GMG Classical Music Forum

(Inspired by discussions in the WAYLTN and Purchases Today threads.)

What is more important in an opera, the words or the music?

I think the music, and here's my reasons why.

1. People who don't understand Italian/French/German/Russian are deeply moved by listening to Italian/French/German/Russian operas* but if they listened to just the words of an aria being recited as poetry would their reaction be the same? Methinks not.

2. Famous operas based on plays or novels have long since eclipsed their original sources. Who reads or stages today Carmen, Hernani, Le roi s'amuse or La dame aux camelias? Or Werther, Kabale und Liebe, even Faust or Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre? Or Evgeny Onegin and Pique-Dame? Whereas every new production of the corresponding operas is sold-out and all such operas have been extensively recorded.

3. How many of those who are thrilled by Lucia di Lammermoor or Il trovatore would care to go see their libretti staged strictly as plays without the music? And even for operas who have good libretti, say, Otello, Falstaff and Evgeny Onegin, how many of those who delight in them as operas would pay to see them staged as plays without the music? (I'm talking to you, dear @ritter )

4. Actually, the very fact that there are many universally acclaimed and loved operas with weak, convoluted, mediocre or downright bad/stupid libretti proves my point. Great music survives mediocre words, whereas the greatest words can't save mediocre music. 99% of the operas written on libretti by Metastasio, the best and most universally celebrated dramatic poet of the 18th century, are now completely forgotten.

5. Mozart's Don Giovanni is more famous than Gazzaniga's; Rossini's Il barbiere di Siviglia is more famous than Paisiello's; Donizetti's L'elisir d'amore is more famous than Auber's Le philtre --- yet in all three cases the libretto is basically the same. It's the quality of the music, not of the words, that made the former immortal masterpieces and the latter just footnotes, if even that.

5. Historical perspective shows that, until quite recent times, that has always been the case with audiences. Precisely those parts of an opera where words were most clearly audible and intelligible and which actually propelled the action, ie the recitatives, were being paid the least attention to, if at all, whereas a brilliant aria or ensemble, especially if brilliantly executed, were listened to in silent awe and were bringing down the house. In his Confessions Rousseau recalls that, while being Secretary to the French Ambassador to Venice, he once felt asleep at the opera for quite some time and was suddenly awaken by the voice of a castrato singing an aria. "I thought I had died and went to Heaven and was hearing an angel singing", writes he, "so beautiful and moving was the voice and the music". He was moved to tears not by what the guy was singing, ie the words, (he doesn't even mention what opera it was) but by the singing, ie the music.

All this is not to say that the words are completely negligible. Familiarity with the plot and the substance of the most important numbers/scenes is useful and helpful and can add to the overall enjoyment. Yet the reverse is not true methinks: complete ignorance of the action or of what is being sung at the moment cannot detract from such enjoyment*.

My tow cents, of course. You might have a radically different opinion and if you feel so inclined, please share it.

*

Both, it's a Gesamtkunstwerk after all. At least, to me.

Music only for me. I don't listen to a lot of vocal music in general. However, when I do, the less of the words I understand, the better. Perhaps that is what lured me to classical music (away from pop/rock music) in the first place?

I prefer that if there is vocal music, I can't make the words out. Thus, least favourite forms of vocal music are the languages I speak: French and English. Not saying that it makes any sense as to why, but it's just what I like.  :)

In terms of vocal music, I greatly prefer choral music, over opera or art songs.

If I watched a foreign language movie without subtitles, I could certainly get some idea of what was going on so long as the actors were reasonably good at expression and the plot made some kind of sense.

It wouldn't be a patch on watching it with the subtitles, though.

Of course, reading the script would also be liable to be deficient compared to watching a performance. I don't know why I should be choosing which deficiency is the preferable one.

I don't think that having singers expressing rather than actors expressing makes very much difference, frankly. Sure, I can enjoy the gestures, but in most cases it's a pale shadow of what should be conveyed. Just as reading lyrics to a song without a performance is usually a different pale shadow (except in cases where the song is setting some really good poetry, which isn't the case all that often because poetry capable of standing on its own doesn't necessarily make the best basis for a song).

Quote from: Florestan on January 20, 2025, 02:39:16 AMPrecisely those parts of an opera where words were most clearly audible and intelligible and which actually propelled the action, ie the recitatives, were being paid the least attention to, if at all, whereas a brilliant aria or ensemble, especially if brilliantly executed, were listened to in silent awe and were bringing down the house.

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.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 04:42:37 AMI don't think that having singers expressing rather than actors expressing makes very much difference, frankly. Sure, I can enjoy the gestures, but in most cases it's a pale shadow of what should be conveyed.

Well, my point is that the music is sufficiently expressive by itself to convey the essence of what is supposed to be conveyed. After all, when you listen to a recording of an opera you don't see anything, just hear.

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 21, 2025, 04:37:46 AMI prefer that if there is vocal music, I can't make the words out. Thus, least favourite forms of vocal music are the languages I speak: French and English. Not saying that it makes any sense as to why, but it's just what I like.  :)

This is similar in a way to what Morgan Freeman's character says in the clip I posted.

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 04:51:58 AMWell, my point is that the music is sufficiently expressive by itself to convey the essence of what is supposed to be conveyed. After all, when you listen to a recording of an opera you don't see anything, just hear.

I see the libretto in front of me.

You'll never convince me that the music by itself conveys the essence sufficiently, simply because I will never forget my first 2 listens to Shostakovich's 13th symphony (both with the same recording). The first time I had some information from liner notes etc. about what was being sung about. The second time I had the text.

The first time I certainly knew when the music was being dark and dramatic. But the second time, the passage about Anne Frank hit me like a thunderbolt. It's not about general mood, good word-setting is about every precise musical detail at the precise moment on the precise word (which is also why translations that don't retain the order of ideas are totally unsuitable for music). It's about understanding the exact moment that the music depicts the Nazis knocking the door down.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 04:48:50 AMI'd also be interested to see your sources for saying people listened to the arias and didn't listen to the recitatives.

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.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 04:59:59 AMI will never forget my first 2 listens to Shostakovich's 13th symphony

Which is not an opera.  ;)

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 05:06:19 AMWhich is not an opera.  ;)

Try listening to it.

Besides, the suggestion that the words are less important in a work that is supposed to explicitly have a plot, in comparison to one that kind of ends up with a plot arc anyway, really does not hold up.

EDIT: I kid you not, the Wikipedia entry on Symphony no.13 has a passage describing the opening movement (the one I was talking about) as having "the dramatic structure and theatrical imagery of opera".

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 04:59:59 AMI see the libretto in front of me.

I tried this approach too but save for subtitles on YT, I find it very distracting. I can't concentrate on simultaneously listening to the music and reading the libretto.

My approach is twofold.

With Italian/French operas I generally need no libretto at all: I speak French fluently and my Italian is good enough to understand at least the gist of what they sing --- provided the singers have good diction, which is not always the case. And anyway I've listened to the most famous Italian/French operas so many times that I basically know by heart what they do or sing about. That being said, when watching on YT I always turn the subtitles on.

When I listen to a German/Russian opera for the first time, I first read the synopsis, then the translation of the most important arias/ensembles/scenes and then just play the recording and let the music flow over and engulf me. And what I said above applies here too: I've listened to the famous ones so many times that I basically know by heart what they do or sing about.

Quote from: Florestan on January 20, 2025, 02:39:16 AM(Inspired by discussions in the WAYLTN and Purchases Today threads.)

What is more important in an opera, the words or the music?

I think the music, and here's my reasons why.

1. People who don't understand Italian/French/German/Russian are deeply moved by listening to Italian/French/German/Russian operas* but if they listened to just the words of an aria being recited as poetry would their reaction be the same? Methinks not.

2. Famous operas based on plays or novels have long since eclipsed their original sources. Who reads or stages today Carmen, Hernani, Le roi s'amuse or La dame aux camelias? Or Werther, Kabale und Liebe, even Faust or Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre? Or Evgeny Onegin and Pique-Dame? Whereas every new production of the corresponding operas is sold-out and all such operas have been extensively recorded.

3. How many of those who are thrilled by Lucia di Lammermoor or Il trovatore would care to go see their libretti staged strictly as plays without the music? And even for operas who have good libretti, say, Otello, Falstaff and Evgeny Onegin, how many of those who delight in them as operas would pay to see them staged as plays without the music? (I'm talking to you, dear @ritter )

4. Actually, the very fact that there are many universally acclaimed and loved operas with weak, convoluted, mediocre or downright bad/stupid libretti proves my point. Great music survives mediocre words, whereas the greatest words can't save mediocre music. 99% of the operas written on libretti by Metastasio, the best and most universally celebrated dramatic poet of the 18th century, are now completely forgotten.

5. Mozart's Don Giovanni is more famous than Gazzaniga's; Rossini's Il barbiere di Siviglia is more famous than Paisiello's; Donizetti's L'elisir d'amore is more famous than Auber's Le philtre --- yet in all three cases the libretto is basically the same. It's the quality of the music, not of the words, that made the former immortal masterpieces and the latter just footnotes, if even that.

5. Historical perspective shows that, until quite recent times, that has always been the case with audiences. Precisely those parts of an opera where words were most clearly audible and intelligible and which actually propelled the action, ie the recitatives, were being paid the least attention to, if at all, whereas a brilliant aria or ensemble, especially if brilliantly executed, were listened to in silent awe and were bringing down the house. In his Confessions Rousseau recalls that, while being Secretary to the French Ambassador to Venice, he once felt asleep at the opera for quite some time and was suddenly awaken by the voice of a castrato singing an aria. "I thought I had died and went to Heaven and was hearing an angel singing", writes he, "so beautiful and moving was the voice and the music". He was moved to tears not by what the guy was singing, ie the words, (he doesn't even mention what opera it was) but by the singing, ie the music.

All this is not to say that the words are completely negligible. Familiarity with the plot and the substance of the most important numbers/scenes is useful and helpful and can add to the overall enjoyment. Yet the reverse is not true methinks: complete ignorance of the action or of what is being sung at the moment cannot detract from such enjoyment*.

My tow cents, of course. You might have a radically different opinion and if you feel so inclined, please share it.

*

I note that if, as you argue, the music is in some ways more important than the words in opera, it doesn't follow that the words are not important at all. It could be that for you, enjoying the music alone is a sufficient condition for getting some pleasure out of the experience, but that understanding the words as well would bring its own rewards.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 21, 2025, 05:48:49 AMI note that if, as you argue, the music is in some ways more important than the words in opera, it doesn't follow that the words are not important at all.
 

Have you actually read my whole OP? Because its next-to-last paragraph explicitly says exactly what you said.

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 06:16:41 AMHave you actually read my whole OP?

Of course not.

There is a story that, while at a performance of Goetterdaemmerung, Bruckner asked somebody why exactly did Brunhilde die at the end!   ;D

Apparently Wagner's libretto, for Bruckner, was not as interesting as the music!

I can understand why possibly many (most) people find the music in an opera more engaging.  After all for most of us the language (even if our native tongue) is not understandable because of the distortion done to it via operatic highly stylized singing. But,I would disagree with that view.

For me, someone with a high level of interest of narrative told through music - for me, the "words" are just as important as the music.  Also, the staging, acting, and entire production.  Which is why I prefer viewing operas, either live or DVD/streaming, than listening to a recording.

But either way is fine - I am a huge opera fan, but not a "opera singer" fanatic.

Quote from: San Antone on January 21, 2025, 07:03:45 AMI can understand why possibly many (most) people find the music in an opera more engaging. 

My reasoning is as follows. Opera and Lieder contains some of the greatest music ever penned, so I listen to them even if I don't understand what is being sung (German, Russian, Scandinavian languages) or my understanding (Italian, French, English) is hindered by bad diction apart from the unavoidable distortion introduced by the singing itself (this is a very good remark you made). If what I hear really piques my interest, I will look further into its meaning, either by reading the original text or the translation, and so next time I'll have a more informed listening. If not, I will have still listened to great music, by treating the voice as just another instrument. Take a Russian Lieder, for instance, say one by Medtner or Rachmaninoff. If instead the voice you had violin, it would still be good music and there'd be no problem for anyone to listen to it; given that a human voice is capable of much more nuanced and expressive inflections than any instrument, it sounds great even I don't understand a iota. Plus, even to a greater degree than operatic music, the music of the Lieder usually gives good and reliable hints about their subject, at least with respect to mood and sentiment.

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 07:48:56 AMMy reasoning is as follows. Opera and Lieder contains some of the greatest music ever penned, so I listen to them even if I don't understand what is being sung (German, Russian, Scandinavian languages) or my understanding (Italian, French, English) is hindered by bad diction apart from the unavoidable distortion introduced by the singing itself (this is a very good remark you made). If what I hear really piques my interest, I will look further into its meaning, either by reading the original text or the translation, and so next time I'll have a more informed listening. If not, I will have still listened to great music, by treating the voice as just another instrument. Take a Russian Lieder, for instance, say one by Medtner or Rachmaninoff. If instead the voice you had violin, it would still be good music and there'd be no problem for anyone to listen to it; given that a human voice is capable of much more nuanced and expressive inflections than any instrument, it sounds great even I don't understand a iota. Plus, even to a greater degree than operatic music, the music of the Lieder usually gives good and reliable hints about their subject, at least with respect to mood and sentiment.

Here's an anecdote.

When I was a kid my parents took me to see Vickers sing Pagliacci at Covent Garden. When Canio sings

Ed il pubblico applaude, ridendo allegramente.

he gave such an intensity to the words "Ed il pubblico applaude" I thought it was some sort of religious thing, mystical, the key to the meaning of life. Little did I know it means "when the people clap"

I point this out to show why knowing what they're singing about is real important.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 21, 2025, 08:01:16 AMHere's an anecdote.

When I was a kid my parents took me to see Vickers sing Pagliacci at Covent Garden. When Canio sings

Ed il pubblico applaude, ridendo allegramente.

he gave such an intensity to the words "Ed il pubblico applaude" I thought it was some sort of religious thing, mystical, the key to the meaning of life. Little did I know it means "when the people clap"

Well, think of it this way: for Canio having the public clapping is literally an existential issue, making the difference between living and starving. His whole life is devoted to making the public clap  For him enthusiastic clapping of the public is a God-sent sign he does things right. Vickers, an artist himself, and among the greatest, sensed that and sang accordingly. A big and belated Bravo! from me.

Beside, looks like that experience was meaningful enough for you to still remember it after such a long time. Well, opera is about that, too: having such an intense, overwhelming, memorable experience.

Music for me.

Music. Words, for me, are broadly unimportant. Same with non-classical music. There are songs I've loved for many years and I have not a clue what they are singing about.

Both words and music, they're equally important in opera; as it has already been said, it's Gesamtkunstwerk!

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 05:06:19 AMWhich is not an opera.  ;)

No, but the question of words V. music is exactly the same.

Music for me.

I always like Wagner's Tristan and Isoldi

Then I saw production.  What a silly mess.  Twenty minutes of "Oh rapture, I love you. Oh rapture" was too much for me.    I kept thinking OK I get it.  You have the hots for her.  So shut up and screw her.

I still get the music.

The simplest proof of the importance of the libretto is that composers have always taken great pains to find suitable texts for which to respond musically, and they often work closely with their librettists down to shaping the words for individual arias. The best articulation of this relationhip I know is found in Joseph Kerman's book "Opera as Drama" from 1956 which I recommend you all read. While the book is perhaps best-known for its snide one-liner describing "Tosca" as a "shabby little shocker," its real thesis is that in opera the composer is the dramatist, and the music of a great opera serves a similar function to the poetry in great spoken drama. In great opera - and Kerman chooses his examples primarily from Monteverdi, Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, Debussy, Mussorgsky, Berg, and Stravinsky among not many others - the composer takes the libretto as a starting point for his imagination, creating characterizations, developing a musical "world," and shaping the dramatic action. Conversely there are some very great composers whose talents were not suited for operatic composition at all - such as Bach, Schubert, Brahms, and closer to our time Elliott Carter, whose one opera in my opinion is dramatically speaking a total mess. Leaving aside Kerman's excessive disdain for composers like Puccini and Strauss, there is no doubt in my mind that the greatest operas depend significantly on a well-crafted libretto, but the final success of the opera depends on the dramatic genius of the composer.

Quote from: arpeggio on January 21, 2025, 04:48:09 PMMusic for me.

I always like Wagner's Tristan and Isoldi

Then I saw production.  What a silly mess.  Twenty minutes of "Oh rapture, I love you. Oh rapture" was too much for me.    I kept thinking OK I get it.  You have the hots for her.  So shut up and screw her.

I still get the music.

But why screw when the two of yez can die together?...

Quote from: arpeggio on January 21, 2025, 04:48:09 PMTwenty minutes of "Oh rapture, I love you. Oh rapture" was too much for me.    I kept thinking OK I get it.  You have the hots for her.  So shut up and screw her.

Foreplay, my dear arpeggio. Tristan can never be accused of premature ejaculation.

Quote from: foxandpeng on January 21, 2025, 01:32:01 PMMusic. Words, for me, are broadly unimportant. Same with non-classical music. There are songs I've loved for many years and I have not a clue what they are singing about.

Just so long as you don't choose a song for your wedding without considering the text. There have been some cases over the years where a nice sounding, even romantic sounding song has become popular for weddings when it's completely inappropriate.

My favourite example is "Lips of an Angel" by Hinder, which is all about desiring somebody OTHER than the person you're in a relationship with. Clearly a lot of people did not have a clue what they were singing about beyond thinking the title was the kind of schmaltz you want at a wedding.

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 05:40:13 PMJust so long as you don't choose a song for your wedding without considering the text. There have been some cases over the years where a nice sounding, even romantic sounding song has become popular for weddings when it's completely inappropriate.

My favourite example is "Lips of an Angel" by Hinder, which is all about desiring somebody OTHER than the person you're in a relationship with. Clearly a lot of people did not have a clue what they were singing about beyond thinking the title was the kind of schmaltz you want at a wedding.

Now that's funny.

My wife, of course, knows the words to everything. Very annoying.

I got into a few operas by finding the texts interesting although I prefer religious music in Latin and just let the music wash over me without comprehension.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2025, 04:56:23 PMthere is no doubt in my mind that the greatest operas depend significantly on a well-crafted libretto, but the final success of the opera depends on the dramatic genius of the composer.

Which is another way to say that, when all is said and done, it's the composer who ensures the success of an opera --- ie, the music.  ;D

Again: how many people who delight in operas would care about seeing the libretto staged strictly as a play, without any music whatsoever?

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2025, 05:00:06 PMForeplay, my dear arpeggio. Tristan can never be accused of premature ejaculation.

Tristan can never be accused of ejaculation, period.  ;D

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 05:40:13 PMJust so long as you don't choose a song for your wedding without considering the text. There have been some cases over the years where a nice sounding, even romantic sounding song has become popular for weddings when it's completely inappropriate.

My favourite example is "Lips of an Angel" by Hinder, which is all about desiring somebody OTHER than the person you're in a relationship with. Clearly a lot of people did not have a clue what they were singing about beyond thinking the title was the kind of schmaltz you want at a wedding.

I wonder how many people at a wedding party concern themselves with the text of the songs that are played.  :laugh:

I generally agree although some examples in the first post are badly chosen: The Schiller and Goethe plays are probably staged more frequently in German speaking areas than Gounod's or Verdi's early operas based on them and Werther is obligatory school reading in Germany (or was 30 years ago) and I think it's similar with Pushkin in Russia.

And there is of course the phenomenon that some operas were (like a lot of baroque seria until the 1970s/80s) or still are (like Schubert's operas or Weber's "Euryanthe") considered so boring/bad because of the texts or maybe more precisely the pacing, coherence and drama of their plots that even great music could not overcome these faults.

Quote from: Ganondorf on January 20, 2025, 03:32:55 AMBoth, it's a Gesamtkunstwerk after all. At least, to me.

This seems to be the key point, to me. Opera is essentially a composite art form. That's not to say it can't be listened to purely for the music (just as William Blake's poetry can be read as pure text, instead of in the illuminated forms he created for them), but there's a loss. For the individual, that loss may not be important, but it's still a loss.

Like everybody, I often listen to bleeding chunks of Puccini without worrying about what the words are, but I'm aware that an important context is missing when I do it.  That's OK - we all listen in any way we like. But I also know that if I'm watching the opera, and attending to the words, I'm enjoying a richer experience.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 12:43:03 AMI wonder how many people at a wedding party concern themselves with the text of the songs that are played.  :laugh:

Well, the only reason I even know about this is because various people at various weddings heard the song and thought "what the hell", and commented in some way about it, and it became a news story. Possibly it was wedding celebrants commenting on bad music choices that they heard, but I'm not certain.

Plus, if the song is playing and wedding guests have nothing to do other than stand around while the couple dance or while the couple sign the official marriage register... that is the PERFECT setting for actually listening to the words for the first time.

Personally, I don't care as long as it all sounds good together.

I will say I've never read a libretto (either translated or not), nor am I concerned with the story the opera is trying to tell.

Honestly, all opera could be nonsense, and I'd still listen to it, as long as it all sounded good together.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 12:36:37 AMAgain: how many people who delight in operas would care about seeing the libretto staged strictly as a play, without any music whatsoever?

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  ;D )...

Quote from: ritter on January 22, 2025, 03:50:40 AMWell, 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  ;D )...

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

Quote from: Franco_Manitobain on January 22, 2025, 04:12:06 AMMake all vocal music transcribed to "Without Words" and I would be as happy as a clam!  :laugh:

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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 05:04:57 AMFor 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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 04:24:01 AM@Madiel

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

Quote from: Madiel on January 22, 2025, 04:26:20 AMI don't know why you're directing this at me.

In response to the following exchange.

You:

Quote from: Madiel on January 21, 2025, 04:48:50 AMWhether 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:

Quote from: Florestan on January 21, 2025, 05:04:57 AMFor 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.  :)

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 04:32:44 AMIn 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.

Quote from: Madiel on January 22, 2025, 04:42:22 AMOkay, 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.

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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 04:50:44 AMThe 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.

Quote from: ritter on January 22, 2025, 03:50:40 AMWell, 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  ;D )...

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.

Quote from: Madiel on January 22, 2025, 04:58:40 AMsomeone with one practice describing another practice as uneducated doesn't tell you much about who was "right".

Sure not, absolutely.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 05:00:35 AMBtw, 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.  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 05:00:35 AMBtw, 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!  ;D

O ciel, che noia!

Buongiorno, caro Andrei.

Quote from: ritter on January 22, 2025, 05:12:20 AMI knew it...this would inevitably turn into an anti-Wagnerian rant. Serves me right!  ;D

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.

QuoteBuongiorno, caro Andrei.

Sei gegrüßt, lieber Freund!

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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 05:00:35 AMBtw, 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.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 05:00:35 AMBtw, 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.

Quote from: San Antone on January 22, 2025, 07:20:12 AMI 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.  8)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2025, 05:32:53 AMhe 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.

Quote from: Elgarian Redux on January 22, 2025, 07:28:33 AMSpeaking 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.

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. 

Quote from: DavidW on January 22, 2025, 09:52:31 AMThe 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. 

I can read Hamlet, and get a lot out of that experience of the play. Seeing it staged (or on film) is an altogether richer experience of the play. Similarly, I don't say it's valueless, listening to opera without regard to the words (for one example, I've never yet listened to any opera by Janáček or Martinů with any real handle on the text) but I couldn't countenance the notion that the text is a disposable superfluity. 

Quote from: DavidW on January 22, 2025, 09:52:31 AMThe 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. 

Yes, yes, and yes. But there's an extra dimension, once one has seen it performed (or obtained some effective visual and textual cues from somewhere). The experience gives the imagination material to work on. Even when sitting at home, merely listening to some of the Ring, I know it well enough to hold its world in my imagination. The music is there, oh my goodness, yes, and I am listening to it; but at the same time I'm imagining the great drama playing out in my head. I can't even help doing it: it just happens. The music is like a tinderbox that is not merely wonderful in itself - but also ignites this vast world of drama in the imagination. I don't know anything remotely to compare with it, actually.

Quote from: San Antone on January 22, 2025, 07:20:12 AMOpera for me is best when I'm watching/listening to Mozart or Verdi.  But Donizetti, Rossini, Bellini, and Puccini follow closely behind. 

Ah, a kindred spirit!  I do appreciate some current or later ones, but I really adore Mozart, Verdi and bel canto.  Though, also, there are some special exceptions like "When I am Laid in Earth" (Purcell) [particularly when sung by Dame Janet Baker].

K

Quote from: DavidW on January 22, 2025, 09:52:31 AMThe 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. 

To your first point: of course.

To your second: the problem with any production is that for good or ill you are limited and conditioned by the choices of the director. I've seen outstanding productions of all sorts of operas, as well as wretched ones. I have quite a few Ring cycles on DVD and Bluray, and they range from the brilliant to the preposterous. Sometimes both at once.

But the "pure music" view of opera always raises a problem: just what is the point of all those words when you could just as well be singing la-la-la. The "I only care about the music" crowd can't answer that, just as it can't answer the fact that in opera, structure is determined by the story arc rather than any abstract formal model typical of absolute music. (Even when Mozart sets a number in sonata form, as in the third act sextet from The Marriage of Figaro, he does so to illustrate a dramatic action with a conflict and resolution, where the relations among the characters change during the course of the number.)

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 21, 2025, 04:56:23 PMThe simplest proof of the importance of the libretto is that composers have always taken great pains to find suitable texts for which to respond musically, and they often work closely with their librettists down to shaping the words for individual arias. The best articulation of this relationhip I know is found in Joseph Kerman's book "Opera as Drama" from 1956 which I recommend you all read. While the book is perhaps best-known for its snide one-liner describing "Tosca" as a "shabby little shocker," its real thesis is that in opera the composer is the dramatist, and the music of a great opera serves a similar function to the poetry in great spoken drama. In great opera - and Kerman chooses his examples primarily from Monteverdi, Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, Debussy, Mussorgsky, Berg, and Stravinsky among not many others - the composer takes the libretto as a starting point for his imagination, creating characterizations, developing a musical "world," and shaping the dramatic action.

"Always" is such a strong word in this context that it becomes counterfactual in historical perspective. What Kerman argues for is actually a late phenomenon, as witnessed by his choice of composers: all but two of them were active in late 19th and early 20th century (and his anti-Italian bias is apparent and probably assumed). Prior to that, especially in the late 1600s and all throughout the 1700s, there was a third factor beside composer and librettist which decided the final success of an opera, and a much more important one at that: the singers. Back then operas were tailored to singers, not the other way around, and what the composers really took great pains to was to accommodate and show-case their vocal capabilities and strengths. Singers, especially the famous ones, enjoyed (far) greater prestige than many if not most of the composers who wrote music for them (as evidenced by the far greater fees they were paid) and had (far) more influence than the composers (or librettists, for that matter) on the form an opera took on stage in actual performance (as witnessed by the widespread practice of insertion aria, of which Mozart himself wrote a few exemplars). If Kerman would us believe that composers have always been in tight control over all aspects of their opera, from libretto to score to production, in the manner of Meyerbeer, Wagner and late Verdi, then he ignores ample and irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 22, 2025, 06:14:34 PMBut the "pure music" view of opera always raises a problem: just what is the point of all those words when you could just as well be singing la-la-la. The "I only care about the music" crowd can't answer that,

The question conflates two different things: the creation of an opera and its reception.

Of course words are of paramount importance for the composer, nobody in their right minds ever disputed that. What the "prima la musica" crowd argues for is their relatively minor importance for the listener: even if said listener doesn't speak the language the opera is written in, they can still enjoy it.

Take the Rossini craze in Vienna and Paris, for instance. Do you believe that all and sundry who packed the opera houses night after night to hear his operas spoke Italian or could understand it? I don't. The French were notorious for their reluctance to learn foreign languages and your typical Biedermeier Viennese was not much of a polyglot either. Yet this didn't prevent them from madly falling in love with Rossini's music.

Better still, let's take you. I assume (perhaps wrongly, in which case please correct me) that you don't speak Russian yet you enjoy listening to Tchaikovsky's Evgeny Onegin.

Quotejust as it can't answer the fact that in opera, structure is determined by the story arc rather than any abstract formal model typical of absolute music.

The "prima la musica" crowd doesn't argue that operatic music is an abstract structure similar to absolute music and should be listened to in the same way; they are only too aware of the differences between them. It's precisely because of that awareness that they argue that, for instance, listening to an isolated number of an opera, say "Non piu andrai", "Verrano a te sull'aure" or "Confusi e stupidi", is a satisfactory experience even if one doesn't (quite) understand the words; they will never argue that listening to only the trio of a Haydn's menuetto or only to the development section of a Beethoven sonata offers the same kind of satisfaction.

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2025, 11:24:06 PM"Always" is such a strong word in this context that it becomes counterfactual in historical perspective. What Kerman argues for is actually a late phenomenon, as witnessed by his choice of composers: all but two of them were active in late 19th and early 20th century (and his anti-Italian bias is apparent and probably assumed). Prior to that, especially in the late 1600s and all throughout the 1700s, there was a third factor beside composer and librettist which decided the final success of an opera, and a much more important one at that: the singers. Back then operas were tailored to singers, not the other way around, and what the composers really took great pains to was to accommodate and show-case their vocal capabilities and strengths. Singers, especially the famous ones, enjoyed (far) greater prestige than many if not most of the composers who wrote music for them (as evidenced by the far greater fees they were paid) and had (far) more influence than the composers (or librettists, for that matter) on the form an opera took on stage in actual performance (as witnessed by the widespread practice of insertion aria, of which Mozart himself wrote a few exemplars). If Kerman would us believe that composers have always been in tight control over all aspects of their opera, from libretto to score to production, in the manner of Meyerbeer, Wagner and late Verdi, then he ignores ample and irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

You are correct entirely about this, and I think it shows that it's rather unfortunate we are trying to use a single word to describe something that has changed considerably over several centuries (like MOST things that last in some form for that sort of length of time).

We are on a "classical" music forum where in some cases you could take a pair of forum members and there would be no chronological overlap at all in what they listen to. Never mind stylistic overlap.

And when it comes to the particular genre of opera, I've already said that I don't have much interest in the stand-and-sing an aria style, which is also the style where insertion arias occurred. And we use the same word "opera" for that as we also use for works that scarcely have something you could call an aria like Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande.

Which is to say that I suspect a large part of the reason this conversation is so awkward is that people are likely to have VERY different things pop into their head when they read the word "opera". Even if one has some knowledge of it across the centuries, the first mental images are going to be influenced by what sort of "opera" one prefers.

Quote from: Madiel on January 23, 2025, 12:18:23 AMit's rather unfortunate we are trying to use a single word to describe something that has changed considerably over several centuries (like MOST things that last in some form for that sort of length of time).

Excellent observation.

And actually, opera is something that has changed considerably not only in time but also in space, or better said, considerable differences in space began to show up quite early and what was acceptable, expected and desired both on stage* and in the hall varied greatly from Naples to Paris or from Dresden to Venice. Cf. our discussion yesterday: Sharp was shocked that the Italians not only did not read the libretto while listening, but that actually they didn't even listen at all, while Baretti found both accusations ridiculous: for him precisely reading the book and listening would have been shocking. This without going into a discussion of what they actually meant by "listening", because I suspect they had different things in mind when using the same word: undivided attention (Sharp) vs selective inattention (Baretti). (Conversely, Goldoni was shocked by the relative silence which reigned at the Opera in Paris compared to the hustle and bustle he was accustomed to in Italy).

* in his Memoirs Casanova recalls that, one night at the Opera in Paris, an unnamed Italian gentleman (most probably, himself) asked his French neighbor in the box: "Monsieur, pray tell, when will they begin to sing?" "But confound it, sir!", replied the Frenchman, "they've been singing for three hours already!" "Ah!", said the Italian, "in Italy we call what they've been doing recitative, singing is another matter altogether!"

Quote from: San Antone on January 24, 2025, 04:12:31 AMI count Schoeck among my top tier favorite composers based on two works, Elegie and Nocturno. 

Great music indeed. Out of curiosity, if I may: do you speak German?

Quote from: Florestan on January 24, 2025, 11:03:35 AMGreat music indeed. Out of curiosity, if I may: do you speak German?

No, I rely entirely on translations.

Quote from: San Antone on January 24, 2025, 12:22:53 PMNo, I rely entirely on translations.

The very first time you heard Elegie and Notturno, did you first read the translation and then you were impressed by what you heard or the other way around?

Quote from: Florestan on January 24, 2025, 12:34:05 PMThe very first time you heard Elegie and Notturno, did you first read the translation and then you were impressed by what you heard or the other way around?

The first time for both works I was just enjoying the music and texture of voice with strings (especially the string quartet) and the 2nd listen I discovered what the poems were about.

Quote from: San Antone on January 24, 2025, 12:36:12 PMThe first time for both works I was just enjoying the music and texture of voice with strings (especially the string quartet)

Thank you very much for this. My main point in the "Opera - Words or Music?" is vindicated: prima la musica.

My first reaction to both works was the same, btw.

Quote from: Florestan on January 24, 2025, 12:38:48 PMThank you very much for this. My main point in the "Opera - Words or Music?" is vindicated: prima la musica.

My first reaction to both works was the same, btw.

We're elevating the anecdote to category now, are we? A question that has haunted so many for centuries is now going to be solved in a fortnight on an internet forum? Really?

IMHO, the only answer is the French horn's "question mark" played at the end of Richard Strauss' and Clemens Krauss' Capriccio.

Good evening, Andrei!

Quote from: Florestan on January 24, 2025, 12:38:48 PMThank you very much for this. My main point in the "Opera - Words or Music?" is vindicated: prima la musica.

My first reaction to both works was the same, btw.

I don't equate lieder with opera, although both involve texts set to music. Opera is much more of a narrative art, whereas songs are short pieces expressing generally a single idea or emotion (although there are narrative, or story, songs, which happen to be my favorite). Even so, I did not go for long without learning what the songs were about.  I am after all a songwriter and have spent a lifetime studying songs, as well as musical drama.

I don't wish to debate the issue, you are welcome to believe what you wish.

Quote from: San Antone on January 24, 2025, 01:54:17 PMI don't equate lieder with opera, although both involve texts set to music.

My point is not dependent on genre. One can enjoy vocal music of any kind even sung in a language one doesn't understand. One can even be so impressed by what one hears that one is compelled to look into the meaning of the text. Literally prima la musica poi le parole. Your experience with Schoeck proves it.

QuoteOpera is much more of a narrative art, whereas songs are short pieces expressing generally a single idea or emotion

Well, this applies to operatic arias, duets and choruses too, which is why so many of them are performed/recorded as stand-alone pieces, a few of them even becoming hugely popular, international hits as it were. I'm not sure that all and sundry who enthusiastically cheer Nessun dorma or Libiamo ne' lieti calici in concerts all over the world understand Italian, let alone have heard Turandot or La traviata in their entirety.

And with this I rest my case for good, don't want to derail this thread more than I already have.

Quote from: Florestan on January 25, 2025, 12:14:02 AMMy point is not dependent on genre. One can enjoy vocal music of any kind even sung in a language one doesn't understand. One can even be so impressed by what one hears that one is compelled to look into the meaning of the text. Literally prima la musica poi le parole. Your experience with Schoeck proves it.

My experience of madrigals in the seconda pratica is the opposite. The text here is determining the music, and without following the text, everything appears very uniform to me, because the way the music reflects the texts is too subtle for me to apprehend in real time without the aid of the poems.

I speak as someone who went to a complete performance of Monteverdi Bk 4 last year. What I report above became absolutely clear after the initial pleasure of the beauty of the timbre and the fascinating polyphony and melody.

I would say much the same is true operas with where large sections are through composed or conversational -- Intermezzo, Fanciulla, Makropoulos Case maybe (years since I last heard any Janacek operas!), Britten's Curlew River,  Nixon in China and no doubt many others. Many song cycles are like that too I think -- for example Krenek's Reisebuch Aus Den Österreichischen Alpen

You know this, but prima la musica is not saying that the listener enjoys the music first, it's saying that the text in detail determines the nature of the music in detail.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 25, 2025, 03:30:33 AMMy experience of madrigals in the seconda pratica is the opposite. The text here is determining the music, and without following the text, everything appears very uniform to me, because the way the music reflects the texts is too subtle for me to apprehend in real time without the aid of the poems.

You seem to read "one does" or even "one must" where I simply wrote "one can".

QuoteI speak as someone who went to a complete performance of Monteverdi Bk 4 last year. What I report above became absolutely clear after the initial pleasure of the beauty of the timbre and the fascinating polyphony and melody.

Performing, and listening to, a whole book of madrigals in one sitting is not how they did them back then. As un-HIP as it gets.

Quoteprima la musica is not saying that the listener enjoys the music first, it's saying that the text in detail determines the nature of the music in detail.

Tell that to Handel or Rossini, who frequently recycled their music to accommodate completely different texts.

You can do an experiment yourself: take J'ai perdu mon Eurydice from Gluck's Orphee et Eurydice

J'ai perdu mon Eurydice,,
Rien n'égale mon malheur;
Sort cruel! Quelle rigueur!
Rien n'égale mon malheur!
Je succombe à ma douleur!

Now, replace the above with the following:

J'ai trouvé mon Eurydice,,
Rien n'égale mon bonheur;
Sort propice! Quelle bonheur!
Rien n'égale mon bonheur!
Je succombe à mon bonheur!

(thus radically altering the meaning of the text)

and sing the corresponding bars (or imagine them being sung). Does the music lose its appeal? Do you detect any mismatch or incongruity between it and the new text?

Quote from: Florestan on January 25, 2025, 07:00:09 AMPerforming, and listening to, a whole book of madrigals in one sitting is not how they did them back then. As un-HIP as it gets.

 

Let me pick up on this to start with. How do you know?

Quote from: Mandryka on January 25, 2025, 07:12:13 AMLet me pick up on this to start with. How do you know?

Educated guess.

Quote from: Florestan on January 25, 2025, 09:41:39 AMEducated guess.

Scott Metcalf argues that Cipriano de Rore's 1542 five part madrigals are ordered from the point of view of narrative in the poems. For that reason I think it's possible to imagine a performance of the whole cycle, maybe with the poems read by a speaker before the corresponding madrigal is sung, so that the audience would understand.

I've seen similar arguments about the core Machaut motets.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 25, 2025, 10:14:12 AMScott Metcalf argues that Cipriano de Rore's 1542 five part madrigals are ordered from the point of view of narrative in the poems. For that reason I think it's possible to imagine a performance of the whole cycle, maybe with the poems read by a speaker before the corresponding madrigal is sung, so that the audience would understand.

On what occasion, in which venue and for what audience would that have taken place?

Quote from: Florestan on January 25, 2025, 10:19:26 AMOn what occasion, in which venue and for what audience would that have taken place?

A gathering of refined ladies and gentlemen in a palace in Venice?   

Quote from: Mandryka on January 25, 2025, 10:20:52 AMA gathering of refined ladies and gentlemen in a palace in Venice?   

I don't know. What does Scott Metcalf says?

Quote from: Florestan on January 25, 2025, 10:23:50 AMI don't know. What does Scott Metcalf says?

He says

. . . we have neither a description nor even a record of any performances of Cipriano's Madrigali a cinque voci during the composer's lifetime or indeed at any time before our era, despite the fact that the music was reprinted in nearly a dozen editions during the sixteenth century.

This is the sort of performance I have in mind -- though admittedly, Le Vergine is half the length of the five part madrigals of 1542. You hear the poems, and this allows you to enjoy the simultaneous responses in polyphonic music, music which has been written prima le parole style.

Why not make the discussion more simple?
The text is of course the primary creation and the music seeks obviously to illustrate the affect in the text. But whether detailed knowledge of the text is always necessary to be able to perceive the affect of the music is doubtful. In the case of Italian madrigals with their sometimes fast changing affects, it may be an advantage for some, but of course the descriptions of affect in the music can be perceived and enjoyed without much knowledge of the text, and sometimes the text even seems to distract from the music.

 

Quote from: Florestan on January 24, 2025, 12:38:48 PMThank you very much for this. My main point in the "Opera - Words or Music?" is vindicated: prima la musica.

My first reaction to both works was the same, btw.

Your main point is not vindicated by a single data point.**

You sometimes come across as trying to prove something for all people everywhere. And at this stage I think it's about time that you let people who really want to consult a translation while listening do that, and stop telling them they're doing it wrong.

**And you didn't actually ask San Antone whether he enjoyed the 1st listen as much as the 2nd. You just shot to the conclusion that because San Antone enjoys the works NOW, the enjoyment must have been there from the very 1st listen. Not only do you claim a single piece of data vindicated you, you don't even analyse that single piece of data correctly.

This in spite of my own single anecdote that I already gave you about Shostakovich's 13th symphony of exactly the same situation: 1st listen without words, 2nd listen with words. Where I told you how much better the 2nd listen was. Which you just felt you could completely ignore because it wasn't opera. Well if you give me a while I'll roll out the same kind of personal anecdote about a moment in an opera and then you can un-vindicate yourself a little.

Quote from: Madiel on January 25, 2025, 11:39:55 AMI think it's about time that you let people who really want to consult a translation while listening do that, and stop telling them they're doing it wrong.

I never told anyone they're doing anything wrong and never prohibited anyone to read the libretto either in original or in translation. You make it sound as if it were in my power to do that, which is frankly absurd.

Quote from: Florestan on January 25, 2025, 11:58:13 AMI never told anyone they're doing anything wrong and never prohibited anyone to read the libretto either in original or in translation. You make it sound as if it were in my power to do that, which is frankly absurd.

Maybe you should read your very first question at the beginning and recognise that your entire premise has been that everyone should arrive at the same answer. Because how else could San Antone's personal experience "vindicate" you?

I don't even have the same answer for all music with words.

As for what's in your power, people attempt things that aren't actually in their power all the time. But what I said was you telling people something. Clearly you TELLING people is within your power.

Quote from: Madiel on January 25, 2025, 12:09:55 PMMaybe you should read your very first question at the beginning and recognise that your entire premise has been that everyone should arrive at the same answer.

I recognize no such thing. Here is what I wrote:

Quote from: Florestan on January 20, 2025, 02:39:16 AMAll this is not to say that the words are completely negligible. Familiarity with the plot and the substance of the most important numbers/scenes is useful and helpful and can add to the overall enjoyment. Yet the reverse is not true methinks: complete ignorance of the action or of what is being sung at the moment cannot detract from such enjoyment*.

My tow cents, of course. You might have a radically different opinion and if you feel so inclined, please share it.

Conspicuously different from your interpretation of it.

QuoteBecause how else could San Antone's personal experience "vindicate" you?

San Antone said that he first heard Schoeck's Elegie and Notturno without previously reading the poems in translation and without understanding German and enjoyed them a lot.

This confirms what I've been claiming all along, namely that one can (can, mind you, not should) enjoy vocal music even without understanding the language in which it is sung. "To vindicate" means "show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified". Therefore, it's not wrong, unreasonable or unjustified to say that his experience vindicates my claim (for which I already had plenty of evidence anyway prior to San Antone's statement).

QuoteAs for what's in your power, people attempt things that aren't actually in their power all the time. But what I said was you telling people something. Clearly you TELLING people is within your power.

Here's what you said:

Quote from: Madiel on January 25, 2025, 11:39:55 AMYou sometimes come across as trying to prove something for all people everywhere. And at this stage I think it's about time that you let people who really want to consult a translation while listening do that, and stop telling them they're doing it wrong.

which clearly implies that somehow it's within my power to prevent people who really want to consult a translation while listening from doing that. It is not. You paint me as an intolerant doctrinaire who wants to impose his own views and practices on everybody else, which is very far from being the case. But you knew that already so I don't understand why we're even having this discussion.

I remain of the view that your little "gotcha" attempt with San Antone was completely inappropriate. Why San Antone should be the relevant anecdote after several pages of other people's writing (including but not confined to mine), I've no idea. That's all I have to say.

Quote from: Madiel on January 26, 2025, 03:31:05 AMI remain of the view that your little "gotcha" attempt with San Antone was completely inappropriate. Why San Antone should be the relevant anecdote after several pages of other people's writing (including but not confined to mine), I've no idea. That's all I have to say.

To which all I have to say is this: San Antone himself, although expressing disagreement, didn't take my comment as personal and as ill as you seem to have taken it.

Quote from: prémont on January 25, 2025, 11:35:21 AMWhy not make the discussion more simple?
The text is of course the primary creation and the music seeks obviously to illustrate the affect in the text. But whether detailed knowledge of the text is always necessary to be able to perceive the affect of the music is doubtful. In the case of Italian madrigals with their sometimes fast changing affects, it may be an advantage for some, but of course the descriptions of affect in the music can be perceived and enjoyed without much knowledge of the text, and sometimes the text even seems to distract from the music.

In the specific case of madrigals, or indeed of any polyphonic vocal music, the intelligibility of the text is doubly impacted on. First, by the inevitable distortion of words introduced by singing itself and then by polyphony itself, different words, sequences of words or entire lines being sung simultaneously. All this makes following even the original Italian poem very difficult, if not downright impossible; following a translation would result in an even greater cognitive dissonance between what one hears and what one reads.

But as I said, my guess is back then they didn't listen to an entire book of madrigals in one sitting, because it would have greatly taxed not only the patience and concentration of the audience but also the stamina of the singers. A few of them, interspersed with instrumental music, dancing and conversation (and the accompanying refreshments, both food and drink) probably paints a more realistic picture.

Quote from: Florestan on January 26, 2025, 07:37:28 AMIn the specific case of madrigals, or indeed of any polyphonic vocal music, the intelligibility of the text is doubly impacted on. First, by the inevitable distortion of words introduced by singing itself and then by polyphony itself, different words, sequences of words or entire lines being sung simultaneously. All this makes following even the original Italian poem very difficult, if not downright impossible; following a translation would result in an even greater cognitive dissonance between what one hears and what one reads.

Agreed, and this is why I wrote above that in this case it may be an advantage for some (those who want) to know the words beforehand. In my own case I restrict myself to listen to the music, because I find that the words don't enhance the experience of the music that much, maybe because music as a principle only expresses itself and the association with words often is relatively imposed.

Quote from: prémont on January 26, 2025, 07:55:01 AMAgreed, and this is why I wrote above that in this case it may be an advantage for some (those who want) to know the words beforehand. In my own case I restrict myself to listen to the music, because I find that the words don't enhance the experience of the music that much, maybe because music as a principle only expresses itself and the association with words often is relatively imposed.

Many years ago, maybe 30 or 40, I listened to the entire cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen, holding a booklet with the text and following every word. My German was weak, so I listened with English translation. I found that understanding the text fully gave the music a slightly different nuance of meaning. Does it enhance the impression? Probably, yes. But I only did that once. I never repeated it, neither with Der Ring nor with other operas by other composers. I'm perfectly fine just listening without knowing the literal meaning.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on January 26, 2025, 09:23:57 AMMany years ago, maybe 30 or 40, I listened to the entire cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen, holding a booklet with the text and following every word. My German was weak, so I listened with English translation. I found that understanding the text fully gave the music a slightly different nuance of meaning. Does it enhance the impression? Probably, yes. But I only did that once. I never repeated it, neither with Der Ring nor with other operas by other composers. I'm perfectly fine just listening without knowing the literal meaning.

Three years ago I wacthed the entire Ring cycle on Met Opera On Demand - with subtitles.  I learned the story, saw the settings, and the staging, acting, etc.  I may never do that again, but it is imprinted on my mind (and ears) so that whenever I listen to the work(s) I visualize what I've already seen - and it is huge help. 

To listen to it without an awareness of what they are singing about would be meaningless to me. If I want to listen to a long orchestral work, I can put on a Mahler symphony. To treat Wagner that way would be a disservice to the his achievement.

IMO

I often re-listen to Tristan und Isolde (the last time was a week ago), even though for all these years I have only had a general understanding of what is happening. Maybe I am unworthy of listening to Wagner.

Quote from: San Antone on January 26, 2025, 10:31:17 AMThree years ago I wacthed the entire Ring cycle on Met Opera On Demand - with subtitles.  I learned the story, saw the settings, and the staging, acting, etc.  I may never do that again, but it is imprinted on my mind (and ears) so that whenever I listen to the work(s) I visualize what I've already seen - and it is huge help. 

To listen to it without an awareness of what they are singing about would be meaningless to me. If I want to listen to a long orchestral work, I can put on a Mahler symphony. To treat Wagner that way would be a disservice to the his achievement.

IMO

I've watched with subtitles three different Ring recordings, listened to several others, and love listening to highlights and bloody chunks from Bohm and others. I enjoy it in all forms. And Mahler is no substitute. If I want Wagner, I want Wagner even if I can't sit and watch, it is happening. The only disservice I see would be to ignore him entirely.

Something like Act 2 of Tristan, I think it's best not to think about what they're singing. You know, there's a danger of starting to wonder what all this stuff about day and night and life and death could possibly actually mean.  IMO it's better for your mental health to avoid all of that.

I think it may be of interest to understand the affect expressed by the text and to compare it with the affect of the music. However, detailed knowledge of the individual words is rarely of great value in the proces of enjoying the music.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 26, 2025, 11:10:45 AMSomething like Act 2 of Tristan, I think it's best not to think about what they're singing. You know, there's a danger of starting to wonder what all this stuff about day and night and life and death could possibly actually mean.  IMO it's better for your mental health to avoid all of that.

It's clearly very Novalis-inspired, although one's mileage may vary in how well it is executed.

Quote from: Mandryka on January 26, 2025, 11:10:45 AMSomething like Act 2 of Tristan, I think it's best not to think about what they're singing. You know, there's a danger of starting to wonder what all this stuff about day and night and life and death could possibly actually mean.  IMO it's better for your mental health to avoid all of that.

Your irony is noted.  :)

Quote from: DavidW on January 26, 2025, 10:54:07 AMI've watched with subtitles three different Ring recordings, listened to several others, and love listening to highlights and bloody chunks from Bohm and others. I enjoy it in all forms. And Mahler is no substitute. If I want Wagner, I want Wagner even if I can't sit and watch, it is happening. The only disservice I see would be to ignore him entirely.

I'm not sure how to put it more clearly, and I might say something that not many will agree with. But when it comes to Wagner, I feel that he's at a level where the literal meaning of the text matters less. He has this transcendent ability to affect the listener, one that goes beyond just a logical sequence of meaning. Something like that.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on January 26, 2025, 11:16:49 AMI'm not sure how to put it more clearly, and I might say something that not many will agree with. But when it comes to Wagner, I feel that he's at a level where the literal meaning of the text matters less. He has this transcendent ability to affect the listener, one that goes beyond just a logical sequence of meaning. Something like that.

That effect is certainly a possibility, considering his storytelling and characters can be rather archetypal and thus it can be argued that something unconscious in us resonates with the imagery, tropes etc. regardless of whether there is much reason logically with a literal meaning of the text. For what it's worth, I have read several analyses that have, to me, proved without a shadow of doubt that there is logic in literal meaning also.