# Puccini's Standing and Emotion in Music



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Poking around the internet, it's not hard to find out what Puccini's status among critics is. This is from a London Review of Books article by Jerry Fodor:

"I have a friend who has a friend who is a composer of international stature, heavily invested in the aesthetics of difficulty. He's also opera-addicted and likes to get to the Met whenever he comes through town. My friend remembers a phone call from his friend that went about like this: 'Listen, they're doing Bohème tonight. Let's go; but please don't tell anybody.'"

The article goes on to describe the problem with Puccini: he's a manipulator. The idea, and I come across this quite a bit, is that Puccini uses his gift with melody and his dramatic sensibility to manipulate the audience's emotions, provoking calculated responses, and that his work is all an elaborate charade to drive ticket sales and make him popular. Another example, from the San Francisco Opera composer bio page (Yeah, it's a quote within a quote, sorry about that):

"Pulitzer Prize-winning music critic Lloyd Schwartz summarized Puccini: "Is it possible for a work of art to seem 
both completely sincere in its intentions and at the same time counterfeit and manipulative? Puccini built a major 
career on these contradictions. But people care about him, even admire him, because he did it both so 
shamelessly and so skillfully. How can you complain about a composer whose music is so relentlessly 
memorable, even - maybe especially - at its most saccharine?"

There are two insinuations in this quote that I find interesting. The first is the aforementioned idea that Puccini is a manipulator. The second is the idea that Puccini should have felt ashamed of his work.

The one Puccini opera that critics always go crazy for is _Gianni Schicchi_. It seems to be a universal critical success. For some reason, this opera is the genuine article, while the others are fake... But _Gianni Schicchi_ is about a sham... the characters in the opera are manipulating each other. So either the critics aren't bothered by Puccini's manipulations in this opera because they are in the open, or they feel he's being genuine here... I'm inclined to believe that it's the latter. I think that in the United States and northern Europe we have become so used to emotional detachment in our scientific and increasingly isolated culture, that sometimes we regard genuine outpourings of emotion as fake. And Puccini is even more pernicious because he not only expresses himself unabashedly, he makes us feel, he makes us weep.

William Berger described Puccini's art as "naked"... That would imply that he's being genuine, that he's truly expressing himself. I think that his music gives voice to the passions and emotions that we all have, and sometimes wish that we didn't. Should he have been ashamed of himself for this?

I often see the orchestration of Late Puccini operas described as Debussian, or Straussian, or Stravinkian... what about Puccinian? It's as if the world of musicology and criticism can't admit that Puccini thought for himself... My favorite opera, _La fanciulla del west_, uses harmonic techniques like those that Debussy used. But the orchestrations for _La fanciulla_ and _Pelleas et Melisande_ are wildly different in actual style and sound. Puccini uses these techniques in ways that nobody else does. Why must he be labeled as a follower?

You can probably tell that I've been wanting to blow off steam about this for a long time. Does anybody have any thoughts on Puccini? Is he a manipulator? Should he be counted among the great opera composers, or even the great artists? Should we only go to see _La boheme_ incognito?


----------



## suteetat (Feb 25, 2013)

I think Puccini and Tchaikovsky got the bummed deal as far as classical composers are concerned. They write great melodies. They know what the audience like to hear. They are not innovators, pioneer or at the cutteing edge in term of evolution of music yet they are as popular or successful if not more so than the innovators or pioneers. I guess that does not go well with critics as a whole.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Should we only go to see _La boheme_ incognito?


life's too short to worry about street cred. If you like La Boheme go and see it. _I_'m going to to see The Book of Mormon in a couple of months


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

deggial said:


> life's too short to worry about street cred. If you like La Boheme go and see it. _I_'m going to to see The Book of Mormon in a couple of months


I didn't know that was by Puccini.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

not many do...


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> the problem with Puccini: he's a manipulator. The idea, and I come across this quite a bit, is that Puccini uses his gift with melody and his dramatic sensibility to manipulate the audience's emotions


if he's successful at it then why not? _Turandot_ and _Butterfly_ are *magnificent masterpieces* so we can turn blind eye towards his true intentions.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

1.) Painting directs the viewers eyes.
2.) Literature directs the readers thoughts and emotions.
3.) Theatrical works direct the audience's thoughts and emotions.
4.) Works of music direct the listener's ear.

3 & 4) combined -- direct the listeners ear, thoughts and emotions.

Art is ALL very much about 'calculated' manipulation. Some authors of works are more consciously aware they are manipulating their audience, others less, but manipulation, playing on our expectations, directing us to react in a particular way, is a primary element and factor in each of those crafts.

I believe you have taken the word as a pejorative.... Some of how one thinks of that manipulation, if at all, is a matter of personal taste.

I 'sign up' to be manipulated, happily and often. I compose: without feeling badly about it, I am certainly 'directing the listeners ear,' why, perhaps is a matter of a value judgment I prefer not to make.

_Personally, I resent like all hell if I am aware of being manipulated._ That, for me, removes all possibility of any 'magic.' Beethoven is wildly and brilliantly 'manipulative,' but has a different talent, leading you down a particular path only in order to brilliantly mislead, then surprise the listener with something so dramatic (timing, just like theater) but which then also seems inevitable, and the only possible thing which could have happened next -- a brilliant 'strategist' with a very different aim, and a completely different ethos.

I am all too aware I am being manipulated when it comes to Puccini. I also shy away from 'tunes,' pieces more about melody than musical dialogue with an interplay of parts which make the whole -- again, a personal preference of mine, nothing more.

Puccini is all melody all the time, to the degree where it is homophonic in the extreme, to a degree where I perceive it as virtually monophonic, melody doubled, accompaniment harmonic more in parallel than opposed motion. Wholly 'not my cuppa.'

The root word from which Art is derived is Artifice -- there is nothing 'natural' about any of the products from the western music art tradition. Then it depends upon the listener, what they think and feel about the result as they listen, whether it feels 'natural' to them, or whether that is one of their concerns regarding what they prefer to hear.

His orchestration is more than fine, sometimes 'brilliant,' _but there is nothing innovative about it,_ and that is not damning, just a matter of fact. To be simplistically reductive, their are innovators, or those who follow. Puccini followed. That has no implication whatsoever that he was a mimic, unoriginal, did not forge his 'own sound,' etc. I hear 000 'Stravinskian' in any of Puccini, and the only thing I can think of that at all would have someone say 'Debussyian' is Puccini's stock in trade Augmented chord usage, as used in toto in Turandot, implying a whole tone, or pentatonic, harmonic realm -- used in Turandot to cement the 'oriental' setting of the story.

He certainly had a genius for spotting the broadest denominator in choosing libretti which would act similarly on a great number of people, and though I find them seriously obvious, in the arena of cheaply soap-opera melodramatic, that makes them no less than 'mechanically' effective (there is again that calculated / manipulative mentioned.) I've attended -- one each -- fine to great performances of La Boheme and Turandot, and without 'resistance' went along with the premise, lights down, show up: I was keenly aware of the engineered manipulation, and my taste for 'all melody all the time' with very little other interdependent musical materials to make up a whole, means Puccini does not sate my musical wants -- I was barely moved, and that without any working at 'resisting it.'

The quote from the critic which asked the question if a work which is both sincere and at the same time transparently manipulative could / should be admired, rather perfectly addressed some of the points 'leveled at' which have you heated, and there was nothing pejorative in it. The "If a composer can pull that off, how can anyone complain about it?" as a high compliment.

I think such criticisms, in good part, come from both wonderment at how effective, nonetheless, Puccini is, and that the proof of that effectiveness is when in the theater, anyway, the pieces do 'work' on so many people. I don't care for the music, all melody and to me paper-thin, and I do find the libretti more 'clever' than deeply moving, the bag of theatrical tricks also transparently 'manipulative,' -- but to deny the craft, regardless of what one thinks, is more a matter of envy or sour grapes than a truly valid argument.

I find Verdi's La Traviata far 'greater' than any Puccini work, but it is a very close parallel in that the opera contains one melodic 'hit tune' after another, and the libretto is about as similarly calculatedly manipulative as Puccini. Granted, Verdi only did 'one of those,' whereas Puccini was more a one-trick pony, but hit tune after hit tune and manipulative La Traviata is also.

That you are so enamored, moved, by Puccini has you appalled more do not rate him 'up there' with Beethoven.

By my way of thinking, if he is in about every tome on 'the great composers,' even grudgingly included, he is ranked 'great' in some way, and even that should not matter then where he stands on that list: he is on all those lists, and won't be denied. That really, ought to be enough to answer your questions as to his 'status.'


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Every opera house needs Puccini, Verdi and Mozart to have profit. Without these, it is suicide.

Opera is business also. People also work in Opera world and need money to put food on the table. So opera houses must give what the audience wants. No enterprise invests in a product, even that is the best product in their opinion, that has no commercial sucess.

And thanks to Puccini (and Verdi and Mozart), these composers provide other composers venues to have their operas performed.

We should be thankfull or many cities would have no opera seasons at all.

Oh...and Puccini has good music.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Goodness what a lot to think about.

I have never admired Puccini. His melodic facility, that to others seems so obvious, to me is completely absent. I can remember none of his tunes, and there's not one of his operas that I love for the music. I do think he has a recognizable musical style, but I could be wrong about that. You know how "ugly art" kind of has an odd fascination, like a car wreck? That's the fascination Puccini's music sometimes has for me.

But I do admire Puccini. His plots at least in some operas - Boheme, Rondine, Fanciulla del West - seem to have a relentless humanism that is powerfully expressed. In others - Turandot, Madama Butterfly - this humanism seems completely absent, and it's hard to understand how the same guy could have done those operas.

I don't know what critics might mean by manipulativeness. Isn't that what theater is all about? Maybe what the critics mean is they would rather not see the strings. I dunno.

If the Met is doing La Boheme, I will always go at least once a season, because there will come a time when the current production will be no more, and that will be a shame. And if they're doing Madama Butterfly I'll go to every show that I can manage to go to, because their production is a friggin masterpiece. Ten times better in the opera house than on DVD.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Music this baldly manipulative and empty really pains me to listen to. It's "effective", but nothing more.








I cannot take anything that has this as its dramatic high point seriously.

That said, Puccini is a man of the theater, and he was good at what he did. He's far better in musical terms than someone like Meyerbeer, and among composers of his style, he is one of the few to have survived. Perhaps it would be better to say it's not to my taste.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> His plots at least in some operas - Boheme, Rondine, Fanciulla del West - seem to have a relentless humanism that is powerfully expressed. In others - Turandot, Madama Butterfly - this humanism seems completely absent


hmm, it is exactly in Turandot and Butterfly that humanism is at its most.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Music this baldly manipulative and empty really pains me to listen to. It's "effective", but nothing more


huh, what else one demands to be satisfied, given such a brilliant libretti like Turandot's and Butterfly's?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

dionisio said:


> Every opera house needs Puccini, Verdi and Mozart to have profit. Without these, it is suicide.
> 
> Opera is business also. People also work in Opera world and need money to put food on the table. So opera houses must give what the audience wants. No enterprise invests in a product, even that is the best product in their opinion, that has no commercial sucess.
> 
> ...


You are mostly correct,but to me Puccini is Mantovani -like Hollywood slush! I cant stand it--as Charley Brown would say---but I have a sneaky regard for La Boheme and La Rondine.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> That said, Puccini is a man of the theater, and he was good at what he did.


That's why he did it.


----------



## Ritter (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> That said, Puccini is a man of the theater, and he was good at what he did. He's far better in musical terms than someone like Meyerbeer, and among composers of his style, he is one of the few to have survived. Perhaps it would be better to say it's not to my taste.


I have checked with a lot of friends and acquaintances that most of opera fans like Puccini's music, but not always classical music lovers are very fond of him. You confirm this generally speaking tendency, as you have considered yourself like a not very operatic in another posting. The reason is that opera is a very special genre itself. I can admit that Mahler, for example, was much better musically than Donizetti at any play, however, Donizetti's opera are dramatically fantastic and the music creates marvelous tension and atmosphere (apart from the beauty of this melodies) through "Tudor Trilogy", for instance.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Originally Posted by deggial -- life's too short to worry about street cred. If you like La Boheme go and see it. I'm going to to see The Book of Mormon in a couple of months



moody said:


> I didn't know that was by Puccini.


Puccini's _Street Cred_

Even I would buy a ticket to that


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ritter said:


> I have checked with a lot of friends and acquaintances that most of opera fans like Puccini's music, but not always classical music lovers are very fond of him. You confirm this generally speaking tendency, as you have considered yourself like a not very operatic in another posting. The reason is that opera is a very special genre itself. I can admit that Mahler, for example, was much better musically than Donizetti at any play, however, Donizetti's opera are dramatically fantastic and the music creates marvelous tension and atmosphere (apart from the beauty of this melodies) through "Tudor Trilogy", for instance.


That is probably right. I think of opera in musical terms first and dramatic terms second, although I certainly appreciate a work with both. It is also worth noting that Mahler himself was a "man of the theater" who conducted Meyerbeer, Donizetti, and Puccini, although his tastes were more heavily slanted towards Wagner, Mozart, and Fidelio.

To answer the OP more fully, what people dislike about "manipulative" emotion is not that an emotion is being aroused, but the very unpleasant experience of feeling that one is, at this moment, being manipulated into feeling something. One hears the device rather than feels the effect. It always cheapens the experience and leaves a bad aftertaste.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ritter said:


> I have checked with a lot of friends and acquaintances that most of opera fans like Puccini's music, but not always classical music lovers are very fond of him. You confirm this generally speaking tendency, as you have considered yourself like a not very operatic in another posting. The reason is that opera is a very special genre itself. I can admit that Mahler, for example, was much better musically than Donizetti at any play, however, Donizetti's opera are dramatically fantastic and the music creates marvelous tension and atmosphere (apart from the beauty of this melodies) through "Tudor Trilogy", for instance.


There are many devotees of classical music who also love opera, though not, it seems, as 'indiscriminately' as do those who tend to love opera alone, or who love opera far more than 'just music' sans theater -- and there are this sort, who attend, listen to only opera, collect multiple performances of it on CD, etc.

The opera lover, or the more exclusively 'I love opera' fan, seems to be as convinced of the music as influenced by the theater of it, with less real concern as to the quality of the music itself.

Many a hard core opera fan I've met owns no symphonic recordings, attends no concerts other than opera, let alone the various genres of classical -- chamber music -- for example. Most telling to me, man an ardent fan of Opera, who are supposedly near fanatically enthused about the finest of classically trained voices, never listen to Lieder / art song.

That means theater, and theatricality, rules the roost in the 'Opera Only' fan house, with great attention equally given to the quality of the voice, but far less attention given to 'the score.' (Since TC has at least one Wagnerite who is plainly aware of other classical music, opera and non-opera, that general statement of 'opera only' fans not caring as much if the music is 'great' is not anywhere near a universal truth.)

That is fine, but that sort of die hard opera fan weighing in with their points on the quality of music, well -- not a party I would be expecting to have a discussion with on the merits of the music alone


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> His melodic facility, that to others seems so obvious, to me is completely absent. I can remember none of his tunes, and there's not one of his operas that I love for the music.


cheers, mate! I thought I was the only one who couldn't remember the tunes and if I'm not a sucker for a good melody I don't know what I am. However, I think the music in Turandot is more interesting than usual for Puccini. I also think the story in La Boheme is rather good, minus the death by consumption bit, which *is* as lame as it gets, although true to the time period. The whole starving artist thing is, imo, handled without _that_ much sentimentality. They seem a jolly bunch and without Mimi it could've easily been a comedy.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

I have to thank you; I've changed the way i look at Puccini forever, in large part because of your post.



PetrB said:


> 1.) Painting directs the viewers eyes.
> 2.) Literature directs the readers thoughts and emotions.
> 3.) Theatrical works direct the audience's thoughts and emotions.
> 4.) Works of music direct the listener's ear.
> ...


Well, I think we have wildly diverging experiences of art. To me, art, real art, is about communication. It's an expression of ideas, or feelings, or even perhaps sensation or knowledge that is deeper or more ambiguous. There is certainly an intellectual component in art: plotting in novels is less inspired and more programmed. And it can be deceptive: a good mystery plot throws you off track, and shows you the last thing you expect at a given moment. This is what you were saying you appreciated about Beethoven. But is that why Beethoven was a genius? Perhaps, although I would argue no. What I get from Beethoven are images without pictures. When I hear, say, moonlight sonata's first movement, I experience an emotional response of intense melancholy, I have an intellectual appreciation of the music, what makes it powerful emotionally and what makes it work. But then there's something more. You could call it the aura of the piece, although that isn't really the right way to describe it. Images without pictures is the best I can do. Not all piano pieces give me this experience. And that doesn't make them inferior necessarily, it just means that they are working on different levels.

Puccini said in an interview that he saw the characters on stage, costumes and all, before he heard the music fully. So with this quote you probably have all the evidence you need to say that Puccini wasn't a great composer. A true composer would hear the music first, feel the piece first. That's probably true. On another thread there is a conversation about Pierre Boulez, in which his biography is quoted as saying that he disdained opera because music was often constrained by theatrical concerns, and that he couldn't stand that the primacy of music was challenged. I think that this is really important point. Opera isn't just about the music. In fact, the music is only a small part of it.

I listen to opera a lot. Reflecting upon my experience of it, I now find that my enjoyment of it is significantly increased when I can clearly imagine a world and an "aura" to go along with it. My favorite pieces, the ones that truly affect me, are the ones that create world that are tangible to the mind. This is where, for me at least, the great operas are distinguished from the rest. And it is important to not that what matters here is not how innovative or musically perfect an opera is, or how good the plot is, or even the libretto, but how strong, how detailed, how profound the experience of this world, this aura, this landscape of imagination is. In my opinion, _La boheme_, _Tosca_, and _Madama Butterfly_ are not among the greatest operas. They are fun. They are emotional. They are exciting. But if Puccini had died from his injuries in that car accident while he was finishing _Butterfly_, I most certainly wouldn't think of him as the greatest opera composer, which I do. It is in his late works, beginning with _La fanciulla del west_ that becomes truly great.



PetrB said:


> I also shy away from 'tunes,' pieces more about melody than musical dialogue with an interplay of parts which make the whole -- again, a personal preference of mine, nothing more.
> 
> Puccini is all melody all the time, to the degree where it is homophonic in the extreme, to a degree where I perceive it as virtually monophonic, melody doubled, accompaniment harmonic more in parallel than opposed motion. Wholly 'not my cuppa.' ...


Puccini uses melody as his principal vehicle for characters to express themselves directly. This is very different from the way that one would use melody in pure music. But opera isn't pure music. And in the case of _Il tabarro_, where the characters have repressed their true feelings, there is very little melody in the vocal lines for most of the opera. The action takes place in the orchestra, where themes recur and change, until they burst through into the vocal lines when characters have "outbursts", and reveal their true feeling and thoughts. This isn't pure music: it's opera, and it's very psychologically astute.



PetrB said:


> His orchestration is more than fine, sometimes 'brilliant,' but there is nothing innovative about it, and that is not damning, just a matter of fact. To be simplistically reductive, their are innovators, or those who follow. Puccini followed. That has no implication whatsoever that he was a mimic, unoriginal, did not forge his 'own sound,' etc. I hear 000 'Stravinskian' in any of Puccini, and the only thing I can think of that at all would have someone say 'Debussyian' is Puccini's stock in trade Augmented chord usage, as used in toto in Turandot, implying a whole tone, or pentatonic, harmonic realm -- used in Turandot to cement the 'oriental' setting of the story.


You're quite right that Puccini followed the innovations of others in terms of developing orchestral techniques and new musical theory. But in terms of creating opera, and in using the orchestra operatically, Puccini was a pioneer. Name an opera before Puccini's _Il tabarro_ that uses such a diverse array of sounds to create a scene, from barges to foghorns to an organ grinder to song peddlers to passing crowds and musicians. If you listen to act three of _La fanciulla del west_, you can hear a chord progression underlying the dialogue between Nick and Rance, and if you pay close attention you can hear the phrase repeating and unfolding in step with the dramatic progress of events on stage. It is violence, and as things go downhill the you can actually hear the vocal lines affected by this progression. The melodic expression of the characters is being affected by the chord progression that reveals their subconscious motives. The only precedent for that is Wagner's Ring cycle, where sometimes the leitmotifs will belie a character's stated feelings. And in _La Rondine_, which is based around several waltz themes, he uses a waltz out of time in the orchestra to suggest a memory. Later, when a situation that seems to be recapitulating that memory, the theme comes back, but altered so that it is less of a waltz, and so seems to be in the present. That's completely different than the 'reminiscences' that many opera composers use.

As for Debussy, well, I'll let Antonio Pappano handle this one. 




And as for Turandot, there is quite a bit more there than just pentatonic based chrods. There's bitonality: from M. Owen Lee's _First Intermissions_: "That not-inappropriately-names critic, Spike Hughes, says that that chord is as much Puccini's personal property as the first chord in Tristan is Wagner's. Superimposing C-sharp major on d-minor, Puccini's bitonal chord seems instantly to evoke a special world, the psychic world where the opera will take place."

There's some pretty intense chromaticism and whole tone scales, there are exotic instruments, strange rhythmic sequences and inversions, and some interesting pedal points. There's also a very complicated harmonic substructure to the entire opera, as both of these articles show: 
http://www.bpmonline.org.uk/bpm4-turandot.html#anchor51436
http://people.bu.edu/burtond/resources/Research/6f2.ReconditeChap13.pdf

The first one also shows how extremely brilliant Puccini was at dealing with the psychology of his characters both dramatically and musically. But Puccini was not an ostentatious man. He didn't write tomes about how great he was, like Wagner did. He often hid some of the most interesting things in his music. For example: 






PetrB said:


> The quote from the critic which asked the question if a work which is both sincere and at the same time transparently manipulative could / should be admired, rather perfectly addressed some of the points 'leveled at' which have you heated, and there was nothing pejorative in it. The "If a composer can pull that off, how can anyone complain about it?" as a high compliment.


If I received a compliment in which my work was called "counterfeit", "manipulative", and "saccharine" I would have a hard time saying thank you to whoever gave it.



PetrB said:


> The root word from which Art is derived is Artifice -- there is nothing 'natural' about any of the products from the western music art tradition. Then it depends upon the listener, what they think and feel about the result as they listen, whether it feels 'natural' to them, or whether that is one of their concerns regarding what they prefer to hear.


That actually isn't true. The word 'art' got it's modern meaning in the 13th century, while the word artifice didn't come into usage until the 16th. They both derive from the same Latin root, which actually means joint (as in something put together), as well as a possible alternative or commensurate etymology from the Greek artizein, which is "to prepare". So art is making something... I suppose in that sense any artist is manipulative, as one manipulates materials to create form. But I think that the critics really mean it the other way: deception.

Friederich von Schiller thought that art will save us: it overcomes the dichotomy between our material selves and our immortal selves. And we create art by playing. A large component of Schiller's art was drama, specifically theatre. Actors in the theatre must put themselves into the shoes of another person: they must empathize. And it is strange to see this actually makes a person grow, and become a stronger individual. I find this description of the artistic process much more convincing, having done some acting myself. In a sense, this isn't a natural process: human beings conceive of it and initiate it. But it is a living one, and so is a part of nature.

Puccini's main focus isn't on the music: it's on the art, which in the case of opera, the magnifying glass of the human soul, is the characters and the world they inhabit.



PetrB said:


> That you are so enamored, moved, by Puccini has you appalled more do not rate him 'up there' with Beethoven.
> 
> By my way of thinking, if he is in about every tome on 'the great composers,' even grudgingly included, he is ranked 'great' in some way, and even that should not matter then where he stands on that list: he is on all those lists, and won't be denied. That really, ought to be enough to answer your questions as to his 'status.'


Among artists, I absolutely rate Puccini up there with Beethoven. As a composer of music, no. As a writer of operas, I put him at the very top.

I talk about Puccini all the time with a lot people. I never ask any of them to like his music. It's a matter of taste, and of personal experience, and if somebody told me that I had to like Mozart the best, I would resent it. But I do think that he should be respected, and that people shouldn't use words that they wouldn't with any other respectable artist, such as "cheap", or "bag of tricks" etc. I can't stand 99.9% of atonal music. But I don't describe it as "counterfeit". I respect that it's an artistic expression. (As an interesting note, Arnold Schoenberg absolutely loved Puccini, and upon Puccini's death said that we had lost the greatest opera composer of our times. Schoenberg and Puccini's artistic philosophies could not have been more opposite.)

Puccini is a composer of pure opera. And it is as such that we should judge him.


----------



## unpocoscherzando (Sep 24, 2011)

Leaving aside an assessment of his objective greatness or 'rank', Puccini is a delightful composer and very much a favourite of mine. He reminds me, in at least one respect, of Mozart, but 'in the other direction', for Puccini marries the Italian passion and melodic sense with elements of Wagnerian (and broadly Germanic) harmonic and orchestral style - at its best, a lovely and appealing synthesis.

The question of manipulation or superficiality, although perhaps of incidental interest, strikes me as rather beside the point. It seems quite certain that much of the most beautiful and profound music of the Western classical tradition is 'more than' its composers, if one will permit the ellipsis. I think such is very much the case with Puccini and thus, perhaps despite his 'popular' intentions, the beauty of the melody and the music as a whole shine through. For myself, _E lucevan le stelle_ is a fine example of this.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> Goodness what a lot to think about.
> 
> I have never admired Puccini. His melodic facility, that to others seems so obvious, to me is completely absent. I can remember none of his tunes, and there's not one of his operas that I love for the music. I do think he has a recognizable musical style, but I could be wrong about that. You know how "ugly art" kind of has an odd fascination, like a car wreck? That's the fascination Puccini's music sometimes has for me.
> 
> ...


"Not seeing the strings" is apposite. That not seeing them is usually important to me.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

What a lovely comment, unpocoscherzando. Thank you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I have to thank you; I've changed the way i look at Puccini forever, in large part because of your post.
> 
> Well, I think we have wildly diverging experiences of art. To me, art, real art, is about communication. It's an expression of ideas, or feelings, or even perhaps sensation or knowledge that is deeper or more ambiguous. There is certainly an intellectual component in art: plotting in novels is less inspired and more programmed. And it can be deceptive: a good mystery plot throws you off track, and shows you the last thing you expect at a given moment. This is what you were saying you appreciated about Beethoven. But is that why Beethoven was a genius? Perhaps, although I would argue no. What I get from Beethoven are images without pictures. When I hear, say, moonlight sonata's first movement, I experience an emotional response of intense melancholy, I have an intellectual appreciation of the music, what makes it powerful emotionally and what makes it work. But then there's something more. You could call it the aura of the piece, although that isn't really the right way to describe it. Images without pictures is the best I can do. Not all piano pieces give me this experience. And that doesn't make them inferior necessarily, it just means that they are working on different levels.
> 
> ...


That list of technical devices is a laundry list, and I wouldn't necessarily argue them except I find them 'transparent' and very much about 'effect' vs. substance. (Now you've reminded me of the bitonality of Turandot -- that opening choral scene is 'exciting,' -- I can see from whence the "Stravinskian" descriptor comes, though again, Petruschka, (1911 or so) was the 'innovative' work, Puccini again availing himself of something already invented by another. )
I never once criticized his 'technique,' but only said he was a follower, and agree he had a seeming facility for what was 'apt' for the theatrical situation. That he chose what I consider 'cheaply aimed' sure fire soap melodrama libretti, and put music apt to working that dynamic, shows he certainly knew what he was doing. (an aside ... btw, Schoenberg, genius that he was, seemed, imo, to have no real idea of how to make effective theater. His pupil, Anton Berg, more than did!)

None of that makes the music, to me, 'supportable' as great music, however, and it is fully mindblowing that you pretty much say one should not criticize the musical elements of opera. Puccini's music is what I consider paper thin and 'lesser' music, just because it happens to work in musical theater does not elevate its quality.

But this suspension of judgment on the music of opera vs. the theater of it was part of my first post -- many an opera lover is about 'pure opera' (translate 'pure theater') -- and without apology, there is a lot of Schtick in theater which works beautifully to its purpose which is 'just schtick.'

You are the perfect representative, of a sort I named, who is most concerned with the theater, _*the music actually yet "just another prop as part of a stage production," important, but not at all what is fundamentally driving the piece.*_ I cannot think of one Verdi opera where the music does not 'drive' the work, and is not only apt but 'married' to the intent of the libretto. So, by those standards, who is the greater 'opera composer?'

You've dropped in to the category of TC where for most, it is the music first and foremost, and as per opera, oratorio or cantata, the libretto is the lessor factor in what is being estimated as 'worthwhile.' For me, the music Must Convey Almost Everything, and if it does not, I don't care at all how great the text / libretto is -- if the music is weak, the libretto is better of severing relations with the score and going out on stage alone, as a theater piece without music. You've pretty much stated as inconsequential that which I think is vital -- in opera, the music must be considered as the prime / primal element which drives the work.

All your argument 'wins,' and shows as again, already stated, is an admirably apt application of musical technical devices which make Puccini work. While his music, both in critical circles, tomes on music, is still considered paper thin, the overall fluidity of application, the deftness with which this composer applied his craft, is altogether enough to have him listed as 'great.'

Those 'ambient' scenes for which he had such genius? Well, Mozart was first, in Don Giovanni, with three independent musics and story line threads running at once, all sitting within a near-epic symphonic form, which trumps Puccini's more overt tricks by miles as to degree of "sophistication" and "greatness."

But relax... Giacomo's works are populist, and popular, in the extreme. It is really some want for you to have him 'elevated' to a higher rank which has your knickers nearly in a twist. *The more you try to dress up something as what it is not, the more transparently not up to rank or inadequate to the task it appears.*

I've found it rather surprising the overall general consensus in this thread regarding Puccini in this thread is so close to / parallel with mine.

To repeat, he is already in the books as 'a great' composer. I'd say give it a rest, or find the Puccini fans who feel as you do about this composer, who will reinforce and support your opinion. _There is an opera category on TC. As a mere test, it would be more than interesting to see what the general opinion of the composer and his work are there, where there are of course, more 'opera lovers.'_

Shift the demographic of where you collect the opinions, reach a different result with the same question 

P.s. "If I received a compliment in which my work was called "counterfeit", "manipulative", and "saccharine" I would have a hard time saying thank you to whoever gave it.

Then don't choose libretti of that nature, don't write music with that effect


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

1. I never said that we should just forgive bad music. I said that we should examine operatic differently than we would, say, symphonic music. My distinction was: looking from the perspective of somebody who loves symphonic music, Puccini is probably not going to be rated highly, because he has a different aim. I suppose what I'm saying is that if we think of music as language, theatrical language and language for it's own sake are different- that doesn't make one better than the other, and it doesn't mean that the quality isn't important. When I said something like 'Puccini's main focus isn't on the music', I meant something more like, 'He doesn't use music the same way that a non opera composer would; he uses it to create a world, not to to exist for it's own sake,'

2. The first act of Turandot is actually symphonic in form.

3. Verdi was a great opera composer. Where in Puccini is the text not completely married to the music?

4. Please don't condescend to me. You're basically telling me to go back to the rubes with whom I should be consorting, and then ask them whether they like my favorite toy. Is that all music is to you? Sophistication, and waxing on about genius? I can see why you wouldn't like Puccini. He's got too much soul.

5. I realize that there is an opera forum. This thread is in the opera forum. Where are you?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> 1. I never said that we should just forgive bad music. I said that we should examine operatic differently than we would, say, symphonic music. My distinction was: looking from the perspective of somebody who loves symphonic music, Puccini is probably not going to be rated highly, because he has a different aim. I suppose what I'm saying is that if we think of music as language, theatrical language and language for it's own sake are different- that doesn't make one better than the other, and it doesn't mean that the quality isn't important. When I said something like 'Puccini's main focus isn't on the music', I meant something more like, 'He doesn't use music the same way that a non opera composer would; he uses it to create a world, not to to exist for it's own sake,'
> 
> 2. The first act of Turandot is actually symphonic in form.
> 
> ...


Re: 3) Perhaps it is. I cannot apologize for finding both libretto and music obvious and pretty tacky on the aesthetic choice front, nor will I apologize if you are so egocentric as to take that personally. If you will not let people speak freely about music you truly love, even if they hate it, you have no real business on a public forum.

Re: 4.) Oh puleeze don't put the impossible to measure or qualify 'soul' on the table, that's a horribly cheap shot. Arguing about that is more a P_ssing contest of who is the deepest, "I feel more than thou." it is childish, and to engage would make both parties look beyond childish.

Re: 5.) I truly beg your pardon.

That also makes it that much more stunning to me that many participants in this thread, even here in the Opera category, hold such similar opinions to mine on Puccini.

In another thread, TC member 'Science' said they could not stand any music which smacked of being 'naively sentimental.'

I do think Puccini more than tended toward the 'naively sentimental,' (a massive understatement) but was not at all naive about how that sentiment works on the public.

Mahlerian commented that when one is certain of being manipulated, the effect is that you feel you are being _forced_ to 'feel this way.' vs. letting the materials work on you and your being allowed to have 'your own reaction.'

With that, I could not agree more. I happen to 'hear that' in Puccini from the first bars, regardless of the work. I don't hear or sense it at all with Verdi, Mozart, Wagner - whose work I care for not one whit, Poulenc, Stravinsky, Bellini, etc. In the area of manipulation and being aware of it as an audience member, Puccini, to me, takes the prize.

I'll take Cosi fan Tutte, or L'enfant et les sortileges, over all of Puccini in a New York minute -- or less -- anytime.

I would also argue that when an artist does this, they are fundamentally unsure if something less directly manipulative would 'work' on people: what the motivation / intent is to be more than mechanically certain people will respond I'll leave to shrinks. Perhaps under it all, talented composer that he was, he felt the certain manipulation would be a greater certitude of making a healthy income from his work, and that is not 'bad,' but I do find it more mercenary than 'lofty.'

Those opera fans who also credit most the overall theater for the work's impact are not rubes: please do not put words in my mouth. I actually feel you now owe those you have called rubes an apology... they are fans of opera who are ready to let the theatricality carry them most, and are using a different paradigm to assess. I don't happen to agree with that paradigm, big whup.

I am one who has a hard time with a great deal of theater, musical or otherwise, precisely because so much of it strikes me as transparently manipulative; if the strings are showing, that is contrary to my taste, aesthetic, if you will.

but....
How one can separate 'music' from opera in order to judge it is beyond me. I see the music of opera as the most important or at the very least an equally important element as much so as is the libretto. To 'cut the score some slack' because it is opera to me is patently lame, a dodge, a backing down, from the criteria of what classical music theater is, and what we should be able to expect from it.

Peppered throughout this forum are OP's about a particular work or composer, and the threads often contain responses from people who do not at all care for composer X's works, or a particular piece. Some are quite articulate as to why the do not care for X.

I am not the only one in this thread to directly say I find both music and libretti in Puccini, 'cheaply sentimental.'

Cabaret is a tradition wherein the music is, by convention, entirely inconsequential, "only there" to get the words across -- but OPERA? "Whoa!" This is simply a matter of what criteria one is or is not willing to accept. I can not accept that 'exceptions' must be made for opera regarding its score vs. the libretto. It sounds like you do not either, really, and find Puccini's music 'great.' Simple difference of opinion. It seems you have not convinced any who think differently from you, but have met with some agreement with those who have posted and agree with you anyway.

I am happy that you have realized that 'manipulation' is the very foundation of how a lot of art works, and that it need not be in any way a pejorative comment, though it seems many do not 'like to see the strings,' and Puccini, evidently to many, was unable to hide the strings.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

To PetrB,
That was almost word for word the response I expected. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Do you see me arguing with anybody else on this thread? You said that I just want to elevate something I like. Or perhaps the vigor of my responses had something to do with yours. You are right that the general opinion of Puccini is rather low. I accept that. I disagree with it, strongly, but I accept that that's how people feel. Anyway, I apologize for getting a bit frustrated in my posts, and I don't wish to fight with anybody.

In General,
Earlier on in the discussion, I posted a scholarly article on _Turandot_, in which authors describe a complex system of tonal relationships between the protagonists: Calaf = D Emperor = C Turandot =Eb. The basic idea is Puccini emphasizes D as a leading tone to Eb, with the effect of an upward modulation. The authors postulate that this is a kind of musical metaphor for what Turandot fears happening with the Prince (he "conquers" her - 'Mai nessun m'avra'). F# minor is associated with Turandot's fantasy of Lou-Ling, her murdered ancestor, while Gb is associated with Liu. Eventually Turandot herself will occupy F# major, readying her to take Liu's place, but as a heroine, not a victim. This makes a very, very interesting connection between the three women... Here's the article, if anyone would care to read it. http://www.bpmonline.org.uk/bpm4-turandot.html#anchor51436


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> The article goes on to describe the problem with Puccini: he's a manipulator.


If that's being manipalated then I wish there were more manipulators.

I consider Puccini Turandot and Il Tabarro two masterpiece and highly regard many of his other operas.

EDIT:


dionisio said:


> Every opera house needs Puccini, Verdi and Mozart to have profit. Without these, it is suicide.


I know that's the case, that is most of the staging worldwide are from a small number of composers of the past like Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, Wagner, Rossini, Donizetti , but I've always found that a bit strange.
It's like if most movies in theatres nowadays were from the 50'/60' or if the top spots in pop music were occupied by Beatles cover bands.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

sharik said:


> huh, what else one demands to be satisfied, given such a brilliant libretti like Turandot's and Butterfly's?


If you wish to discount or disregard the music and tip the balance of what is important onto the libretto, then those operas are better off as stand-alone plays, not operas... *then we should be crediting and discussing librettists Giuseppe Adami and Renato Simoni, and the original author of the antique tale rather than Puccini *

You are very consistent to return to 'the play is the thing' as far as what has gripped you re: Puccini.

This argument that one can / could discount the caliber of the music 'because it is opera,' is in my experience brand new, and comes from you -- and that is where, for me, you are more than a little off the mark.

To argue at all that it is o.k. to discount or disregard the score of an opera in 'rating it' is to stand in the position of being *"the apologist for the score."* (_"Great play! sorry about that score...."_)

The 'highest ranked' operas need no apologist for either libretto or score.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

Wagner, Mozart and other more well-respected composers manipulated audiences' feelings every bit as much as Puccini did. If a critic thinks that the Ride of the Valkyries or 'La Ci Darem La Mano' is more intellectually respectable than Tosca and Mario singing about their house in the woods, then I'm not sure what criteria they're using. (In fact, Don Giovanni is really an opera about how easy it is to manipulate emotions with beautiful singing). 

The fact remains that Puccini's gift for melody was very real, and he created a handful of masterpieces. For anyone who disagrees, I would like to recommend that they compare an aria from Tosca or Butterfly with a track by Josh Groban, Andrea Bocelli, Il Volo, or one of the other pop-opera singers whose music does share superficial stylistic aspects with Puccini's.

The stylistic aspects - the big, passionate, "walking-on-clouds" (Puccini's term for it) singing style; the lush orchestration; slow tempi - are all the same, yet what makes Puccini unique is that his music is powerfully individual. He makes his imitators just look embarrassing.

Consider a Handel da capo aria - which critics long regarded as formulaic, dramatically neutered exercises in mere vocal pyrotechnics. Today, many critics rightfully view Handel's operas as musical masterpieces. His place in the operatic pantheon would seem to be secure. That just goes to show how variable the winds of critical opinion can be throughout history.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Music this baldly manipulative and empty really pains me to listen to. It's "effective", but nothing more.
> View attachment 16333
> 
> 
> ...


Mahlerian, _at least_ we can give him credit this not being in C Major. 

I have always preferred Bellini to Puccini, personally--by several multiples.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

Also, I don't think it's accurate to say, as some have, that Puccini was "not an innovator." Maybe he wasn't an innovator on the level that Wagner was - but who ever was?

Puccini was the last in a line of Italian opera composers that stretched back to Rossini and continued on through Bellini, Donizetti, Verdi and then the verismo composers. What all of these composers had in common was that singing and melody were their prime concerns. However, when we think of Rossini and Verdi, orchestration is the last thing that comes to mind (possibly excepting Verdi's last two opera, which were more orchestrally varied and interesting). Puccini was an innovator in that he married that focus on vocal melodies with a lush orchestral background. Was this orchestral background as musically interesting or compelling as Wagner's or Debussy's? No, and I would never argue that it was. Wagner and Debussy were musical geniuses of a higher level than Puccini was. However, the combination of the sort of singing style heard in Rigoletto, with orchestration that was clearly influenced by Wagner and Debussy, along with plots that were more realistic and influenced by the verismo movement - this was a unique innovation. I don't see how Puccini could be considered as a mere knock-off of anyone.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Some quotes about Puccini from contemporaneous composers:

Debussy: "If one did not keep a grip on oneself one would be swept away by the sheer verve of the music. I know of no one who has described the Paris of that time as well as Puccini in _La bohème_."

Stravinsky: "He had told Diaghilev that that my music was horrible, but also that it was very talented... I had talked to Debussy about Puccini's music, and I recall- contrary to Mosco Carner's biography of Puccini, incidentally- that Debussy respected it, as I myself did."

Webern (to Schoenberg): "A score that sounds original in every way. Splendid. Every measure astonishing!
.... I would like so much to look at this score together with you. Has this opera completely bewitched me?"

From Wikipedia: "The influence of Giacomo Puccini is apparent particularly in Janáček's later works, for example in his opera Káťa Kabanová." And from Girardi's book on Puccini: "Janacek, both as a critic and composer, greatly admired Puccini's operas."

Schoenberg: Puccini was a 'great man'

Shostakovich and Britten (who were, I realize, later):

Shostakovich: 'What do you think of Puccini?'

Britten: 'I think his operas are dreadful.'

Shostakovich: 'No, Ben, you are wrong. He wrote marvellous operas but dreadful music!'


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Funny how critics criticise. Something like "Puccini was no innovator and musically speaking he was minor compared to Wagner and etc. But opera was his field"

And so what Puccini did his whole life: Opera! It would be something really stupid not to work on a field which you know best.

Before Pucinni, many other opera composers were excellent in the opera ground that brought no significant contribution to music it self. But to use music as a device for the theatre, these men were superior. Opera is theatre, not music. Or the theatre comes first than music. And in theatre/opera field, Tosca is a much better accomplishment than Fidelio.


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I would also argue that when an artist does this, they are fundamentally unsure if something less directly manipulative would 'work' on people: what the motivation / intent is to be more than mechanically certain people will respond I'll leave to shrinks. *Perhaps under it all, talented composer that he was, he felt the certain manipulation would be a greater certitude of making a healthy income from his work, and that is not 'bad,' but I do find it more mercenary than 'lofty.'*


The "more mercenary than lofty" is what made the fortune of italian Opera.
There is a reason why some Rossini or Donizetti masterpiece had "legendary short" composition timespan (like a couple of weeks).



dionisio said:


> But to use music as a device for the theatre, these men were superior. Opera is theatre, not music. Or *the theatre comes first than music*. And in theatre/opera field, Tosca is a much better accomplishment than Fidelio.


I disagree with the part in bold.
I don't think in Opera the drama is superior to the music but the various elements should converge and influence each other to create the final "theatre in music" work.
For example I regard music in Opera as the combination between the instrumental score and the vocal lines, and the latter are heavily dependent on the libretto itself but at the same time the libretto lines influence the music direction.

However what should be obvious (and that's your point) is that Opera works with different rules compared for example with symphonic composition.

For Puccini this rules were: "There are certain fixed laws in the theater: to interest, to surprise, to move".

I'm not sure why one should care for Puccini standings, when Puccini was heavily criticized while he was still alive (the most famous attack was Torrefranca's "Giacomo Puccini e l'opera internazionale" in 1912) yet rarely bothered to respond himself.
"They say the sentiment is a weak signal. I really like to be weak. To the so-called strongs I leave the fading success. To us those that remain".


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Bardamu said:


> I disagree with the part in bold.


Thank God we all have different opinions 

But i'd have to say (as i'll say always) Salierei's _opera buffa_ backwards: _Prima la parola poi la musica_

I agree with you when it comes about opera as the sum/combination of different arts. It's its _raison d'être_. But to me, poetry as an art form stands above while music supports it, in opera. And so, i think, Puccini had a similar way of thought. He was very annoying with his librettists. Why? His music would be effective anyway. But he gave much importance to the words and thus we had solid works as La Boheme. Like or not, the libretto is a good one (not as faithfull as Leoncavallo's).

And thus thought, i guess, Zeno and thus thought Mestastasio and thus thought Wagner (or wouldn't he insist on writing is own librettos).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Glissando said:


> Wagner, Mozart and other more well-respected composers manipulated audiences' feelings every bit as much as Puccini did. If a critic thinks that the Ride of the Valkyries or 'La Ci Darem La Mano' is more intellectually respectable than Tosca and Mario singing about their house in the woods, then I'm not sure what criteria they're using. (In fact, Don Giovanni is really an opera about how easy it is to manipulate emotions with beautiful singing).


Neither of those examples is particularly deep on a musical level, sure, but I really don't think either is particularly emotionally manipulative. Your aside about Don Giovanni is telling specifically because of how far beside the point it really is.

That Don Giovanni as a dramatic work contains much manipulation in its plot and character motivations says nothing about whether Don Giovanni as an opera is blatantly manipulative of audiences' emotions. The Don is a manipulative character, but the music we hear has a level of objectivity and distance about it (and this is primarily a matter of style).

And I was not comparing Puccini with pop music, with which it undoubtedly compares quite favorably (to say nothing of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Puccini-lite).


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

deggial said:


> without Mimi it could've easily been a comedy.


lol so she should feel guilty AND ill ... i love it :lol:


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

dionisio said:


> Funny how critics criticise. Something like "Puccini was no innovator and musically speaking he was minor compared to Wagner and etc. But opera was his field"
> 
> And so what Puccini did his whole life: Opera! It would be something really stupid not to work on a field which you know best.
> 
> Before Pucinni, many other opera composers were excellent in the opera ground that brought no significant contribution to music it self. But to use music as a device for the theatre, these men were superior. Opera is theatre, not music. Or the theatre comes first than music. And in theatre/opera field, Tosca is a much better accomplishment than Fidelio.


Well said.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> lol so she should feel guilty AND ill ... i love it :lol:


I think guilt might come naturally to her as a character


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Puccini alone probably brings is more than 1/3 of global opera ticket revenues such that now and then the financial loss incurred on a performance of _Meistersinger _is made permissible. So we owe him a lot.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> If you wish to discount or disregard the music and tip the balance of what is important onto the libretto, then those operas are better off as stand-alone plays, not operas


but know what... the most important part of any opera is its *libretto*, that is, the opera in itself is nothing more but an enhanced theatrical play, and its music may stand out in there only by accident. Puccini and other opera composers whose works have survived till today are only lucky accidents.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Neither of those examples is particularly deep on a musical level, sure, but I really don't think either is particularly emotionally manipulative. Your aside about Don Giovanni is telling specifically because of how far beside the point it really is.
> 
> That Don Giovanni as a dramatic work contains much manipulation in its plot and character motivations says nothing about whether Don Giovanni as an opera is blatantly manipulative of audiences' emotions. The Don is a manipulative character, but the music we hear has a level of objectivity and distance about it (and this is primarily a matter of style).
> 
> And I was not comparing Puccini with pop music, with which it undoubtedly compares quite favorably (to say nothing of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Puccini-lite).


Again, I would argue that most operas do manipulate the viewer's emotions to some extent. In other words, they pull on the heartstrings. Don Giovanni is indeed a sort of outlier, in that it maintains an ironic distance between itself as a work of art, and the people whom it depicts.

If it comes right down to it, yes, a symphony by Mahler is less directly representative of states of mind, and more open to interpretation than Puccini's music is. To that extent, it is more "objective" and has more integrity as abstract music. Its musical language is also much more advanced. Yet my point is that to pick on Puccini for exploiting particularly emotion-laden situations in his music, is to ignore that much opera does the same thing. This is probably why some people feel it is a hysterical, overblown art form. Personally I do not feel that way, but I can see how someone could.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Glissando said:


> most operas do manipulate the viewer's emotions to some extent


i say every piece of art does manipulate people thoughts and emotions, otherwise its not art at all.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

All forms of music and theatre and art manipulate their audience. Its what they are there for! To entertain us and stimulate a response. They draw us in and make us feel that which the composer/artist convey. Puccini was very successful at this. His Opera's for the most involve and engage us pretty much as they did when they were first performed. Puccini was a composer at an interesting time. late nineteenth century early twentieth. Turandot is very much a 20th century opera and glorious to boot! His music was evolving, echoing the change in classical music in general. If he had live a few years I would have loved to hear his next compositions. Viva Verisimo!


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

dionisio said:


> But i'd have to say (as i'll say always) Salierei's _opera buffa_ backwards: _Prima la parola poi la musica_


That's a sly trick :lol:

Of course I'm not saying the libretto is unimportant, just that music has an equal importance and the two cannot be easily detached each other.
But it's true that I personally tend more to appreciate first how an Opera "sound" and after what it is all about.

Librettist are indeed overlooked sometimes compared to the composers.
For example the so-called "gluckian reform" was heavily influenced by Ranieri de' Calzabigi ideas.



dionisio said:


> *He was very annoying with his librettists. Why? His music would be effective anyway.* But he gave much importance to the words and thus we had solid works as La Boheme. Like or not, the libretto is a good one (not as faithfull as Leoncavallo's).


Because he wasn't megalomaniac like Mascagni *jokes*


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Bardamu said:


> But it's true that I personally tend more to appreciate first how an Opera "sound" and after what it is all about.
> 
> Librettist are indeed overlooked sometimes compared to the composers.
> For example the so-called "gluckian reform" was heavily influenced by Ranieri de' Calzabigi ideas.
> ...


I think that for anybody, the first impression is, in deed, the music. One must not need to know what Calaf is singing to enjoy _Nessun dorma_. Also lots of people that go at least once in their lifetime to the opera (unfortunately, in my country, to go to an opera is considered something extravagant), go specially for the music. These _new-listeners_ enjoy Verdi's "tunes". Also what binds us to this forum is music. And lets not forget that, philosophies put aside, Opera is above all entertainment (we shouldn't always debate it, but enjoy it more often).

However the deeper you dig, the greater you see what opera is. When you learn about _dramma per musica_, Calzabigi ideas and the _Gesamskunstwerk_ (which is basically reinventing the wheel from time to time), the music simply does not work for itself (exceptions to be made to Mozart and Wagner).

Strangely enough, Apostolo Zeno and Metastasio tried to impose the libretto over the music for considering poetry superior. However, as we know, _opera seria_ evolve in the opposite side, music gained such weight over the libretto that it was considered a mere appendix (Arabace, in Artaserse, could sing _Laschia ch'io pianga_ without disturbing the plot!). This was had become so scary that reform was made to bring balance. And from that balance, sometimes you get stupendous works, like Gluck's Iphigenia en Tauride, where words and music are well combined...however, in this opera, the music does not stand alone without the libretto.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

sharik said:


> i say every piece of art does manipulate people thoughts and emotions, otherwise its not art at all.


Are you saying Bach's Art of Fugue is not art?


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Are you saying Bach's Art of Fugue is not art?











 hehehhe


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

the Art of Fugue is almost as good as


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Are you saying Bach's Art of Fugue is not art?


of course Bach's not art, he is more than art or music. Bach is a religion.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Just to address the issue of manipulation: it's very strange for me to see the word used as it is here. If you look up the definition of the word manipulative, you see that it has two definitions: "characterized by unscrupulous control of a situation or person", and "of or relating to manipulation of an object or part of the body". Since Puccini isn't an acrobat, I think that we can disregard definition number two. That leaves us with deceit... I don't see anything deceitful in art. But that doesn't seem to be what people here mean when they use the word. It seems to me that what is meant is that art provokes a response in someone who experiences it, and that these responses are by and large intentional on the part of the creator. I don't entirely believe that.

People experience pieces of music and art in any medium in ways that the creator never intended or even thought of. I think that quite often emotionally evocative art is a simple expression of the creator's soul. That doesn't mean that Puccini doesn't want you to cry in the last act of _La boheme_. I'm sure he does. But that isn't really manipulation: that's called feeling. Puccini himself cried when he wrote the scene where Mimi dies. Was he manipulating himself? I think that he was having an honest emotional experience, and that it is entirely possible for the audience to have one as well.

And to all those who continue to say that Puccini wasn't a musically sophisticated composer, When was the last time you looked at a score of Fanciulla or Tabarro or Turandot? Another point would be that part of the reason that Puccini gets not as much discussion as others is that there is no scientific way to study melody. There was a German musicologist and philosopher named Zuckerkandl who did a study on the human voice. He hired everybody from professionally trained singers to people who could barely sing, and paraded them in front of a group of trained musicians. He also recorded them, and analyzed their pitch. The musicians were general agreement: the trained singers had great pitch, the untrained not so much. But the analysis of the recording showed something else: everybody was horribly off pitch. Even the classically trained singers were way off. Why did they sound right? Zuckerkandl concluded that it was the motion of the music that made it sound right: as long as the intervals were close, nobody could tell that the singers weren't singing the right notes. So what is it about this motion that appeals to us? It's hard to say. What I can say is that, for me, Puccini's music moves. There's no way to analyze it like there is tonality etc. You can say that the melodies are made up of short intervals centered around a single pitch, followed by dramatic large intervals... but that doesn't really describe the power of melody...


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

PetrB said:


> But relax... Giacomo's works are populist, and popular, in the extreme. It is really some want for you to have him 'elevated' to a higher rank which has your knickers nearly in a twist. *The more you try to dress up something as what it is not, the more transparently not up to rank or inadequate to the task it appears.*


Looking back on this thread, I can see that a lot of my reactions to your posts were quite visceral in nature. They were out of a place of emotion. I admit it that I have a deep personal connection with this composer's works. But upon reflection, I have to say that there is still one thing that bothers me. There's an interesting bit of psychoanalysis going on here: my responses, however full of merit they may be, are dismissed as coming from my desire to see Puccini's art 'elevated.' I would like to hold up a mirror.

It's an awfully convenient dodge. You can say anything you like, but my claims can be easily brushed aside as _merely_ arguments from emotion. They certainly were from emotion, but that does not make them invalid. In addition to being, presumptuous, rude, and incredibly snobbish, this response is an excellent example of rhetoric in practice. Because it doesn't matter what i say back to it: it's just my subconscious desires getting the better of me.

I would just restate that you claimed that Puccini's music wasn't sophisticated, that the sophistication and innovation that I clearly documented with _numerous_ examples were just 'wins' that I pulled out of nowhere to support my opinion, and that Puccini's works are 'populist' and that this is somehow to be taken as a pejorative. yet, for all of this, you offered not one single shred of evidence. 0 scholarly works. 0 refutations of the articles I posted (that were probably not even read). 0 objective claims of your own.

I realize this comes a bit late (facetious tone). But I have to say it even if just for myself: your argument amounts to nothing more than a bunch of 'cause I said so.'


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Puccini's best works are masterpieces. So what if they are popular, something which appears to rule him out in some people's minds? Bizet's Carmen is popular. Does that make it any the less of a masterpiece? The object of art is to communicate with people. Puccini's operas are incredibly skilfully written and go to the heart. What's wrong in that?


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Puccini's best works are masterpieces. So what if they are popular, something which appears to rule him out in some people's minds? Bizet's Carmen is popular. Does that make it any the less of a masterpiece? The object of art is to communicate with people. Puccini's operas are incredibly skilfully written and go to the heart. What's wrong in that?


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

suteetat said:


> I think Puccini and Tchaikovsky got the bummed deal as far as classical composers are concerned. They write great melodies. They know what the audience like to hear. They are not innovators, pioneer or at the cutteing edge in term of evolution of music yet they are as popular or successful if not more so than the innovators or pioneers. I guess that does not go well with critics as a whole.


I have tremendous respect for those types of composers. They feel they don't need to innovate; they just believe in the success of the sheer beauty of well-composed music. It takes guts to stand in the face of profound composers (Beethoven, Wagner) and make your claim to fame based on beautifully written music. Ars Gratia Artis!


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Puccini's best works are masterpieces. *So what if they are popular, something which appears to rule him out in some people's minds? Bizet's Carmen is popular. Does that make it any the less of a masterpiece? The object of art is to communicate with people.* Puccini's operas are incredibly skilfully written and go to the heart. What's wrong in that?


Absolutely. To me it's a shame that such popularity can have a 'ruling out' effect - it should be the opposite, and this applies to all classical music.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Notung said:


> I have tremendous respect for those types of composers. They feel they don't need to innovate; they just believe in the success of the sheer beauty of well-composed music. It takes guts to stand in the face of profound composers (Beethoven, Wagner) and make your claim to fame based on beautifully written music. Ars Gratia Artis!


I know that at least Puccini wanted to innovate a little, but he wasn't concerned with 'progress' for its own sake. _Il trittico_ for example, is a work unlike anything that had come before, but it wasn't viewed in that light because it wasn't going in a direction consistent with the musical direction of the time. In fact, it was going backwards in a sense (it starts in the 20th century with very dissonant and not so melodic music and ends up in Renaissance Florence with O mio babbino caro).

Puccini's music isn't concerned with developing music theoretically or intellectually, but in the soul or emotional realm. emotions can be developed and educated, and Puccini's music is a huge development in the emotional progress of music, in my opinion.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

For me an opera which fails to evoke any kind of emotion is a failure in itself (unless the composers intention was to alienate and confound his audience). I like to refer to my favourite composer Stravinsky, who wrote my favourite opera; Oedipus Rex. Its not particularly well known but I think Stravinsky really was a master of manipulation. When Oedipus sings his 'invidia fortunam odit' aria I feel myself melt every time, despite the almost cheap use of musical 'tricks' like the appogiaturas and the glissandi 'sighs' to evoke pathos. Its almost embarrassing how effective it is, really.

I feel as though I have rambled a bit, and I might not be making a whole lot of sense, but give it a listen!






The aria in question starts at around 22:00 minutes in.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Puccini's best works are masterpieces. So what if they are popular, something which appears to rule him out in some people's minds? Bizet's Carmen is popular. Does that make it any the less of a masterpiece? The object of art is to communicate with people. Puccini's operas are incredibly skilfully written and go to the heart. What's wrong in that?


Hmmm... communicating to the people through art. Does that make one a masterpiece then? Because one could argue then that this is a masterpiece!




We are now trying to define a masterpiece, and I think that traditionally, the definition has been somewhat independent of popularity.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Looking back on this thread, I can see that a lot of my reactions to your posts were quite visceral in nature. They were out of a place of emotion. I admit it that I have a deep personal connection with this composer's works. But upon reflection, I have to say that there is still one thing that bothers me. There's an interesting bit of psychoanalysis going on here: my responses, however full of merit they may be, are dismissed as coming from my desire to see Puccini's art 'elevated.' I would like to hold up a mirror.
> 
> It's an awfully convenient dodge. You can say anything you like, but my claims can be easily brushed aside as _merely_ arguments from emotion. They certainly were from emotion, but that does not make them invalid. In addition to being, presumptuous, rude, and incredibly snobbish, this response is an excellent example of rhetoric in practice. Because it doesn't matter what i say back to it: it's just my subconscious desires getting the better of me.
> 
> ...


Your arguments are quite similar to mine: the fact of pointing out a key relationship of characters does not make a piece 'greater' than it is.

What I MEANT to import, was you do so seem to wish those more negative comments, as you found and posted in the OP, would just 'go away.' Indeed, they were the catalyst for your posting in the first place, your expressing, if not dramatic shock and awe, some degree of incredulity that "informed" musicians and critics would think less of Puccini's work than you do.

None of what has been said here, any of it, will alter the fact that Puccini is one of many acknowledged as great composers.

The rest really is a difference re: aesthetics and personal taste. You think the music divine, and the libretti perfect, I don't. None of what either of us thinks will change those critical statements, or pull them from either internet, Groves, the Larousse encyclopedia of music and musicians.

Regarding this sort of very divided / split opinion on "The Value" of Puccini, I suggest you look at the cumulative written critical assessments / statements about Rachmaninov, who is in a very similar position of liked / discounted, yet who is also, unless one is from Mars, generally thought of as another great composer.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

If I see an opera or any other cultural expression I want to be manipulated. Yes it is fake so what. It is fiction.
And don´t even think Puccini is the most effective manipulator but he wrote some of the most beautiful music ever.


----------



## Loge (Oct 30, 2014)

Look, Puccini gets slagged off for being too middle class. So only snobs slag off Puccini.

But Puccini is great, he has some real insights. Maybe not in the political as the snobs want. But in the emotional. When I read the synopsis of La Bohem, I thought it the most awful story ever. But I bought the DVD and watched it. During the ACT 1 started to hate it. The first part of ACT 1 was full of obnoxious characters. But then the penny dropped, "Christ" I said, that was me when I was in my 20s. And I laughed and enjoyed the rest of the Opera.

So people in the 1830s were doing the same thing in the 1890s that I was doing in the 1990s. Sheer brilliants. Well apart from the TB.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Loge said:


> Look, Puccini gets slagged off for being too middle class. So only snobs slag off Puccini.
> 
> But Puccini is great, he has some real insights. Maybe not in the political as the snobs want. But in the emotional. When I read the synopsis of La Bohem, I thought it the most awful story ever. But I bought the DVD and watched it. During the ACT 1 started to hate it. The first part of ACT 1 was full of obnoxious characters. But then the penny dropped, "Christ" I said, that was me when I was in my 20s. And I laughed and enjoyed the rest of the Opera.
> 
> So people in the 1830s were doing the same thing in the 1890s that I was doing in the 1990s. Sheer brilliants. Well apart from the TB.


Obnoxious characters is what I think of La Boheme.
But it have some fine moments.


----------

