Opera - Words or Music?

[Florestan]

(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.

*

[Ganondorf]

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

[ChamberNut]

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.

[Madiel]

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).

[Madiel]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

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. 

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

[Madiel]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

I'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.

[Florestan]

I will never forget my first 2 listens to Shostakovich's 13th symphony

Which is not an opera. 

[Madiel]

Which 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".

[Florestan]

I 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.

[Mandryka]

(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.

[Florestan]

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.
 

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

[Mandryka]

Have you actually read my whole OP?

Of course not.

[Cato]

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

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

[San Antone]

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.

[Florestan]

I 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.

[Mandryka]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

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"

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.