# Do you consider Opera music to be classical music?



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Using some of the arguments used in the thread about film music it seems it's not.

Even according to one of the most popular opera composers of today, Jake Heggie, is music that it's not meant to be just heard and it has to be experienced with the visual part of it, the scenery, costumes etc and rarely can be appreciated start to finish just listening to it.





(4:43-5:12 in the video)

And like film music it's also music that it doesn't exist alone, but many times it's more a background for the dialogues and the action.

So if opera music and film music are so similar in their function, does it mean that operas should not be considered as classical works?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Again, it probably depends, at least somewhat, on the specific opera. Any opera using a traditional orchestra in more or less traditional ways would probably work. Once you start to get into Rock-Operas and Broadway shows, I think a line has been crossed. I was thinking more about the film music thread, and where the line would be there, to some extent. I think it has to do with the interrelatedness of the themes employed. Once you get to something like the old "Casino Royale" film (with David Niven, Peter Sellers, Orson Welles and Woody Allen), it just becomes a collection of songs that are related only by the film itself and the musical forces employed. (Burt Bacharach was a song writer.) I don't really consider the Broadway show "Les Miserables" to be opera, even though it has an orchestra and they reuse several of the very basic themes, although not really with any sense of development. (I have never seen the full show as a show. Is there spoken dialogue? That might be problematic for an opera.)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

It would take more than a few asides and one or two sketched arguments for me to change my usage of the term "classical music"! Opera is classical music - that's what the world believes. 

Operetta is probably classical music, as well. I don't think of musicals as classical music but am sure some will argue that they are. Operas started with Monteverdi, Purcell, Handel, Vivaldi and Mozart (among others) - all clearly classical composers - and they used classical forms and instruments with singing in the style of the classical songs of their time. The arguments in the film music thread that operas are not classical music may have been required by those who wanted to elevate (as they saw it) film music. But their interest was possibly more about creating a body of modern classical music that did not involve the novelty, relevance or rigour of modern and contemporary classical music and thereby enabled them to sidetrack such unpleasantness and remain in a recognisably 19th century world . I am not sure that anyone was that serious about expelling opera (or even ballet) from classical music, were they?

The music is of course absolutely central to the impact of opera. The words, the stories, the characterisations - all would be nearly totally absent without the music. The music is not merely for underlining or accompanying the action.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Some of the most interesting work being done today in the classical arena is in opera. Every year there are newly written operas that are far more interesting that most of the commissions going on in the symphony hall. Like any other genre, some will last, most won't. One of the most entertaining, beautiful and emotional works I've heard in recent years was Riders of the Purple Sage by Craig Bohmler, based on the Zane Grey novel. Lorin Maazel's opera "1984" was also very good - and quite modern.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

The best argument I could think of for why opera music (and music for oratorios, cantatas, song cycles, etc.) is classical and film scores are not (not that I totally agree with it, just a good reason) is that opera and all other instrumental music that accompanies a program is meant to be performed and experienced live while film music is pre-recorded and is never "performed" unless it is arranged for concert suites. That's also why I don't consider much electronic music classical, because it is pre-recorded oftentimes with dubbing, multi tracking, etc. and is not a live experience. Then I also completely agree with Enthusiast on this:



> The music is of course absolutely central to the impact of opera. The words, the stories, the characterisations - all would be nearly totally absent without the music. The music is not merely for underlining or accompanying the action.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> The music is of course absolutely central to the impact of opera. The words, the stories, the characterisations - all would be nearly totally absent without the music. The music is not merely for underlining or accompanying the action.


I do agree with this wholeheartedly. It's clear that film is primarily a visual art form while opera is primarily a musical one, and this is reflected in the fact that the primary creative figure in a film is the director, while in opera it is the composer.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> The music is of course absolutely central to the impact of opera. The words, the stories, the characterisations - all would be nearly totally absent without the music. The music is not merely for underlining or accompanying the action.


I disagree. Sure there are arias the can be listened as pure music (but that's true also for songs in film music), there are preludes, but a lot of music in a opera listened by itself does not work by itself. It's a background to the dialogues. There are large portions of a opera that are just that, melodic fragments under what the singer are saying more than anything else.

By the way I obviously I don't think that opera isn't classical music just because of this, I'm saying that using those arguments used to say that film music can't be considered classical, even opera should not be considered classical.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The best argument I could think of for why opera is classical and film scores are not (not that I totally agree with it, just a good reason) is that opera is meant to be performed and experienced live while film music is pre-recorded and is never "performed" unless it is arranged for concert suites.


In the silent music era, the score was often played by live musicians in theaters where that could be afforded. Travelling films often had to make do in smaller venues with just an organ or piano. (The recording of the score mostly solved a problem of varying venues, and it allowed the music to be even more closely tracked to a scene.) Does an opera cease to be classical music if it is recorded for DVD? If that is the case, then I have a non-opera version of Wagner's Ring Cycle.

And there are certainly films that have been mostly carried by the score, with the score directing us to more than what we see on the screen, including thoughts of the actors. A score can set the tone as humorous or ominous, and the movie will play very differently based on those scores. This is hardly a great example, but in Lord of the Rings films, there is a point where our "heroes" are walking a great distance to the next leg of the adventure, and Frodo turns to look behind him, and the music plays the motif for Hobbittown. That makes it clear that he is not just looking to see if anyone is following, but he is thinking of home.

Edit: I would actually argue that film scores are more akin to classical music when they do not have words.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The best argument I could think of for why opera music (and music for oratorios, cantatas, song cycles, etc.) is classical and film scores are not (not that I totally agree with it, just a good reason) is that opera and all other instrumental music that accompanies a program is meant to be performed and experienced live while film music is pre-recorded and is never "performed" unless it is arranged for concert suites. That's also why I don't consider much electronic music classical, because it is pre-recorded oftentimes with dubbing, multi tracking, etc. and is not a live experience. Then I also completely agree with Enthusiast on this:


then classical music on cd isn't classical music?
I mean, like a movie was "live" in the moment it was recorded, even a symphony was "live" before it was recorded and mixed in a cd.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

norman bates said:


> then classical music on cd isn't classical music?
> I mean, like a movie was "live" in the moment it was recorded, even a symphony was "live" before it was recorded and mixed in a cd.


But the movie wasn't originally meant for live _performance_, was it? Like I said, I don't entirely agree with my own reasoning, it was just a potential argument. I really don't have too many strong opinions on this subject and don't care whether film music is classified as classical or not.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

norman bates said:


> Using some of the arguments used in the thread about film music it seems it's not.
> 
> Even according to one of the most popular opera composers of today, Jake Heggie, is music that it's not meant to be just heard and it has to be experienced with the visual part of it, the scenery, costumes etc and *rarely can be appreciated start to finish just listening to it.*
> 
> ...


Opera and film music are not similar in function. The mere fact that both opera and film combine music with other arts isn't evidence of similarity. Music is normally - most of the time, in most operas, in most periods, in the work of most composers and in the expectations of most audiences - the _primary medium of expression_ in opera. In every successful opera, and every good production, music creates the emotional substance and pacing which are the blood, flesh and muscle that bring the bare bones of the plot to life. Good opera composers know that the dramatic structure and language of an opera libretto must be dictated largely by what works musically; good opera singers know that expression through music is their primary function and that the possible range of acting choices, often their very gestures, are dictated by the structure and emotion of their music (Maria Callas, one of the greatest actors in opera, used to say that if you want to know how to act in an opera, listen to the music). If the music of an opera is weak it rarely survives in the repertoire even if it's based on literary material of great merit, and if its singers and conductor are inadequate, clever staging won't rescue it.

Music is useful to varying extent in film, even in many cases important in establishing an apt mood or atmosphere, but almost never central, which is why film composers are apt to find their scores mercilessly cut and pasted by directors.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

These discussions are a little like trying to differentiate the characteristics that make an animal a dog rather than a cat. There are lots of different kinds of dogs (big ones, small ones, different shapes and colors, etc.). What makes them all dogs is that they share significant genetic material. Traditional orchestral film scores share the same generic material as so much music that is clearly accepted as classical music. I think that is why such music qualifies, and things like 4'33" do not.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Opera and film music are not similar in function. The mere fact that both opera and film combine music with other arts isn't evidence of similarity. Music is normally - most of the time, in most operas, in most periods, in the work of most composers and in the expectations of most audiences - the _primary medium of expression_ in opera. In every successful opera, and every good production, music creates the emotional substance and pacing which are the blood, flesh and muscle that bring the bare bones of the plot to life. Good opera composers know that the dramatic structure and language of an opera libretto must be dictated largely by what works musically; good opera singers know that expression through music is their primary function and that the possible range of acting choices, often their very gestures, are dictated by the structure and emotion of their music (Maria Callas, one of the greatest actors in opera, used to say that if you want to know how to act in an opera, listen to the music). If the music of an opera is weak it rarely survives in the repertoire even if it's based on literary material of great merit, and if its singers and conductor are inadequate, clever staging won't rescue it.


as said above, I tend to agree much more with Jake Heggie. The reason I don't listen too much to operas is that without reading the libretto and the story, and watching it staged it's not a fully satisfying experience like a symphony for me. Because those things are vital (and the blood, flesh and muscles to use your words) for the work as the music. Certain parts of operas are wonderful even alone, but the whole opera relies on those other aspects. I can enjoy a aria even without knowing the words of it. If I'm listening to a opera without staging or without even knowing the lyrics part of the experience is missing, I'm lost at sea if I can put it this way. And to me it's exactly because of the importance of the other aspects of the work.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I think it's a mistake to try to look too hard for _musical_ reasons why this or that should be considered classical music. The stuff we call classical music may (or may not) have some musical elements in common, but there are always things on the margins, and I don't think you can ever settle once and for all what classical music is in strictly musical terms. So I think it's pointless to try.

I think it's better to think of it in cultural terms, or even _lexicographical_ terms. There's a tradition of classical music in which some kinds of music have been lumped together, for one reason or another. And opera pretty squarely fits in that tradition. So yes, I think it counts as classical music.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Of course opera is classical music . What other category could we assign to it ? Opera is one of the various genres of classical music, such as orchestral music, camber music, et al .
It's a very important part of classical music , combining singers, orchestra , chorus , sets, costumes ,acting etc


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Operas are a different animal from film music (which is essentially a type of modern-day "incidental music"), which is usable for any type of scenes as long as it's appropriate for the scenes in terms of aesthetics and mood. In writing operas, the composer has to be able to set the text to music in not just solos, but also various other vocal ensembles, such as duets, trios, quartets, choruses, while making sure everything makes sense with the plot, (every character expresses their own point of view), to be a complete piece of music on its own.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

norman bates said:


> as said above, I tend to agree much more with Jake Heggie. The reason I don't listen too much to operas is that without reading the libretto and the story, and watching it staged it's not a fully satisfying experience like a symphony for me. Because those things are vital (and the blood, flesh and muscles to use your words) for the work as the music. Certain parts of operas are wonderful even alone, but the whole opera relies on those other aspects. I can enjoy a aria even without knowing the words of it. If I'm listening to a opera without staging or without even knowing the lyrics part of the experience is missing, I'm lost at sea if I can put it this way. And to me it's exactly because of the importance of the other aspects of the work.


Heggie says that there are few operas which work ENTIRELY as pure music without reference to plot and staging. I don't disagree. That doesn't negate a single point I made, and it doesn't support your statement that operatic music and film music are similar in function. Music is central in opera, and the more central it is the better the opera. Wagner left his idea of the equality of the arts in opera behind as he came to realize the true power and dominance of music. By contrast, music is supportive in film, and in general needs to be strictly subordinated to the dramatic and visual arts. In opera, music is master; in film, servant.

Many people listen to operas entirely, or almost entirely, for the musical rewards, and many operas have an abundance of such rewards to offer. As for the relative importance of music and staging, one can imagine the staging of _Aida_ while listening to it, but not the music while watching a silent movie of it. Some of best opera productions take place in the theater of the mind. This may not be your experience of opera. I can assure you that it is mine, and that of innumerable others.

As for the term "classical," it's more of a convention than a reality. Operatic music is certainly classical by convention, and film music may or may not be.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Heggie says that there are few operas which work ENTIRELY as pure music without reference to plot and staging. I don't disagree. That doesn't negate a single point I made, and it doesn't support your statement that operatic music and film music are similar in function. Many people listen to operas entirely, or almost entirely, for the musical rewards, and many operas have an abundance of such rewards to offer. As for the relative importance of music and staging, one can imagine the staging of _Aida_ while listening to it, but not the music while watching a silent movie of it. Some of best opera productions take place in the theater of the mind.
> 
> This may not be your experience of opera. I can assure you that it is mine, and that of innumerable others.


I was watching Otello (I think it was Otello, maybe it was something else) on the Met Opera Player with subtitles on, and they had captions for certain sound effects, indications of audience applause, etc. And I was thinking, if you can't hear what's going on and you need these cues, it might be a better idea for you to find some other way to spend a few hours. (Maybe the people they paid to do the captions are just used to adding these sorts of things in, but I just thought it was amusing.)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Maybe in fantasy land opera is not counted as classical music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> ... Good opera composers know that the dramatic structure and language of an opera libretto must be dictated largely by what works musically....


Not sure what this means.
But, I would suggest that good opera composers know that the dramatic structure and language of an opera libretto must be complemented by the music. Unless there is an irony or some other reason to have music that runs counter to the dictates of the libretto. But in most (a great majority, too, that is) operas, the script comes prior to the music and thus dictates the music.

Film music is also written (largely) to prior content. The composer must watch the scene to which music is to be set. In many cases, a generically chosen incidental music is selected by the director to provide some sense of the mood or atmosphere or style he wishes for the scene's sound background, but the composer may actually have ideas of his or her own that run counter to the director's, and on occasion music that would at first have seemed antithetical to the scene becomes the very music that propels the scene to greatness.

Probably, most film music is "safe" as far as the scene it supports goes. The general success of a film score is measured, after all, by the very fact that the audience doesn't notice it outside of the context of the action on screen. If one is paying attention to the music in a movie, the composer likely hasn't done his/her job well, even though that composer may have written some great music.

I think our definition of "classical" gets in the way of a discussion of whether film music or opera or musical theatre or rock concerts qualify as "classical music." We use the term "classical" in reference to theatre, architecture, dance, portraiture painting, poetry … all sorts of arts. It's a very general, wide term which all of us understand in some vague sense but would likely not want to attempt to define in anything less than a million words or so.

I think I know what "classical poetry" is (Ovid, Virgil, John Donne, Walt Whitman...) and I know that if I write a poem, however good it may be, it is not quite "classical". Maybe someday, but I am not in a hurry to arrive at that day.

We sometimes use the term "high art" to replace "classical art". This seems inadequate, too, for much of what would then be "low art" is still very good art.

I often use the term "serious music" to replace the term "classical music", but this proves inadequate, too. Still, I rely upon the common sense judgment of my audiences to understand what I try to communicate by use of such terms. I'm not meaning to demean other art forms by using terms "high" or "serious" or "classical", and I could even argue (again, if I had at least a million words to work with) that all "high" or "serious" art is not necessarily "classical". Yes, it gets complicated.

Kabuki is a classical Japanese dance-drama. It is classical because it is traditional. It has nothing to do with ancient Greek poetry or architecture, or with music by Haydn and Mozart, or by satires by Alexander Pope or paintings by Jacque Louis David. The word "classical" has different meanings that makes it confusing in certain contexts.

I would maintain that opera music is indeed "classical", perhaps with the exceptions of the Who's _Tommy_ or Lloyd Webber's _Jesus Christ Superstar_.... Live performance has nothing to do with it (rock music is performed live but is not quite "classical"), nor does the notion that it includes scripted words to be sung (art songs by Schubert are clearly "classical" while the artful songs of the Beatles and Cole Porter are not quite yet). Yes, it's complicated. And it all bubbles down to inadequacies of language and word definitions and our own human predilection for categorizing things and ideas.

Which is why we should simply enjoy art as we wish. Listen to the music we enjoy, view the stage productions and movies we want, browse in museums and art shops for the graphic images we prefer to look at … and simple settle into enjoying the wonderful diversity available to us in arts. After all, life is short, we all are told, and with good reason.

When I hear Elmer Berstein's soundtrack to _To Kill a Mockingbird_ or Miklós Rózsa _Ben Hur_ … when I listen to a recording of _Tosca_, _Rigoletto_ or _Fidelio_, I have little doubt that I am listening to anything but "classical music". But then, I'm defining the word "classical" in my own manner, with my unvoiced million-some word long definition. And that works for me.

I suspect that someday Bob Dylan's songs will be considered "classical", too. Does it really matter if the song is put down on score paper (as Schubert notated his) or put down on wax discs over microphones in a recording studio? In either case we have a song -- a work of art. What makes it useful to us is our own intentions. The same thing that makes it "classical" or not. And in the end, none of what we intend really matters to anybody else. At least where art is concerned.

Art is not just a personal expression of the maker, it is also personally received by the audience members who make it their own in their own ways.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> film music is pre-recorded and is never "performed" unless it is arranged for concert suites. That's also why I don't consider much electronic music classical, because it is pre-recorded oftentimes with dubbing, multi tracking, etc. and is not a live experience. Then I also completely agree with Enthusiast on this:


What an interesting thing to say 30 years into the tradition of live-to-projection concerts. In fact, just today the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra made a little video podcast about how those work.:





Btw. I like how hammeredklavier referenced a video about SW77 that, if it shows one thing, it is Williams' superior mastery of melody. Mozart would agree with me of that. 
Filmmakers can toss him any work by any composer before him, and he can make it better. This has been said by musicians about his concert arrangements of works of others as well.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Heggie says that there are few operas which work ENTIRELY as pure music without reference to plot and staging. I don't disagree. That doesn't negate a single point I made, and it doesn't support your statement that operatic music and film music are similar in function. Music is central in opera, and the more central it is the better the opera. Wagner left his idea of the equality of the arts in opera behind as he came to realize the true power and dominance of music. By contrast, music is supportive in film, and in general needs to be strictly subordinated to the dramatic and visual arts. In opera, music is master; in film, servant.


that's a distinction I can agree with. And obviously I listen to operas I do it for the music. But still even if in a opera music is the most important part, it still it's not autosufficient. Some parts of operas are.



Woodduck said:


> As for the term "classical," it's more of a convention than a reality. Operatic music is certainly classical by convention, and film music may or may not be.


I agree with this too, I don't actually think that opera isn't classical music. I just wanted to point out that some of the arguments used to say that even when a famous classical composer makes music for a film (using the "language" and the instruments of classical music) it's not classical music because music depends on other parts of the work (like the visuals and dialogues) could be used to say the same for opera, which is obviously classical music.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

George Lucas intended his films, on the musical level, as operas sans singing, and they certainly are that. The music is as important. How does one tackle that?

Korngold, who was active and highly respected in both opera and film world, and whose method of composing for films was openly near the same as for operas, said once that the greatest film score of all time [at the time] was Tosca.

Now, no musically educated person, who heard many times (or even once if one is quick!), not to mention studied both works, would consider Tosca superior to TESB. Based on his comments about Korngold, Puccini himself surely would not. So if one lacks depth, seriousness, artistry, or a classical spirit, the other must lack them too.

I am against excluding opera from the classical world.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> I would suggest that good opera composers know that the dramatic structure and language of an opera libretto must be complemented by the music. Unless there is an irony or some other reason to have music that runs counter to the dictates of the libretto. *But in most (a great majority, too, that is) operas, the script comes prior to the music and thus dictates the music.*


That is only apparently the case. The truth of the process is the very opposite, and the idea that music is there to "complement" the libretto greatly misstates the situation. Composers commision librettists, and libretto-writing is a specific art. There is normally close collaboration between composer and librettist, and much discussion is likely to ensue as to what works musically. Both know that this is the critical issue, and if a composer says "no, that isn't suitable for musical expression," it is cut or changed. Libretto-writing is not playwriting; a good librettist understands that music has the last word, and that music's requirements are often very different from the literary criteria that apply to "straight" theater. Verdi and Mozart were sticklers for suitable qualities in a libretto, and Wagner knew that no one could write libretti for his music.



> Probably, most film music is "safe" as far as the scene it supports goes. *The general success of a film score is measured, after all, by the very fact that the audience doesn't notice it outside of the context of the action on screen. If one is paying attention to the music in a movie, the composer likely hasn't done his/her job well, even though that composer may have written some great music.*


Which is, of course, the very opposite of opera, in which the music is the main reason people go to the theater - or put on the recording.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Which is, of course, the very opposite of opera, in which the music is the main reason people go to the theater - or put on the recording.


Going to the theater---in most cases: yes. But putting on the recording? How so? Are you telling us that people listen to film music not because of music?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> Going to the theater---in most cases: yes. Putting on the recording? How so? You are telling us that people listen to film music not to listen to music?


No, I didn't say anything about why people listen to film music. I'm only speaking of the _main_ function of film music.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> No, I didn't say anything about why people listen to film music. I'm only speaking of the _main_ function of film music.


Why is everyone so obsessed with a "main function" of the music, instead of _all functions_ of the music?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> Why is everyone so obsessed with a "main function" of the music, instead of _all functions_ of the music?


Who is "everyone," and who's obsessed? I'm just answering a question.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"I should say that in an opera the poetry must be altogether the obedient daughter of the music. Why do Italian comic operas please everywhere-in spite of their miserable libretti-even in Paris, where I myself witnessed their success? Just because there the music reigns supreme and when one listens to it all else is forgotten." -Mozart, in letter to his father (13 October 1781)

*[ 25:00 ]*


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Opera and film music are not similar in function.


I agree. Opera comes up on the film thread because some posters are arguing that only music intended to be the sole object of attention can be regarded as 'classical' or 'serious art' music. Iow autonomous concert music passes muster; everything else (including film, QED, but also opera) fails.

But the ranks of the rejected are not uniform. Film music is clearly auxiliary; designed to support the main event. Sound effects of some kind are desirable, but you can dump the music and still have a film. Ditto incidental music for the theatre, ceremonial etc. You can put a sock in Palestrina and still have a mass. In all these cases, the music is only there in a service capacity; to embellish and enhance something else. It is not indispensable.

That becomes a lot more problematic with ballet and other dance music. And I don't see how you can take the music out of opera without destroying the enterprise altogether. It is conceived as a musical entertainment, and the music is essential. That said, it's certainly not the sole object of attention either - at least not when presented in its intended context.

So is it classical? I say yes, of course it is, but then I'm happy with CM as a loose rag-bag of disparate musics bound together by traditional association and not over-burdened with logical consistency. Some people seem to hanker after a much more rigorous definition, but why? What is to be gained by that?


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

I had a unique experience the other night. I was listening to some incredible counterpoint. I think even JS Bach would have approved of this music. It was a clear cut example of "classical music." And then the Choral of the Congregation started to sing and the "classical music" status vanished. How strange!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Which is, of course, the very opposite of opera, in which the music is the main reason people go to the theater - or put on the recording.


This remains a tricky issue, even when well-supported by the astute Woodduck's fine words.

The suggestion here seems to be that one goes to a movie primarily "to see" the production, while one attends the opera primarily "to hear" the production. What, then, is the primary reason for attending a musical theatre production? To both equally see and hear?

It can get absurd thinking in such ways. Rather, consider that opera is a different and separate art form from film movies, which are both different and separate from musicals and stage plays and operettas. In much the same way that, say, a watercolor is different/separate from an oil painting, and both are different/separate from a sculpture, even though they are all graphic arts. Each of these forms has its own demands. It's better to consider each form on its own terms rather than attempt to dissect and compare, which is what this thread is essentially doing by comparing the intrinsic "classical-ness" of film music v. opera music. The very issue rips apart each of these art forms and leads us to exploring a single element, which is like looking at the brush strokes in an oil painting and considering if they are as meaningful as the brush strokes in a watercolor.

I've never written an opera; I've never written a film score. I have worked in theatre sound design which at times required me to find incidental music to underscore various scenes, an activity that I greatly love to do. As a playwright myself I realize that the written playscript is generally done without any particular music in mind, though many a writer knows the production will be backed with some complementary music and sound. Sometimes the music is called for in the script. I worked on two such scripts: Tennesse Williams's _Glass Menagerie_ and Tina Howe's _Painting Churches_. Williams mentions certain dance hall tunes heard from the joint across the street or to be heard from the Victrola on set; these I utilized in the scenes called for, but I also added incidental music to other scenes -- I hoped that the audience would somehow listen to the pieces Williams called for in his script while at the same time not really notice (except in their heart's mind/ears) the incidental music which was designed for emotional resonance, to be complementary to the action of the scene. Tine Howe specifically calls for pieces by Chopin in her play. When I worked on the design for this show I auditioned each of the pieces she specifically called for, listening while reading the play; I chose to ignore that music and rather create an entirely new background, one which I felt better fit the emotional and active thrust of the director's production. In the end, I came to the point where Ms. Howe's original called-for pieces, the Chopin piano works, no longer struck me as viable for the show; but then I had been immersed in a new and different production from the original staging. Plays are not done in exactly the same manner with every production, and the musical background (if there is one) will not be always the same either.

I've written at least two musicals, one for which I created the music myself, the other for which I worked with a composer. Needless to say, the two experiences had similarities as well as differences, but in the end the final production was an art work that depended upon both script and music, though it was not an opera nor a film backed by incidental music. In neither instance did I ever consider whether the music was "classical" or something else.

I'm just not sure folks go to an opera primarily for the music. If one goes to a production of _Turandot_ and the time comes for the tenor to sing "Nessun dorma", I suspect there will be disappointment if the music plays and the tenor merely hums along. Opera depends upon its literary element, as do songs. One can viably take away the lyrics and enjoy the music only, but that is no longer the opera or the song as an art form. Remember, different and separate.

As I've stated before, I enjoy opera in languages I don't comprehend or when I don't know the story, but I listen to them as musical works in such cases. And I know I'm missing something in the art work as a whole. Sort of like studying brush strokes on a painting while ignoring the graphic images.

I especially enjoy operas based upon the ancient Greek tragedies, a favorite literary genre for me. I'm no big fan of Richard Strauss music, yet I count his _Elektra_ one of my favorite operas. I like what Strauss does with music for that script. I'm not a big fan of _Der Rosenkavalier_. Interestingly enough, both librettos were written by frequent Strauss collaborator Hugo von Hofmannsthal, but the one is based on an ancient Greek story and the other isn't. Maybe it's as simple as that, but I really haven't pondered why I favor _Elektra_ over _Rosenkavalier_. I do suspect the playscript has something to do with my favoritism. (And I wouldn't want to make the argument that _Elektra_ is a better work than _Rosenkavalier_. I'm merely concerned here with what I favor, which is an important component in one's appreciation of art.)

A tricky issue. One could get into a discussion of whether the music for a song-cycle is as important as the words, or is "classical" in nature; or if Japanese kabuki theatre, a "classical" art in Japan, utilizes "classical" music, etc. etc. The nonsense becomes endless. Still, it's nice to know there are some of us out there who will spend valuable time contemplating such issues, one way or another. Not everybody has fallen into the pit of pop music and hip-hop. Alas....

Blast away!


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Too often these "is this classical music" threads are used to express distaste for music that may (or may not) deviate from a narrow, Eurocentric tradition. I'm not talking about this one but that's been my experience. It's impossible to draw a clear line in the sand, so why do people keep trying to do it?


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> Still, it's nice to know there are some of us out there who will spend valuable time contemplating such issues, one way or another. Not everybody has fallen into the pit of pop music and hip-hop. Alas....


I like to contemplate these things as well, but it's usually _a waste of time_. Your ignorant statement about pop/hip-hop, though, reminds me that I'm on Talk Classical.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

caracalla said:


> … Film music is clearly auxiliary; designed to support the main event. Sound effects of some kind are desirable, but you can dump the music and still have a film. Ditto incidental music for the theatre, ceremonial etc. You can put a sock in Palestrina and still have a mass. In all these cases, the music is only there in a service capacity; to embellish and enhance something else. It is not indispensable.
> 
> That becomes a lot more problematic with ballet and other dance music. And I don't see how you can take the music out of opera without destroying the enterprise altogether.
> 
> ...


 If you dump the soundtrack of a film, you will still have a record of moving images with words, but you will not have the art work that was created to be _that particular film_. Take away Williams's music for _Star Wars_ and you will have a film, but you won't have _Star Wars_. The film, unlike a stage play, is a unique sort of artwork in what I term the "frozen" state. It exists as exactly the same (unless edited for television) every time you see it. Such is not the case with _Hamlet_ or _Macbeth_.

Yet, _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_, which exist in one sense as "frozen" artforms (in the script) come to unique life in productions, which may include incidental music. Each separate production is its own art work, sort of like having twenty painters each paint the Eiffel Tower. The Tower itself is a "frozen" architectural art work, but each painting of it is different, an art work of its own. My directed version of _Hamlet_ is not your directed version of _Hamlet_, and neither of these is actually Shakespeare's work _Hamlet_, but that is the miraculous beauty of theatre, and one of the reasons I love theatre.

I've often made a comparison between the beauties of math (a kind of "frozen" form) and the beauties of philosophy (a "fluid" form). The Pythagorean theorem is beautiful in that when anyone thinks of it, no matter where or when, that person is thinking of exactly the same mathematical concept as anybody else. Not true with philosophical ideas, such as "Justice" or "Truth" or "Essence" or "Beauty"! I prefer philosophical studies to math studies, though I see the importance and values of both. Art is much more aligned with the fluidity of philosophy, to my thinking, than to the frozen rigidity of math. But both are beautiful, or meaningful.

So to say that incidental music only embellishes or enhances and is not indispensable hits me with a foul flavor. For each particular work of art utilizing such music, the music is essential. One could rescore the great Gregory Peck film _To Kill a Mockingbird_, taking out Elmer Bernstein's music and replacing it all, and one would still have _To Kill a Mockingbird_, but it would not be the same _To Kill a Mockingbird_. One could take out the music completely and run the film, and again it would not be the same _To Kill a Mockingbird_, though it utilizes the exact same script and filmed action.

There are instances where the same opera libretto was set by different composers. One then has two different versions of the same script.

When one says "That becomes a lot more problematic with ballet and other dance music" I'm not quite sure what is meant. Tchaikovsky's _Swan Lake_ or Copland's _Appalachian Spring_ exist as ballets with stories, but the stories could be retold, the dances changed, and entirely new conceptions will be evident. The Copland score, especially, seems to me abstract enough to fit many a story conception. After all, what exactly _is_ the story behind _Appalachian Spring_? And Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ is well-served as a concert hall piece without dancers. What could this mean?

I like to think about art, but I would much rather simply enjoy it. To try to categorize it, to dissect and decompose it into component parts seems antithetical to the purpose of art. The art work remains a thing, unique in its essence. Any tamperings with it creates, essentially, a different work of art. But art remains a fluid, philosophical form And that's okay.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Portamento said:


> I like to contemplate these things as well, but it's usually _a waste of time_. Your ignorant statement about pop/hip-hop, though, reminds me that I'm on Talk Classical.


Ignorant? Well … I'll remain ignorant in the pit of classical music, if that's okay with you. And even if it's not!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Room2201974 said:


> I was listening to some incredible counterpoint. I think even JS Bach would have approved of this music. It was a clear cut example of "classical music."


Bach did not decide we call his music "Baroque (period) music" either. The categorization is for our own convenience. And the presence of counterpoint is not necessarily what divides classical music from non-classical music.



Portamento said:


> Too often these "is this classical music" threads are used to express distaste for music that may (or may not) deviate from a narrow, Eurocentric tradition. I'm not talking about this one but that's been my experience. It's impossible to draw a clear line in the sand, so why do people keep trying to do it?


Film music covers a variety of genres, including non-classical sources. If we call every kind of music "classical music", what would be the point of keep using the term "classical music" instead of just "music"? 
I wouldn't want to say for example, "old European art music" all the time when I can just say "classical music" to mean things like Bach, Vivaldi (not today's film music) and get my points across easily on this forum. 
People in literature or visual art have absolutely no problem with their way of categorization (ex. classical literature vs contemporary literature). Why do people in music have so much issue with theirs, I don't understand.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> Ignorant? Well … I'll remain ignorant in the pit of classical music, if that's okay with you. And even if it's not!


You have my permission. 



hammeredklavier said:


> Bach did not decide we call his music "Baroque (period) music" either. The categorization is for our own convenience. The presence of counterpoint is not necessarily what divides classical music from non-classical music.
> 
> Film music covers a variety of genres, including non-classical sources. If we call every kind of music "classical music", what would be the point of keep using the term "classical music" instead of just "music"?
> I wouldn't want to say for example, "old European art music" all the time when I can just say "classical music" to mean things like Bach, Vivaldi (not today's film music) and get my points across easily on this forum.
> People in literature or visual art have absolutely no problem with their way of categorization (ex. classical literature vs contemporary literature). Why do people in music have so much issue with theirs, I don't understand.


Categories are a convience until they're used to box stuff in (as is often the case in music). That's the most succint way I can put it.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

To muddy the waters further, what exactly is it that makes a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical not "classical"? How about _West Side Story_? _Cabaret_? I can understand excluding The Who's _Tommy_ -- although "show some respect! It's a f***in' OPERA!" --but yet back when there was such a thing as _record_ stores when I was young, a record of Kurt Weill music was always in the "classical" section. I could never figure out what exactly the dividing line was.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

consuono said:


> To muddy the waters further, what exactly is it that makes a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical not "classical"? How about _West Side Story_? _Cabaret_? I can understand excluding The Who's _Tommy_ -- although "show some respect! It's a f***in' OPERA!" --but yet back when there was such a thing as _record_ stores when I was young, a record of Kurt Weill music was always in the "classical" section. *I could never figure out what exactly the dividing line was.*


The dividing line is actually "Kurt Weill's music" and "not Kurt Weill's music". (That works with any composer's name, by the way. And one can even narrow it down by naming a work instead. For instance: "West Side Story" or "not West Side Story".)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> This remains a tricky issue, even when well-supported by the astute Woodduck's fine words.
> 
> The suggestion here seems to be that one goes to a movie primarily "to see" the production, while one attends the opera primarily "to hear" the production. What, then, is the primary reason for attending a musical theatre production? To both equally see and hear?
> 
> ...


You seem to have to misstate my position in order to object to it. Am I being unclear?

Opera is a multi-art form in which music is the primary vehicle of expression. Music is the essential core, the principal locus of meaning, and the main attraction in opera. It is the only one of the arts involved in opera that opera can never do without. Words are expendable: an opera about mutes could be hummed throughout and the story mimed. Plot is expendable: the singers could occupy a single, static situation and, as characters in costume, express their feelings for each other. The stage is expendable: an opera could be written for recording only. But in all cases there is music. We identify operas by their composers; few people know who the librettists are. We remember performances mainly for their singers; I attended Tristan at the Met on the specific evening I did because Birgit Nilsson was singing Isolde, and when Callas sang at the Met for the last time people slept overnight on the sidewalks of New York. We care about operas primarily because we love the music and love great singing, not because the librettos are literarily interesting. A poetic libretto isn't necessarily an advantage, or even noticeable when sung. More often than not, the simpler the text the better for music to do what only music can do, and the better for audience comprehension.

My statement that people attend or listen to operas mainly because of the music seems so obvious as to need no proof. No one is suggesting that nothing but the music matters, but in fact the content of the central operatic repertoire, where we find a lot of great music and a lot of flimsy and even absurd stories that music transforms into art, suggests that that is very nearly the case. Naturally we want to see operas well-staged and well-acted, but mediocre visual presentation, which is unfortunately close to the norm, doesn't keep opera audiences away if they think they can get a moving experience from the singing and conducting of their beloved Puccini or Mozart. They aren't packing the theater for the words of Illica, Giacosa and Da Ponte, half of which they probably won't even hear.

I don't want to belabor this, and I'm not being argumentative. I just don't want my argument misunderstood or distorted. I don't agree that the subject is absurd. It's one all serious composers of opera are confronted with, because answers to the problems it raises are fundamental to success in their art.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

SONNET CLV said:


> The dividing line is actually "Kurt Weill's music" and "not Kurt Weill's music". (That works with any composer's name, by the way. And one can even narrow it down by naming a work instead. For instance: "West Side Story" or "not West Side Story".)


Yeah, but that's begging the question.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Bach did not decide we call his music "Baroque (period) music" either. The categorization is for our own convenience. And the presence of counterpoint is not necessarily what divides classical music from non-classical music.


Well, once again, you missed my point.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_So if opera music and film music are so similar in their function, does it mean that operas should not be considered as classical works?_

Regardless of the merits of film music of course opera is classical music. It was for the most part written in sonata format until the 20th century. If you ever played an instrument or sang in an opera you know it contains all the elements of classical music -- orchestral, instrumental, solo and group instrumental and solo voice, vocal duets, trios, quartets and more, as well as choral work. And this all goes on for duration, sometimes hours. Just about every form of music we know as classical music is used in many operas.

There is little relationship with even bleeding chunks of opera compared to film music. Film music most easily compares to incidental music for the stage written by classical composers to accompany plays, sometimes even to describe their ideas of novels or stories. Opera on the other hand is a novel, a huge telling of a story with almost every part of a classical orchestra and singers used to create the effect.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I don't know but is the way how some music is used important for characterising its inherent qualities? If I used Beethoven's 9th symphony in a film, it would still be classical music. The same thing applies to opera when you exclude the plot and the stage action. It wouldn't be opera anymore but the music remaining is still opera music and I have never that doubted that it's not classical. When I listen to the singing in a foreign language that I don't understand - is it anything more than music? I don't say that we should disregard the libretto and acting, on the contrary I feel they are both absolutely essential for enjoying an opera, but we must forget them for a moment if we want to give a fair assessment for the music alone.

Music is what makes opera opera, otherwise it would be mere theatre. I would even say that the libretti of many operas are certainly not some high quality literary achievements and don't always make sense (Karajan said about _Il Trovatore_ which he recorded multiple times throughout his career: "No one understands it. I don't, the singers don't.") but the genius of the music is what gives it such a great value and makes the libretti wonderful to listen to. Sometimes I think that a libretto is just an excuse for an opera composer to write some utterly amazing music. Again, I'm certainly not saying that this applies to all operas, there are some amazing exceptions like Wagner and Strauss who had a very hard time writing/getting someone else to write their operas libretti that would have some literary and artistic merit and they most certainly do!

The first time I fell in love with opera was when I listened to _Die Walküre_ without knowing the plot or having a libretto. The reason I liked it was the music alone! Now looking back I can only say that the great merits of Wagner's libretto only gave it additional value but they didn't rob the music itself from its own inherent greatness.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do wonder whether those who think opera is not classical music or is in a category with film scores actually listen to operas, whether they know them and have seen any of them? I suppose they must have but then I'm at a loss to explain how they feel that it isn't things musical that lead everything else - the voices, the forms used, the role of the orchestra all come first. Without the music we would have miserably failed plays with unbelievable characters and feeble story lines. Having the drama supported by background music - music that often subsides when someone says something - would not save it.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I do wonder whether those who think opera is not classical music or is in a category with film scores actually listen to operas, whether they know them and have seen any of them? I suppose they must have but then I'm at a loss to explain how they feel that it isn't things musical that lead everything else - the voices, the forms used, the role of the orchestra all come first. Without the music we would have miserably failed plays with unbelievable characters and feeble story lines. Having the drama supported by background music - music that often subsides when someone says something - would not save it.


I propose a more appropriate thread title: "Should Opera subsection be joined with Non-classical Music subsection?" and any mention of Wagner's name in Classical Music Discussion should be regarded as an utter heresy :lol:.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Opera - or more precisely - opera music is certainly classical music. Not being an opera fan by the way I have to admit, that I enjoy opera music the most, when I am unaware of the plot and ignore the words.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I don't think that anyone in this thread has really suggested that opera, in general, is not, broadly stated, within the realm of classical music. The purpose of the thread, it seems to me, is somewhat akin to a science fiction story, where the idea is not so much to study space ships and aliens as it is to examine a concept in a context that removes it from the common set of assumptions that we make in our own lives, and makes us look at it with fresh eyes. 

What the the thread has questioned is the arguments used for including or not including certain kinds of music. What it shows is that some people who present themselves as having logic on their side, are actually doing something pretty arbitrary and based on little more than personal preference.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

norman bates said:


> Using some of the arguments used in the thread about film music it seems it's not.
> […]
> And like film music it's also music that it doesn't exist alone, but many times it's more a background for the dialogues and the action.


Background, yeah.

Well, it's at least funny to know that one of the 'most popular opera compsers of today' seems to have no clue watsoever about his own art.
(And I even think that many film music composers, 'popular' or not, will be offended by it.)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> You seem to have to misstate my position in order to object to it. Am I being unclear?
> 
> Opera is a multi-art form in which music is the primary vehicle of expression. Music is the essential core, the principal locus of meaning, and the main attraction in opera. It is the only one of the arts involved in opera that opera can never do without. Words are expendable: an opera about mutes could be hummed throughout and the story mimed. Plot is expendable: the singers could occupy a single, static situation and, as characters in costume, express their feelings for each other. The stage is expendable: an opera could be written for recording only. But in all cases there is music. We identify operas by their composers; few people know who the librettists are. We remember performances mainly for their singers; I attended Tristan at the Met on the specific evening I did because Birgit Nilsson was singing Isolde, and when Callas sang at the Met for the last time people slept overnight on the sidewalks of New York. We care about operas primarily because we love the music and love great singing, not because the librettos are literarily interesting. A poetic libretto isn't necessarily an advantage, or even noticeable when sung. More often than not, the simpler the text the better for music to do what only music can do, and the better for audience comprehension.
> 
> My statement that people attend or listen to operas mainly because of the music seems so obvious as to need no proof. No one is suggesting that nothing but the music matters, but in fact the content of the central operatic repertoire, where we find a lot of great music and a lot of flimsy and even absurd stories that music transforms into art, suggests that that is very nearly the case.


Prima la musica, dopo le parole!xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

premont said:


> Opera - or more precisely - opera music is certainly classical music. Not being an opera fan by the way I have to admit, that I enjoy opera music the most, when I am unaware of the plot and ignore the words.


Indeed. I very rarely listen to opera, but then (i) if I listen to vocal music of any sort I prefer not to know what the words mean, (ii) I usually listen to music with my eyes closed, and (iii) I don't like the idea of a "plot" - if I wanted a plot I'd read a book or watch a drama (preferably without much intrusive music to distract me). Opera becomes a bit ridiculous as an art form if you don't want to look at it, you don't want to understand what they're saying, and you don't want a storyline.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I remember discussing this with the OP sometime ago:



norman bates said:


> hammeredklavier said:
> 
> 
> > what are the "aesthetic values" of these?:
> ...


I could make a new thread for this, I think new age is damn close to being part of classical music, (even more than film music is) if you consider its elements:
-Is it regularly performed in concert halls with classical instruments and ensembles, attracting large numbers of audiences? (Yes)
-Does it use notation and "final products of composition" in the form of sheet music like classical music? (Yes)
-Does it have classical influences? (Yes)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> Film music covers a variety of genres, including non-classical sources. If we call every kind of music "classical music", what would be the point of keep using the term "classical music" instead of just "music"?


it's obvious that there's a lot of music for films that does not have anything to do with classical music. 
And I agree with the fact that a distinction of genres is (even if with all the limitations of putting a label on everything) at least useful. 
But the discussion in another thread wasn't about films with pop/rock/jazz/electronic music or whatever other genre appears in a movie. I think that everybody there would agree that those soundtracks aren't classical music. But I think it's more problematic when people say that even when a classical composer writes a score that is clearly in a classical style that is not classical music.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> You seem to have to misstate my position in order to object to it. Am I being unclear?
> 
> Opera is a multi-art form in which music is the primary vehicle of expression. Music is the essential core, the principal locus of meaning, and the main attraction in opera. It is the only one of the arts involved in opera that opera can never do without. …
> 
> I don't want to belabor this, and I'm not being argumentative. I just don't want my argument misunderstood or distorted. I don't agree that the subject is absurd. It's one all serious composers of opera are confronted with, because answers to the problems it raises are fundamental to success in their art.


Of course, I never want to be argumentative with a Tito Schipa fan, and Woodduck posts rank among those on this board that I most cherish for fine thought and fine expression. Still, I maintain I see an absurdity in the notion that music is the primary vehicle of expression in an opera. Certainly opera is a multi-art form, but the music remains just one component of the multi-arts involved. Without the music one doesn't have an opera. But one doesn't have an opera without the libretto, either, silly or complex as the story line may be. Musical extracts _from_ the opera makes sense, but musical extracts from the opera are not opera.

If most folks go to operas to experience the music, that does not change the dynamic that opera is comprised of certain components, none of which is truly primary, all of which are necessary to have "an opera".

An opera performed by humming mimes seems somewhat on the verge of ballet. Ballet, it seems to me, depends upon the dance, whether that dance tells a story or is comprised of abstract movement. To take the dance away from a ballet leaves one with ballet music, not ballet. (Interestingly enough, I can actually conceive of a ballet without music, a ballet with only dancers working in silence. I find this an uncomfortable notion. Could this be a different form of art from ballet?)

My only notion here is that, as you say, opera is a multi-art form, but in such forms there really is no primary art. I've never written an opera, but I suspect that if I did undertake such a project, I would begin with a story rather than with a musical concept. So in that sense, the "primary" or "first" art would be the story, the libretto. But that's stretching a definition. And that's also just my own idea of approaching an opera. Maybe in the end the music would be superior to the libretto, but I suspect that there are instances of great librettos set to lesser music. Still, I remain uncomfortable thinking in terms of music being the primary aspect of opera; it is one aspect, but to be an "opera" other aspects are just as critical or the very definition of the form melts away.

Jake Heggie and Gene Scheer's "choral opera" proves an interesting project.

https://delosmusic.com/a-choral-opera-a-what/

Here the idea of a type of musical presentation (chorus singing everything) overrides the approach of either story first or music first. Here it is performer first. Intriguing. (As a theatre person I find this fascinating; I'm all for the idea that acting is another necessary component of opera. Without the acting element, one may have an opera soundtrack, but not the opera as a true art form.)

All the best ….


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> To muddy the waters further, what exactly is it that makes a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical not "classical"? How about _West Side Story_? _Cabaret_? I can understand excluding The Who's _Tommy_ -- although "show some respect! It's a f***in' OPERA!" --but yet back when there was such a thing as _record_ stores when I was young, a record of Kurt Weill music was always in the "classical" section. I could never figure out what exactly the dividing line was.


that's a very good point... if one accepts the orchestral works of a Gerswhin like classical music, it's hard to see a clear distinction between opera and many musicals.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Marc said:


> Background, yeah.
> 
> Well, it's at least funny to know that one of the 'most popular opera compsers of today' seems to have no clue watsoever about his own art.


look, you could disagree with what he's saying (altough it's not very clear with what you're disagreeing with), you could even dislike his music, but to think that a opera composer (and an extremely successful one) does not have a clue about how opera works is simply an absurdity.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SONNET CLV said:


> I've never written an opera, but I suspect that if I did undertake such a project, I would begin with a story rather than with a musical concept. So in that sense, the "primary" or "first" art would be the story, the libretto


in the video I've posted at the beginning of the thread Heggie discusses also about this. Ok, he's not answering to any specific question, but basically he says that when he started working for operas everything began indeed with an idea or more exactly in his case, a book: dead man walking, moby dick. I'm not sure if every opera composer works like that, but that is exactly the starting point for him.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

First off, calling most non-vernacular music "classical" is in my view a bad idea. It's confusing because it also refers to a very specific era from ca. 1750-1820; plus, it gives prospective listeners the wrong idea about a genre that is still thriving. We should have done away with this term a long time ago, but now it's here to stay. Personally, I like "concert-hall music," which incudes film suites (but perhaps not film scores) and early electronic works like _Gesang der Jünglige_ and _Music for Solo Performer_ that were meant to be heard live. _Silver Apples of the Moon_, however, would not be "classical" by this definition because it was originally meant to be heard on a Nonesuch Records disk. Then there's the definition that others use of music adhering to a certain tradition, which gets fuzzy real fast because it is very subjective. Electronic music stems from the "classical tradition," but when does it become a distinct genre (if ever)? Stockhausen, Lucier, and Subotnick all started out in this tradition, the latter two's early works being in Copland's neoclassical aesthetic. Francis Dhomont studied with Koechlin and Boulanger! It's only with younger "second generation" figures like eRikm that you start to see the music headed more in the direction of trans-idiomatic improvisation.

Anyways, I (and the rest of us on this godforsaken thread) can type paragraphs upon paragraphs and still not come up with a definitive answer to anything...


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)




----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, I never want to be argumentative with a Tito Schipa fan, and Woodduck posts rank among those on this board that I most cherish for fine thought and fine expression. Still, I maintain I see an absurdity in the notion that music is the primary vehicle of expression in an opera. Certainly opera is a multi-art form, but the music remains just one component of the multi-arts involved. Without the music one doesn't have an opera. But one doesn't have an opera without the libretto, either, silly or complex as the story line may be. Musical extracts _from_ the opera makes sense, but musical extracts from the opera are not opera.
> 
> If most folks go to operas to experience the music, that does not change the dynamic that opera is comprised of certain components, none of which is truly primary, all of which are necessary to have "an opera".
> 
> ...


I'm somewhat confused. The title of the thread is "Do you consider *Opera music * [not opera] to be classical music?" It is indeed far-fetched to say that acting in opera is somehow classical music but the music itself is certainly classical. I don't think anyone is saying that films are classical music, the question is whether film music as music is classical or not.

(If Cage wrote the "music", then what you describe as "a ballet with only dancers working in silence" could be a legitimate ballet .)


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

annaw said:


> (If Cage wrote the "music", then what you describe as "a ballet with only dancers working in silence" could be a legitimate ballet .)


A very funny and clever joke that I have never heard before. Congrats! :tiphat:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Flamme said:


>


Daniel Bryan is the man!:lol:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

So, is that a unqualified yes?


----------



## Owen David (May 15, 2020)

It's a very interesting question as to what classical music really is. It's not simply playing on instruments considered part of a full classical orchestra. I heard a large section of such instruments backing Oasis the other night on a Jools Holland replay thing...it was dreadful and nothing to do with classical music. But then again playing on a non-standard classical instrument (e.g. heavily amplified electric guitar) will get you disqualified from being classical music however virtuoso and full of affect your performance is. 

I would say what we understand to be classical music is the complex and expressive use of instruments recognised as being part of the full orchestra (including voice), singly or in combination, to faithfully mirror our conscious thoughts and emotions. 

Obviously we tend to think of successful attempts (the pieces we like) but of course there are many unsuccessful pieces.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, I never want to be argumentative with a Tito Schipa fan, and Woodduck posts rank among those on this board that I most cherish for fine thought and fine expression. Still, I maintain I see an absurdity in the notion that music is the primary vehicle of expression in an opera.


I thank you for the kind words.

Mozart, Verdi and Wagner saw no absurdity in claiming for music pride of place among the arts which contribute to opera. I can't think of a successful opera composer who would claim otherwise (including probably Jake Heggie, though his success in historical terms - longevity - has yet to be proven).

Wagner is a particularly interesting case. He began theorizing about operatic composition with his famous "Gesamtkunstwerk" concept, holding that music was just one of the several arts that collaborated to serve a dramatic idea on more or less equal terms. However, the experience of composing _Tristan und isolde,_ in which his full powers of musical expression were released in a flood that shocked even him and brought home to him the need to allow music to assert its ability to transform and define the nature of an opera's dramatic material, cured him of this theory of the "equality of the arts" once and for all. He later referred to his works as "deeds of music made visible," in the conviction that music had such unique power to probe the mysteries of human feeling that the dramatic material of opera had to be molded so as to give that power free reign. He came to understand what all great opera (and choral, and song) composers have always known: that music has its own needs and laws, and that in a work of continuous music the drama - words and action - best serves its own interests by respecting them.



> Certainly opera is a multi-art form, but the music remains just one component of the multi-arts involved. Without the music one doesn't have an opera. But one doesn't have an opera without the libretto, either, silly or complex as the story line may be. Musical extracts _from_ the opera makes sense, but musical extracts from the opera are not opera.


All of this is true, but it doesn't address the questions of whether music is the art that most defines an opera, that most determines the form the composer gives that opera, and that most attracts audiences to it. I assert that music is, in most instances, the art which does all three.



> My only notion here is that, as you say, opera is a multi-art form, but in such forms there really is no primary art.


Why not? Might it not be that the arts have different functions when combined, different effects on each other and on the listener or spectator, depending on how they're used? Can one art in a combination dominate another? Might one art have to be shaped, or reshaped, to accommodate the requirements of another? Might there not be better and worse choices in libretti for reasons of musical effectiveness rather than literary excellence? Might a composer choose words which are particularly suitable for musical setting, and which are especially likely to make an effect when hurled by a soprano into the far reaches of the opera house? Might he, in considering a play for musical setting, eliminate dialogue which illuminates a character but would be musically tedious, in favor of a few terse words (or none at all) which would give him, the composer, the chance to portray that character musically?

Such decisions are made routinely, and a good opera composer typically chooses in favor of giving the burden of expression to music.



> I've never written an opera, but I suspect that if I did undertake such a project, I would begin with a story rather than with a musical concept. So in that sense, the "primary" or "first" art would be the story, the libretto. But that's stretching a definition. And that's also just my own idea of approaching an opera.


The process of composing an opera normally begins with a story concept. Calling the story therefore the "primary art" is worse than stretching a definition. It's more like obliterating one. The starting point for the project is irrelevant.



> Maybe in the end the music would be superior to the libretto, but I suspect that there are instances of great librettos set to lesser music.


I can't think offhand of any opera in which the libretto is considered superior to the music, though there are probably many obscure, musically mediocre operas set to excellent libretti. But that's the point: the operas are obscure because their music didn't succeed in giving them the distinction a work of art needs to hold audiences. The fact is that operas, in general, don't survive by virtue of their libretti. Fine words play a minor role in making an opera what it is and in making it successful, and few people care about literary quality when great voices are driving their souls into ecstasy. A good composer wants precisely the words which will allow him to give those singers the music which will accomplish that end.



> Still, I remain uncomfortable thinking in terms of music being the primary aspect of opera; it is one aspect, but to be an "opera" other aspects are just as critical or the very definition of the form melts away.


That's a tricky locution. The "other aspects" of opera are (more or less) necessary, but not "just as critical." We don't even need to appeal to a definition of the form. The most concise (if imperfect) definition of opera might be "a form of drama in which all or most of the dialogue is sung." The singing - and by extension the music which accompanies the singing and action - is what distinguishes opera. That fact establishes, at least, the central role of music in opera, but in order to understand just how central it is we need to know how music interacts with and affects the literary and theatrical arts when it's combined with them. The most direct way of doing this is probably to look at operas and see what composers have done, to see what approaches to the mixing of music and the other arts have resulted in the most effective products. I think it would be fairly easy to show that the most successful operas are generally those in which music is allowed to assert its fullest power to determine the shape and meaning of the work - in which, in short, music is recognized as the primary (first in importance) vehicle of meaning.



> Jake Heggie and Gene Scheer's "choral opera" proves an interesting project.
> 
> https://delosmusic.com/a-choral-opera-a-what/
> 
> Here the idea of a type of musical presentation (chorus singing everything) overrides the approach of either story first or music first. Here it is performer first. Intriguing. (As a theatre person I find this fascinating; I'm all for the idea that acting is another necessary component of opera. Without the acting element, one may have an opera soundtrack, but not the opera as a true art form.)


What does "performer first" mean? Heggie writes about his choral opera:

_"That's when Gene found our central character, Nora, to be played by a silent actress. The choir would be her inner voice as well as the sounds she 'channels.' With the choir split in two at the beginning, we could hear Nora's inner voice as well as the sounds she chooses to hear. Recalling Ravel's magical L'enfant et les sortilèges, the choir could become objects in Nora's apartment, too. And the transformative journey would be actually to enter the sound waves, to open a portal into the radio, to make the choice to connect and become joyful, youthful and energized again.
_
_This concept also allowed us to explore a wonderful variety of textures, colors and sounds: traffic noise, swing tunes, radio ads, a quasi-rap song, big band, a touch of 12-tone music, and finally a full, celebratory flowering of grand choral singing. It was an immensely challenging world to enter, and all of us experienced many 'Nora days' along the way. But always, the magic of the choir, of connection, of community through singing, took us to the hopeful place on the other side of a door marked 'possibility.'"_

A choral opera is an interesting, original concept. But it's primarily a _musical_ concept. Note that Heggie writes about the _sound_ of the work in almost every sentence. Like every other opera throughout the history of the art, Heggie's work will stand or fall by its musical content, not by the novel idea of a silent actor with choral commentary.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> ...
> _This concept also allowed us to explore a wonderful variety of textures, colors and sounds: traffic noise, swing tunes, radio ads, a quasi-rap song, big band, a touch of 12-tone music, and finally a full, celebratory flowering of grand choral singing. It was an immensely challenging world to enter, and all of us experienced many 'Nora days' along the way. But always, the magic of the choir, of connection, of community through singing, took us to the hopeful place on the other side of a door marked 'possibility.'"_
> 
> A choral opera is an interesting, original concept. But it's primarily a _musical_ concept. Note that Heggie writes about the _sound_ of the work in almost every sentence. Like every other opera throughout the history of the art, Heggie's work will stand or fall by its musical content, not by the novel idea of a silent actor with choral commentary.


I don't know if it's original or not. It sounds like an oratorio to me, with the added "modern" impulse to throw in a bunch of far-flung cultural references to show how cosmopolitan and broad-minded the creator is. It sounds...pretentious.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

consuono said:


> I don't know if it's original or not. It sounds like an oratorio to me, with the added "modern" impulse to throw in a bunch of far-flung cultural references to show how cosmopolitan and broad-minded the creator is. It sounds...pretentious.


Good point. I'll be generous for now and call it a genre-bender. The boundaries have never been sharp. What do we call Berlioz's _Damnation de Faust?_


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Good point. I'll be generous for now and call it a genre-bender. The boundaries have never been sharp. What do we call Berlioz's _Damnation de Faust?_


I'm not sure, but it points out another one of those difficult dividing lines... oratorio/opera, at least in terms of music. Some oratorios have been staged after all, like Handel's Theodora (but let's not talk about what Peter Sellars did to it :lol: )


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Music is not, literally, about any particular "narrative." This doesn't mean it has no other meaning, such as evoking strong "emotional states," as in Schoenberg's Transfigured Night, Five Pieces and Mahler's symphonies.

Instrumental music, "musical sound", when divorced from "literal action" and drama, lost its connection to explicit meaning, and was revealed for what it is: a non-representational medium, the abstract evocation of "inner" states of being, which, coincidentally, is exactly what "abstract art" does: it reveals the artist's, and by empathy, the viewer's inner emotional state of being.

Music as it evolved from the Greeks, gradually divorced itself from drama over several centuries. Look at the rise of instrumental forms: the symphony, the concerto, tone poems, etc.

I think Wagner's opera reflect this increasing tendency towards music itself having gestural power.

In instrumental Romanticism, although it was music divorced from drama, had plenty of drama, expressed as "dramatic gestures."

This "splitting" of narrative drama from music opened-up a new can of worms, giving us the whole range of the non-specific "feelings" evoked by music, which are by their very "non-narrative nature" fleeting, transitory, and ephemeral, unclear, evocative, vague, and indefinable (meaning non-narrative).

When we get into more modern music, I think "emotion" as a descriptive term begins to fail us. The "emotional gestures" expressed are so complex that we begin to experience them as "states of being," like anxiety, foreboding, fear, tension, awe, etc., creating in our minds, empathetically, a reflection of our own, and the artist's, "inner state of being."

So, in a sense, this is an "internal narrative" we share with the composer, but indefinable in _literal narrative _terms, because these are transitory, fleeting states by nature; simply "gestures of meanings."

A useful distinction, I think; instrumental non-narrative music (containing "dramatic gesture") is more like poetry, whereas the explicit meaning and narrative (story) of opera is like a novel.

The minimalists are bringing back "music" to opera. Glass' _Akhnaten_ and _Satyagraha_ are like oratorios, which are based on "ideas" more than narrative plots; they record events. The same with Adams' _Nixon in China_ and _Dr. Atomic._
​


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Music is not, literally, about any particular "narrative." ...​


What about something like Berlioz's _Fantastique_? It's hard to listen to that piece the first time and think there is no story behind the goings on. And when one discovers the story, it becomes impossible to hear it abstractly or with much of a different/changed story line.

I suspect there is genuine, absolute type of "abstract music", things like Bach's Inventions, or most Etudes, and a lot of other music in forms of sonatas and symphonies and string quartets ….

Even "abstract music" or "absolute music" (whatever we call the non-programmatic stuff) can be fitted to a story. Say, danced to. Which in some sense seems to alter its original force as "pure music".

Can any music actually _be_ "pure", though? Don't we as listeners always carry our own baggage into it, thus ruining the purity somehow? I wonder what it would be like to hear music without having baggage to impose upon it ….

Just a thought. Something I have too few of anymore.


----------



## coffeerain (May 28, 2020)

As I mentioned in the thread on film music, I think people should consider genre to just be a "family resemblance" that makes communication easier. And so every style is connected to every other style but sometimes it helps communication to use labels like "Classical music." If you say "I love Classical music" and you mean Musical Theater, that may not be helpful. Whether that's "correct" or not.


----------

