Opera - Words or Music?

[Karl Henning]

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. 

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. 

[Elgarian Redux]

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. 

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.

[Kalevala]

Opera 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

[(poco) Sforzando]

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. 

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.)

[Florestan]

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.

"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.

[Florestan]

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,

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.

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.

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.

[Madiel]

"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.

[Florestan]

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).

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!"

[Florestan]

I 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?

[San Antone]

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

No, I rely entirely on translations.

[Florestan]

No, 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?

[San Antone]

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?

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.

[Florestan]

The 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.

[ritter]

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.

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!

[San Antone]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

I 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.

Opera 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.

[Mandryka]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Mandryka]

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.

 

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

[Florestan]

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

Educated guess.