestral music, whereas if you take the voices out of Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti and Verdi you are left mostly with accompaniments --- which is supposed to prove Wagner's incontestable superiority. For me the argument cuts exactly the other way around: opera being about singing, taking the singing out of it results in no opera at all. The Italians did what they set about to do: write operas, not symphonies. If what one wants is orchestral music, one should look elsewhere.

I knew it...this would inevitably turn into an anti-Wagnerian rant. Serves me right! 

O ciel, che noia!

Buongiorno, caro Andrei.

[Florestan]

I knew it...this would inevitably turn into an anti-Wagnerian rant. Serves me right! 

Where is the anti-Wagnerian rant in what I wrote? It's simply anti-those-who-make-such-an-argument, because they misconstrue both Italian opera and Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk. Neither the former nor the latter was about great orchestral music and Wagner would have been the first to react against his works being reduced to that.

Buongiorno, caro Andrei.

Sei gegrüßt, lieber Freund!

[(poco) Sforzando]

Here's a passage from Meistersinger (never mind the red boxes, they were to illustrate an unrelated point):

Great orchestral music? I don't think so. The idea that Wagner was writing purely symphonic music with no relevance to the drama or singers is no more true of Wagner than of Bellini.

[San Antone]

Btw, I have often heard the argument made, that if you take the voices out of Wagner you are still left with great orchestral music, whereas if you take the voices out of Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti and Verdi you are left mostly with accompaniments --- which is supposed to prove Wagner's incontestable superiority. For me the argument cuts exactly the other way around: opera being about singing, taking the singing out of it results in no opera at all. The Italians did what they set about to do: write operas, not symphonies. If what one wants is orchestral music, one should look elsewhere.

I agree - and I am squarely in the Italian opera camp, vis a vis, Wagnerian styles.  In fact, although I have listened to and enjoyed Wagner operas, most notably The Ring, Tristan, and Parsifal - IMO he ruined opera because of the excesses of his orchestral harmonic textures, and non-aria vocal writing.

Opera for me is best when I'm watching/listening to Mozart or Verdi.  But Donizetti, Rossini, Bellini, and Puccini follow closely behind.  Most 20th century and later opera, with a few exceptions, is not my thing.

[Elgarian Redux]

Btw, I have often heard the argument made, that if you take the voices out of Wagner you are still left with great orchestral music

Speaking as a Wagner devotee, I can only say that without the singing, it all just sounds so wrong that I feel very uncomfortable. I bought the CD called, I think, The Ring, an operatic adventure, or something like that. I waited and waited for it to soar into some sort of adventure, but it never did. It never felt complete, except I suppose for the bits that are purely orchestral anyway. I expect loads of people may well enjoy it (and why not?), but for me it was hopeless.

The problem is that we can't reason from our personal preferences towards any sort of general guidelines or rational criticism. I mean, I can talk about the Ring as a composite art form as much as I like, but it won't change anyone's opinion if they don't enjoy Wagnerian singing. What I think one could say is that if the artist's intention carries any weight, then we might suppose that if we're preferring the Ring without the singing, we're liking something that isn't what Wagner was attempting to create. So we end up talking about ourselves, rather than the thing Wagner actually made. There's nothing wrong with talking about ourselves and our preferences - nothing at all - but it gets misleading if we don't recognise that that's what we're doing.

I'm finding it hard to be clear, so let me say just one more thing. If I didn't enjoy Wagnerian singing, then I wouldn't be in any position to criticise Wagner for using singing in his music dramas - just as there'd be no point in my criticising a novelist for writing novels, rather than plays, if I happened to prefer plays. I can say I hate his novels, but that's a statement about me, not about him.

[Florestan]

I agree - and I am squarely in the Italian opera camp, vis a vis, Wagnerian styles.  In fact, although I have listened to and enjoyed Wagner operas, most notably The Ring, Tristan, and Parsifal - IMO he ruined opera because of the excesses of his orchestral harmonic textures, and non-aria vocal writing.

Opera for me is best when I'm watching/listening to Mozart or Verdi.  But Donizetti, Rossini, Bellini, and Puccini follow closely behind.  Most 20th century and later opera, with a few exceptions, is not my thing.

Un uom secondo il mio cor. 

[Florestan]

he idea that Wagner was writing purely symphonic music with no relevance to the drama or singers is no more true of Wagner than of Bellini.

Precisely my point. Abstracted from their quintessentially vocal context, Wagner's "symphonies" are no better or more meaningful than Bellini's "accompaniments". All one can say in this respect is that Wagner employed purely orchestral textures much more than Bellini and for much lengthier periods --- but whether this is a positive or a negative depends on personal taste. I'm firmly with @San Antone on the negative side.

[Karl Henning]

Speaking as a Wagner devotee, I can only say that without the singing, it all just sounds so wrong that I feel very uncomfortable. I bought the CD called, I think, The Ring, an operatic adventure, or something like that. I waited and waited for it to soar into some sort of adventure, but it never did. It never felt complete, except I suppose for the bits that are purely orchestral anyway. I expect loads of people may well enjoy it (and why not?), but for me it was hopeless.

The problem is that we can't reason from our personal preferences towards any sort of general guidelines or rational criticism. I mean, I can talk about the Ring as a composite art form as much as I like, but it won't change anyone's opinion if they don't enjoy Wagnerian singing. What I think one could say is that if the artist's intention carries any weight, then we might suppose that if we're preferring the Ring without the singing, we're liking something that isn't what Wagner was attempting to create. So we end up talking about ourselves, rather than the thing Wagner actually made. There's nothing wrong with talking about ourselves and our preferences - nothing at all - but it gets misleading if we don't recognise that that's what we're doing.

I'm finding it hard to be clear, so let me say just one more thing. If I didn't enjoy Wagnerian singing, then I wouldn't be in any position to criticise Wagner for using singing in his music dramas - just as there'd be no point in my criticising a novelist for writing novels, rather than plays, if I happened to prefer plays. I can say I hate his novels, but that's a statement about me, not about him.

I enjoyed reading this, and I take your points with, really, a kind of appreciative gratitude. I listen to Wagner seldom (in fact, the only Wagner I'm certain that I've listened to since my stroke are the Prelude to Parsifal, and the Siegfried-Idyll.) I've allowed my thinking about Wagner to ossify, and your remarks here make me want to listen to Parsifal again. I don't know when I shall carve out the time, but the desire is genuine.

[DavidW]

The music. Nobody should avoid opera if their only option is to listen...

But...

I agree with Elgarian. The libretto, the visual acting, costumes, props, set design, and staging are all important and make for a much more rewarding experience. One can't deny that the theatrical experience is integral to opera.