# Can We All Agree On This Fundamental Truth About Opera?



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

> The basis of an opera is musical, not visual. That's why we can have revelatory experiences with recordings or concert performances. It is dramaturgy, but primarily conveyed in the music. Yes, the libretto will determine the structure of the music, but it's the music that makes the story what it is, not the text, and certainly not the staging.


 
Nobody here disputes this, right?

So the next question is... *how much* is the person who generally shows little interest in the story or the finer points of the dramatic structure actually missing from the operatic experience?

Remember, I am referring here to the *highly sensitive opera lover with a fine ear* who has a rich inner life/emotional world (a.k.a. theatre of the imagination)

In general, how much is this individual really missing out on?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I put two things above all others in opera: 
1. Everything to do with the music (singing, orchestra, conductor, musicians etc.)
2. The acting and stage direction
And then the costumes and sets and lighting and all that stuff as least important. The acting and stage direction, for me, enhances the overall dramatic experience. Music is my own area of expertise, not acting, and I put it above the acting and stage direction because it has key importance to the plot as well. It adds all the atmospheres of the scenes, evokes various emotional responses in the audience that words and acting are incapable of doing, also the music is generally what people remember. Imagine Tristan und Isolde but composed by a pop songwriter, immediately it wouldn't be considered musically as important as if it was composed by Wagner.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Yes I think we all agree that the music is primary.

How much however is missed by someone who only hears the music and ignores the staging? I'd say, mmm, arbitrarily, 1/3 to 2/5. Less than half naturally, music being preeminent, but the drama and staging are integral. If that were not so, we'd have oratorios and stand-and-sing concerts and save lots of money on stagecraft. But then it would be opera, would it?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Just out of curiosity, Xavier - what is the source of the quotation/statement that starts off your post?

I can understand the "theatre of the imagination" concept. I've listened to opera on record or CD and enjoyed it greatly as I people the music and the story what my imagination indicates to me.

But, what am I to do if I'm in a theater or watching a DVD and my eyes are showing me something completely at odds with what my imagination indicates I should be seeing? I can not agree that the basis of an opera is musical, not visual. Not unless I am not being presented with a visual that is supposed to go along with the music.

If someone presents me with a concrete visual that is intended to go along with the music and expects me to watch it and not close my eyes, than the basis of that opera on that occasion is both musical *and *visual. And, if the visual element of the production is disagreeable to me, the opera - on that occasion - is disagreeable to me.

I won't judge the quality of the composition by one bad visual experience, but I will certainly judge _that experience_ by the complete production.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Nobody here disputes this, right?


i do, because, believe it or not, i still haven't got to listening to opera cd's, i watch only videos, for i still can't do without seeng the acting and scenery and so on; cd opera lacks emotions and theatre.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

sharik said:


> cd opera lacks emotions and theatre.


it shouldn't, if the composer understands theatre and the singers are capable of singing expressively as opposed to just hitting the right notes.



Xavier said:


> So the next question is... how much is the person who generally shows little interest in the story or the finer points of the dramatic structure actually missing from the operatic experience?


if you've got no interest in the story or drama in general then you're not missing anything.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2013)

Xavier said:


> [/font][/size]
> Nobody here disputes this, right?


On the principle that there are no principles about listening to music, in whatever form it is presented, I'd dispute it. But I'd also rule myself out of this discussion as I'm far from a *highly sensitive opera lover with a fine ear!*


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I quite prefer to listen to CD's and read the libretto, and let my imagination fill in the details. Not unlike reading a book versus watching a movie based on a book - I would almost always choose the former.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Sticking to facts:

1.- There are a lot of CDs (and other formats before them) sold.

2.- There are many radio broadcasts

3.- There are, in traditional U-shaped theaters, seats without visibility that are being actually sold.

4.- There are recitals of arias, separated from the opera they are part of.

5.- There are concert opera performances...
​
So the evidence is overwhelming that for many Opera fans, staging comes a distinctly second. The visual component of the genre is nor perceived as being nearly as important as the music, or the text. And this is for many, not only for that problematic being described above as a "highly sensitive opera lover with a fine ear!".

And there is nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, there are other Opera fans that think the genre is, first and foremost, about live theater. You can watch live, on TV, on the cinema, on a DVD... but to really enjoy an opera you need to put it on stage.

And there is nothing wrong with that either.

As said before, there are no principles involved here, beyond personal preferences and tastes. Personally, I rarely miss stagings, though I have enjoyed some very much. Carsen's _Dialogues des Carmélites_ for instance. Or Marthe Keller's for the same opera. But I also enjoy the CD recordings by Dervaux or Nagano, and don't need staging for that. Even when I happen to watch an staging I profoundly dislike, like Chernyakov's, the solution is as simple as to suppress the image, or close your eyes if you are in the theater.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

schigolch said:


> As said before, there are no principles involved here, beyond personal preferences and tastes. Personally, I rarely miss stagings, though I have enjoyed some very much. Carsen's _Dialogues des Carmélites_ for instance. Or Marthe Keller's for the same opera. But I also enjoy the CD recordings by Dervaux or Nagano, and don't need staging for that. Even when I happen to watch an staging I profoundly dislike, like Chernyakov's, the solution is as simple as to suppress the image, or close your eyes if you are in the theater.


You're the best, schigolch!

I might be satisfied to suppress the image of what was happening on stage or close my eyes if I were in the theater.

The real problem I have is with DVDs. If I have to close my eyes, why am I using a TV and putting up with slightly inferior sound than I could get if I played it on a CD?

I think if someone goes to the trouble to put something on a DVD for wide distribution to a viewing public, it ought to be something that has visually artistic merit. (That could actually cover a wide area, couldn't it?  )

But, even it has, arguably, such artistic merit, that won't prevent me from being disappointed if what I see seems counter to the spirit of the work or presents visuals that do not really underline the musical and/or dramatic nature of the plot.

This is not that uncommon a point of view. Read most reviews of opera (live or on film) in opera magazines. None of them ignore the staging in their comments as if it were irrelevant.

But, I have to admit, I'm still a little confused by the purpose of the OP and I'm afraid my comments are wide of the mark of what was intended.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

deggial said:


> it shouldn't, if the composer understands theatre and the singers are capable of singing expressively as opposed to just hitting the right notes


i have to admit i own a Solti 1960s Ring flac but when listening to it i felt it does lack badly the emotions a staging has got.

to record cd's they should have first developed some very special technique of driving the singers to singing with double expressiveness so that to make sure it all does indeed get to the listener.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

schigolch said:


> the evidence is overwhelming that for many Opera fans, staging comes a distinctly second


the 'evidence is overwhelming' that most people in the world are idiots, so what?.. those 'many Opera fans' should have stuck to symphonies, if unable to appreciate theater.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> I quite prefer to listen to CD's and read the libretto, and let my imagination fill in the details. Not unlike reading a book versus watching a movie based on a book - I would almost always choose the former.


True in its basic form, but then again, novels are MEANT to be read and not viewed in a TV or movie adaptation. Whereas opera is MEANT to be seen on stage, music and stagecraft combined. And this is precisely what the composers (and librettists) intended.

I mean, I want people to read my mystery novels, too. But of course if Tom Selleck's production company optioned one of my books for a TV movie for him to star in, and they paid me $50k for the rights, I'd never complain either. ha ha


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I think schigolch said it best - for *many* opera fans, staging comes second.

For me, the drama is primary, and the music is there to assist the drama; and in my experience, if dance theater is an integral part of what's on stage, the whole can be an order of magnitude better than without dance theater. The Met's Orfeo et Eurydice, Iphigenie en Tauride, Les Troyens, Parsifal, and god knows how many others are all wow better because of their use of dance.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I agree that the music and the singing are primary. However, because I have no classical-music background (unlike many or most of the people here), I don't think of opera primarily as a musical form or composition, like the concerto; I think of it as _music theatre_. In order for me to enjoy an opera in an opera house, it has to be convincingly staged. I don't say that all of the singers must be great actors; I just say that they have to be directed in such a way that they're not just wandering aimlessly about, or standing stock-still for all of their arias, or professing their undying love to each other while staring off into space. If the _only_ interesting ideas in a production are musical ones, then I'd rather just listen to an audio recording.

On the other hand, I would _not_ want to stay with an opera performance that had great direction and acting but a cast of wobbly, harsh, out-of-tune, or underpowered singers. This is because, in opera, the voice is the instrument of communication (however it's being used -- whether to sing legato, to sing softly or loudly, to sing coloratura passages, etc) and it's harder to communicate what the composer wrote into the music if your voice is strained or continually unsteady. A good, firm singing-line must be maintained, as this is the basic vehicle of expression for all the composers I can think of.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The basis of an opera is musical, not visual. That's why we can have revelatory experiences with recordings or concert performances. It is dramaturgy, but primarily conveyed in the music. Yes, the libretto will determine the structure of the music, but it's the music that makes the story what it is, not the text, and certainly not the staging.

Can we not apply this same idea to other art forms? We can suggest that the central core of film is the narrative... or we can suggest that the music is not a central part of a film... but do I wish to watch _2001_ stripped of its music or _Lawrence of Arabia_ stripped of the gorgeous cinematography or _Amadeus_ stripped of the costumes... and the music? The reality is that opera is first and foremost a form of theater... musical theater. We can enjoy the music separate from the theater as a whole just as we might enjoy still photographs or music separate from a film... but the whole is ever greater than the sum of its parts. I cannot tell you how much greater the experience has been of seeing an opera performed in real life... or even in classic video/film renditions. Listening to _La Traviata_ I forever see the the stunning cinematography, costumes, and settings of Zeffirelli's film version. William Christie's filmed version of Rameau's _Les Indes galantes_ brought French Baroque opera to life for me, and Teresa Stratas IS _Salome_... no matter which recording I am listening to at the moment.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

the opera is a theater in the first place. period.
the very music of operas has been intrinsically designed for theater from the very start.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I never answered this question directly:

*"So the next question is... how much is the person who generally shows little interest in the story or the finer points of the dramatic structure actually missing from the operatic experience?" *

I'm sure it's possible for a person who is very educated musically to have a satisfying experience with an opera while ignoring its plot, but I -- who am not a musician or someone who has studied music theory -- can't imagine that it would be a very _emotional_ experience. Or, I think it could be emotional in the sense of being awed by a sudden key change in an aria or a soprano's beautiful pianissimo or the clarity of the string playing in a certain orchestral passage. But the emotion probably wouldn't move beyond amazement or disappointment (for example, disappointment with poor singing or conducting or with a trite-sounding choral passage). I personally can't imagine seeing/hearing an opera _only_ on this level, though. Understanding the opera's dramatic structure, developing sympathy for one or more of the characters, seeing how the words "sit" on the music -- all of these things are essential, IMO, to a "complete" experience.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Understanding the opera's dramatic structure, developing sympathy for one or more of the characters, seeing how the words "sit" on the music -- all of these things are essential, IMO, to a "complete" experience.


especially in Italian opera, where words just flow musically (for want of a better way of putting it) in such natural way, it's a pity not to be interested in both.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

sharik said:


> i do, because, believe it or not, i still haven't got to listening to opera cd's, i watch only videos, for i still can't do without seeng the acting and scenery and so on; cd opera lacks emotions and theatre.


Well, I suppose it's a good thing that you weren't born in the 1930s.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

moody said:


> Well, I suppose it's a good thing that you weren't born in the 1930s.


I just finished a biography of Sviatoslav Richter, which discusses how he and his friends got together to play 4-hand piano transcriptions of new operas that they couldn't for various reasons hear performed. As they say, one should be careful what one wishes for--but I wish I had a recording of Richter playing the entire Ring cycle!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> I just finished a biography of Sviatoslav Richter, which discusses how he and his friends got together to play 4-hand piano transcriptions of new operas that they couldn't for various reasons hear performed. As they say, one should be careful what one wishes for--but I wish I had a recording of Richter playing the entire Ring cycle!


Well of course this is what Liszt did. But it seems as if the present generation is terribly pampered, once you listened to your shellac 78s and later your LPs ,read the words and imagined. I found no problem in being transported into the particular opera's world.
Of course you could go to the opera house nearest to you but it was a great expense when young and they are thin on the ground in the UK.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2013)

Xavier said:


> > _The basis of an opera is musical, not visual. *That's why we can have revelatory experiences* _


Can I ask what the writer means by 'revelatory experiences'?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

moody said:


> Well, I suppose it's a good thing that you weren't born in the 1930s.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


> the 'evidence is overwhelming' that most people in the world are idiots, so what?.. those 'many Opera fans' should have stuck to symphonies, if unable to appreciate theater.


Opera, without the music, is most often a blindingly less than subtle play with a less than stellar script. It is most often the music which elevates it beyond the mundane, then.

In leaving out the many a less than great staging, less than great acting (few great singers are also even good, let alone great, actors), what is left -- bare -- are the libretto and the music. Even then, maybe the text is less than perfect, while both composer and singer have then provided what was missing from the words.

With so much of the actual theatrical productions never actually satisfyingly right, the music carries the show.

The evidence that you are severe in believing the drama at the core of all opera and the music has a secondary role is plain from your previous posts. That is so much the case with you that you can not believe others can get the full emotional import without the staging, the singing actors acting and gesticulating in front of your eyes.

Perhaps you are a genuine purist, and more profoundly emotionally deep than those who seem to live happily with just a recording, or perhaps you are such a profound literalist that you cannot do without the staging because of that literal streak.

If you have ever read a book without benefit of having people act it out for you, certainly you can imagine what kind of experience a person can have outside the theater while listening to either a superb concert presentation or recording.... Let us make that even less an analogy, but direct: let us say you read a play instead of going to the theater and watch a performance.

The fact there is so much which can and does go wrong when all the elements of opera are involved, including the limits of who gets cast who can do the role and is available, and if they really look 'appropriate' to the part.... that a live production rarely -- and this is amazing -- very rarely, ever gets it "all right."

There are many opera fans who are hooked on the ritual, the social dynamic, and the theater itself, and they are one kind of opera fan you will see quite regularly in the audience. To be one of those, but not want or be able to listen to any recordings, means to me you are not a music lover at all but rather a drama junkie, including the "theater" of being in the theater and the whole socio-cultural aura which hangs so heavy in the atmosphere about all that. (Please do not think now to react and then write of a classless society, which has never, really, existed 

Currently, many people from many cultures are awash in literalism, to a dangerous point where some people even take the parables and analogies from their culture's spiritual / philosophical writings literally and then go out and murder because of that literal interpretation.

I am less and less surprised when I hear the more literal, hungry for stories, insist that all music tells a story, or there is a graduate thesis' worth of material of social relevancy in such and so a piece of music, that this or that sonata or symphony "reveals all biographical" about how the composer felt personally, or that some people cannot imagine hearing an opera without all the theatrical trappings.

But, here is this statement and question within the OP, and here you are again saying that the drama is all in opera, and that it must be seen / heard live.

For some opera, I think it easier to believe the unbelievable, i.e. the heroine has just been stabbed, the wound quickly done, deep and mortal, yet she then sings full out for quite some time... (Tosca). It is easier to suspend the disbelief required when just listening vs. seeing it and thinking, "this cow was just slaughtered, but is still mooing on quite strongly ten minutes after the mortal wound."

The music and singing can tell us quite completely the emotion: often enough the actual staging is something one has to train oneself to ignore, as it can be so contrary to the emotion the librettist and composer wanted to convey.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> On the principle that there are no principles about listening to music, in whatever form it is presented, I'd dispute it. But I'd also rule myself out of this discussion as I'm far from a *highly sensitive opera lover with a fine ear!*


In light of other comments posted since mine, I'll rule myself back in, since it seems to me that there is no requirement to have seen an opera (though I have) to be able to offer a reasonable comment on the idea of what constitutes 'the complete experience' of opera/drama/music/novel etc!



Xavier said:


> Nobody here disputes this, right?
> 
> So the next question is... *how much* is the person who generally shows little interest in the story or the finer points of the dramatic structure actually missing from the operatic experience?
> 
> ...


The question 'how much' invites the flippant answer '3 ounces, perhaps'. It isn't possible to quantify the difference between what any individual gains from a listening or a viewing, especially given that at any one time, one's own mood and circumstances can lead to significant variation between listenings of the same performance.



schigolch said:


> So the evidence is overwhelming that for many Opera fans, staging comes a distinctly second


The sheer practicality of accessing real opera with real people and a real orchestra at a real opera venue makes listening at home on CD or watching on DVD a distinct first. Where I live, I'm 50 miles from a classical venue of any kind.


----------



## Galo (Aug 8, 2013)

I personally can enjoy hearing a recording of opera to very high levels. Actually that is the way I started discovering this amazing world. And many discoveries are first "just musical".

That been said, the staging and the acting performance can surely change how I perceive a work. Some operas I don't especially enjoy listening on CD I can enjoy at the opera house. For example La Traviata. Apart from some arias, I barely listen to it on my music player. But I've seen it staged a couple of times and I can see no problem in seeing it again more times in the future.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


> the opera is a theater in the first place. period.
> the very music of operas has been intrinsically designed for theater from the very start.


QUite true, but because of that the score, a performance of it alone, is intrinsically theatrical enough that it can be enjoyed, full meaning gotten. The total experience? of course not, but you are so absolutist about this it makes me wonder if you lack imagination when "just listening," or had the circumstance where a seat to the opera or ballet cost little more than a quart of milk!

When one does not have a ready $150 or more for a gallery seat (it is, ironically, far less cost for the Metropolitan Opera in New York than in other major U.S. cities), one does not have such ready access to such pleasures. At the price of a quart of milk or two, I would go quite regularly, and feel I had not wasted the money if I was not happy with the production and decided to walk out. At the higher stakes of more than one hundred dollars, there are very few operas, or productions, I would risk that sort of money on.

I still maintain so many productions, no matter how good, get a lot "wrong" -- wrong enough that I would have preferred a fine recording to having to struggle with the flaws of the production.

And how sensitive does one have to be to get in to the hackneyed and cliche chestnut plots of La Boheme or La Traviata? ... puh-leeze... give your fellow human beings a bit of credit for more than an IQ of 60 and a lack of emotional quotient.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

It just struck me that the BBC here in the UK have a great reputation for radio plays.Extending what has been said above should listeners refuse to listen because they would only want to see plays in the theatre ?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> [/font][/size]
> Nobody here disputes this, right?
> 
> So the next question is... *how much* is the person who generally shows little interest in the story or the finer points of the dramatic structure actually missing from the operatic experience?
> ...


The music would not exist without story and text, simples. I do 'Ride' on the music alone, not paying attention to any of the rest, needing the music first and foremost to tell me what is going on, and the "emotions," after which if it has done that, I then look into story and text.

If I compose a song, the text is selected first, the music to enhance the text, not the reverse! I would hope the music would be enough to 'convey it all,' but could never, then, discount or dismiss the importance of the text, or storyline.

I do maintain the music has to 'carry it all,' and the better operas do not need all the extras of production, etc. to "be gotten" by the listener, but if you're listening to just sound, the work being a narrative of one sort or another, then you are missing a key factor in "what it is all about."

Less than great scores, then the staging comes in as a factor in engaging me, though as a music first kinda guy, I know I'm then being carried along by superficial theatrical schtick as much as or more than I'm being carried by the score -- Puccini comes to mind in this sort of dynamic.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2013)

moody said:


> It just struck me that the BBC here in the UK have a great reputation for radio plays.Extending what has been said above should listeners refuse to listen because they would only want to see plays in the theatre ?


No, because a radio play, written for radio, is not written for theatre. Of course, if we're talking 'adaptation' (of novel, play or book) then your question is valid.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> No, because a radio play, written for radio, is not written for theatre.


but it is written to be vocally acted by actors.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> It just struck me that the BBC here in the UK have a great reputation for radio plays.Extending what has been said above should listeners refuse to listen because they would only want to see plays in the theatre ?


I've got one for the OP: Benjamin Britten, _Billy Budd_ -- commissioned by the BBC as a radio opera. Later, it has been staged successfully enough, but that was never the intent.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

deggial said:


> but it is written to be vocally acted by actors.


Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

moody said:


> Well, I suppose it's a good thing that you weren't born in the 1930s.


We certainly forget how fortunate we are. Years ago it was almost unthinkable to listen to a whole opera on disc unless you were very well off. But recordings, DVDs, TV etc has brought art into our home and we can listen ad infinitum. Interesting that 100 years ago you might hear a piece of music maybe three or four times in your life if you were lucky!
What we probably miss out on today is making our own entertainment - ltimes when the family would gather round the piano to sing or play to each other. Now it's too easy to put on a cd and let some great pianist do it for you!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I agree. My love of opera came through radio broadcasts and LP's and CD's.
I never saw any operas until I was older.
Sometimes I read the words, but it was the music that grabbed me.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is?


my point is a radio play is theatre minus the visuals.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

deggial said:


> my point is a radio play is theatre minus the visuals.


In which case, I disagree. A radio play is a play written for radio, with no visuals, excepting the various possible adaptations I've already noted. PetrB's last post is also a good example.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

aren't we saying the same thing?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

The thing that confuses me about this thread is this:

Are we talking about evaluating the *opera itself *as a work of art? If so, I don't think there can be any question that the music is absolutely primary. If the drama or the staging were primary, there would be no way to listen to the opera on album or disc and get much out of it. (I realize that drama is a _more significant _part of some operas, but if drama were all that important, where could a place be found for some of the sillier comic operas with their glorious music and ridiculous plots?)

Or are we talking about evaluating a *performance* of an opera? If we listen to an opera without any visuals, we can evaluate the performance on the basis only of what we hear. But, if we are presented with a stage performance or an opera on DVD we can't avoid assessing the work on visual levels as well. What is the point of presenting a visual if you expect people to close their eyes and just listen?

Until someone can clarify which situation this thread is addressing it all seems pretty pointless as a discussion.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Agree 110 %.

The listener isn't missing much, because he can stage the opera however he pleases in his head, transcending the bounds of a stage or budgeted production values.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Agree, music is primary. The stage can change and indeed it changes at will but, how can you change the music? That is non sense.


----------



## starlightexp (Sep 3, 2013)

I 100% disagree with that statement. Opera was originally meant to be a fusion of music and drama in the style of the Greek theatre. Opera is THEATRE not a concert not a recording. Even Wagner looked at opera as staged music dramas, hiding the orchestra to better sustain the illusion of the staging, not bringing them out to over take it. Verdi's Grand March for Aida is written as a pageant of spectacle. The great composers understood that this opera is meant to be an art that takes full control of both the eyes and ears of the audience. Opera is the greatest art form of the theater and theatre must be seen AND heard not just heard.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

Many people including myself do not enjoy sitting through an opera, or any musical production without listening to at least a few of the pieces first. I can't speak for the music scholars (since I am not one), but REALLY how many people can watch a piece being sung or played, hearing it for the first time, and fully take pleasure in its beauty? Sure, there are a few pieces that grab your ears and take them on a ride at first exposure, but that usually isn't the case.

If one has never heard [insert name of famous aria], it would be impossible to see [insert name of your favorite singer] perform it live and then think "Magnifico! That was the best rendition I've heard yet."

I guess my point is, I agree with the post.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

marinasabina said:


> If one has never heard [insert name of famous aria], it would be impossible to see [insert name of your favorite singer] perform it live and then think "Magnifico! That was the best rendition I've heard yet."


but the first time one hears an aria, no matter who sings it, that _is_ the best rendition one has heard yet  especially if it's sung by one's favourite singer... joking aside, I agree with the general sentiment - anticipation is more rewarding than total surprise. Yet there's also the thrill of discovery.


----------



## starlightexp (Sep 3, 2013)

marinasabina said:


> Many people including myself do not enjoy sitting through an opera, or any musical production without listening to at least a few of the pieces first.


I guess it's how you want to approach the piece. If you want to come to it from a strictly musical standpoint it might be better to be in the know. Sit through the score, maybe get a copy of the vocal score to compare note structure and make sure the person is singing the note they should be. I prefer to go at it from the dramatic point of view and go in cold. The thrill of hearing a great aria I've never heard before heightening the suspense of the drama as it thunders to its conclusion is the whole reason I go. I wept like a baby my first time through Aida. I knew nothing about it and it is still one of my most loved nights of theater. Remember for centuries people would only be able to experience these works unprepared, they just walked into the theatre and hoped to be entertained. That is what I prefer.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

If you take the stage performance away, do we still have a great work? of course.

If you take the music away, do we still have a great work? of course not.

I have many recordings of operas I haven't seen.
And I love them.


----------



## starlightexp (Sep 3, 2013)

Itullian said:


> If you take the stage performance away, do we still have a great work? of course.
> 
> If you take the music away, do we still have a great work? of course not.
> 
> ...


Yet most of the most loved operas are based on stage works (Otello, Rigoletto, etc..)


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio,



StlukesguildOhio said:


> The basis of an opera is musical, not visual. That's why we can have revelatory experiences with recordings or concert performances. It is dramaturgy, but primarily conveyed in the music. Yes, the libretto will determine the structure of the music, but it's the music that makes the story what it is, not the text, and certainly not the staging.
> 
> Can we not apply this same idea to other art forms? We can suggest that the central core of film is the narrative... or we can suggest that the music is not a central part of a film... but do I wish to watch _2001_ stripped of its music or _Lawrence of Arabia_ stripped of the gorgeous cinematography or _Amadeus_ stripped of the costumes... and the music? The reality is that opera is first and foremost a form of theater... musical theater. We can enjoy the music separate from the theater as a whole just as we might enjoy still photographs or music separate from a film... but the whole is ever greater than the sum of its parts. I cannot tell you how much greater the experience has been of seeing an opera performed in real life... or even in classic video/film renditions. Listening to _La Traviata_ I forever see the the stunning cinematography, costumes, and settings of Zeffirelli's film version. William Christie's filmed version of Rameau's _Les Indes galantes_ brought French Baroque opera to life for me, and Teresa Stratas IS _Salome_... no matter which recording I am listening to at the moment.


Isn't the central core of film, "film" -- the cinematic art??

Good film does not necessarily need music or sound, although I wouldn't like to see Psycho, Vertigo or N by NW without Herrmann's music. But, that's the way the director conceived the film. Some films have no music and that's okay.

Yes, opera is musical theater, but it is a form in which the composer + music + vocalists REIGN. Opera without music?????

Of course it's best when it all works together, live; but with crappy singers and lousy musicians, who wants to see or hear an opera. If the playing and singing is truly great, I would gladly attend a less than wonderful production--and have countless times.

A still from a film is not analogous to a recording of an opera in any way. Music is central to opera; film and movement are central to cinema.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Music is crucial for the success of the opera, but production (singers and staging) can make it awesome or turn it in a sort of discussable disaster. I generally love operas after I find a DVD and watch it. After that I can fully enjoy CDs or mp3. Each time when I tried an opera starting with a CD, I had problems until I managed to watch it, firstly with subtitles.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

the music.
that is why "concert" performances of operas work.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Over time, I've kind of solidified my view on this topic.

I can enjoy a CD of an opera (in other words, I can enjoy an audial experience without any visual to go along with what I'm hearing).

But, if someone is asking me to _look at something _along with what I'm watching, either in an opera house or on a DVD at home, I better be entertained by the visual as well. The fact is that by presenting it to me with visuals they are inviting my visual judgment, and by heavens (substitute any stronger word you like) _*I'm going to give it!*_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I learned most of my opera on audio experience. However to see an opera well done is to have the complete experience. But opera is a very demanding art form for performers. Many great singers have not been the greatest actors. And nature has often not made their face or figures to match the aural splendour. Of course, film and DVD does not help us here. It is all too easy to see the wrinkles on young heroines and the paunches on the heroic knights! What one may get away with it to an audience sat well back in a large opera house will not be tolerated on a small screen close up. 
There is also the matter of suspension of disbelief. Why Wagner to me is very difficult to actually stage credibly as his demands of singers and set are so unrealistic. Why I prefer Wagner on CD and one can imagine what is happening. 
However when opera is done well on stage it is unbeatable. I recently attended a broadcast of Falstaff from the met at the local cinema. An absolutely unbeatable artistic experience.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

So true. But sometimes I've found myself so into the opera, I actually have closed my eyes to hear it better.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

The music. I can enjoy an opera cd with just the music. Generally, I prefer a HD dvd or blu ray to take in both the video and the music. When there is something visually monstrous going on on stage, however, I would prefer just the cd. But if the singing and music are no good, then I wouldn't watch a dvd with just the video and no music, no matter what. So there's that.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I totally disagree with this statement:


> The basis of an opera is musical, not visual. That's why we can have revelatory experiences with recordings or concert performances. It is dramaturgy, but primarily conveyed in the music. Yes, the libretto will determine the structure of the music, but it's the music that makes the story what it is, not the text, and certainly not the staging.


Sure the music is great, but the story, the acting, and the staging are all part of an even greater experience. In the case of Bernstein's 1978 Fidelio opera, one is missing a lot to only listen to the music and singing. To see the actors singing and acting the parts within a well assembled set of scenery and to follow the story in detail adds multiple dimensions to the whole production. Perhaps with a lesser opera, one could be satisfied with only the music. But i take the opera beyond the actual performance and read about it, mull it over, and this adds to the experience the next time I watch the opera.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> But if the singing and music are no good, then I wouldn't watch a dvd with just the video and no music, no matter what. So there's that.


I'll watch it for the pretty faces (no sound) but there's no way in hell I'm actually paying for the DVD if the singing sucks


----------

