# What would you say are the differences between "An Opera" and "A Musical?"



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

*What would you say are the differences between "An Opera" and "A Musical?"*

Are there any defining differences which show them to be classifiably different to each other?

:tiphat:


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Stephen Sondheim would say that if it is produced in a venue strictly for opera, then it is considered an opera and not a musical. (Example: Sweeney Todd.)
Actually there is very little speaking in the majority of operas whereas musicals include many spoken lines as well as sung ones.
Also, most operas are produced on a much grander scale with full orchestra, while musicals can get away with many less musicians.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There's no clear dividing line between the different styles of musical theater, but if all the dialogue is sung and the singers are classically trained it's an opera. Some operas do have some spoken dialogue; traditionally those are the German _Singspiel_ (Mozart's _Magic Flute_ and Beethoven's _Fidelio_), and the French _opera comique_ (Bizet's _Carmen_ in its original form).

Operetta can be thought of as light opera with spoken dialogue, usually with frivolous or sentimental stories centering on romance. Notable operetta composers are Strauss, Lehar, Offenbach, and Sullivan (of Gilbert & Sullivan). There was an American operetta tradition, represented by Victor Herbert, Sigmund Romberg and Rudolf Friml; some of their operettas can be seen in Hollywood film adaptations starring Jeannette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy.

Traditionally the musical differs from operetta in that there's less singing; it's basically a play with occasional musical numbers. The singers are not always classically trained, and there are often dance numbers as well as songs.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> There's no clear dividing line between the different styles of musical theater, but if all the dialogue is sung and the singers are classically trained it's an opera. Some operas do have some spoken dialogue; traditionally those are the German _Singspiel_ (Mozart's _Magic Flute_ and Beethoven's _Fidelio_), and the French _opera comique_ (Bizet's _Carmen_ in its original form).
> 
> Operetta can be thought of as light opera with spoken dialogue, usually with frivolous or sentimental stories centering on romance. Notable opera composers are Strauss, Lehar, Offenbach, and Sullivan (of Gilbert & Sullivan). There was an American operetta tradition, represented by Victor Herbert, Sigmund Romberg and Rudolf Friml; some of their operettas can be seen in Hollywood film adaptations starring Jeannette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy.
> 
> Traditionally the musical differs from operetta in that there's less singing; it's basically a play with occasional musical numbers. The singers are not always classically trained, and there are often dance numbers as well as songs.


Well the dividing line became more blurred, when we started to have through composed musicals, starting, probably, with *Jesus Christ Supertar*, and *Evita*. *Les Miserables*, *Miss Saigon* and *Phantom of the Opera* carried on this new genre. Sondheim's *Sweeney Todd* is almost all through composed too, and is often now performed by opera companies.

Earlier than that, Jerome Kern's *Showboat* had very long sequences, in which the dialogue was underscored, and fused seamlessly into the next song. The orchestra plays continuously through the first scene of *Carousel*, with the characters singing long recitative-like sections that lead into the big songs. Not that different from opera really. Many of these shows also need operatically trained voices. It's actually not at all simple. However, though the differences may be difficult to put one's fingers on, I would still state categorically that *Miss Saigon* is a musical, and *Madama Butterfly* an opera.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

One Sondheim quote on the matter is:

"I really think that when something plays Broadway it's a musical, and when it plays in an opera house it's opera. That's it. It's the terrain, the countryside, the expectations of the audience that make it one thing or another."

This came from an interview when _Sweeney Todd_ was playing at ROH circa 2000 (the source I had is a dead link, sadly; the entire article was related to this question).

I have started to disagree with this assessment, or at least modify it somewhat: it's less about the audience than about the company that puts it on. When opera companies do _Sweeney Todd_, they often treat it, in most ways, like a musical. There are fewer rest days between performances than normal, they often use amplification (even in their opera houses not made for it). Though they also are more likely to use the full orchestration (the original Broadway pit had 26 players; recent Broadway and West End revivals have used reductions), perform it uncut, and with traditional interpretation/costumes (whereas many Broadway revivals involve rethinking or reimagining).


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Stephen Sondheim would say that if it is produced in a venue strictly for opera, then it is considered an opera and not a musical. (Example: Sweeney Todd.)
> Actually there is very little speaking in the majority of operas whereas musicals include many spoken lines as well as sung ones.
> Also, most operas are produced on a much grander scale with full orchestra, while musicals can get away with many less musicians.


As some already have said there are musicals without singing. There are also many operas with spoken dialogue Fidelio, Der Freischütz, and Magic Flute are some famous examples.
For orchestra there are chamber operas.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

For me the answer is that there are no hard lines that can be drawn on a single criteria.

Some operas make significant use of dance. Some operas have a good deal of important spoken dialogue. Some musicals are sung through, and a lot of musicals really rely on their music to tell/sell the story (If the score is not that important that just means that the piece isn't very good, it doesn't say anything definitive about genre). Some operas are written for minimal (or no) accompaniment. Some operas are written for electronic music and/or amplified voices. Operas can be performed in the language of the audience. Operas can be cut and have arias transposed. Opera productions can have non-traditional interpretations, costumes, and settings. Different singers can approach roles different in both genres. Both genres have singers that aren't quite what we'd hope yet they still get cast.

The music to musicals is often more influenced by popular styles, but some operas include popular music styles as well and it's not like there isn't a Broadway-style in and of itself. Songs for jukebox musicals are not done as written, they are rearranged and reorchestrated to fit the Broadway stage. It's also worth noting that jukebox musicals tend to rely more on spoken dialogue because few pop songs are written like Broadway songs; they don't tell a story or revealing character in the same way. (And sometimes when pop musicians try to write a musical this becomes very clear - I'm looking at U2 and _Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark_).

No simple test works. I tend to not care about the distinction, but I think one should look at multiple factors. And I think that's what a gut test often is, though there are certainly people that should recalibrate their gut.

One of my least favorite things to read in reviews of modern operas is that they sound like musicals. I find this often means that the writer is not familiar with (or not a fan of) opera in English, not a follower of modern opera styles, and also not that familiar with Broadway musicals. It's generally just meant as an insult, as "I didn't think this piece was good" - which, again, doesn't say anything about genre.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

But is the main difference in the range or scope of the music? For example, I love The Sound of Music, but the songs are repeated, there's less of them than an average opera, they're less dense, less complex, they don't have those great ambitious ensembles? A musical is lighter, less demanding of the audience? This is not a fault, by the way, but a point of comparison. Or, as wooduck put it, they're "basically a play with occasional musical numbers?"


----------



## Madiel (Apr 25, 2018)

is this a serious thread? I don't believe you :devil:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Madiel said:


> is this a serious thread? I don't believe you :devil:


Why not? I'm asking if there are "defining differences which show them to be classifiably different." For example, a normal play has no singing and therefore is classifiably different to a musical. I'm just curious, because I tend to think in the cliched way that "opera is a higher art form than the musical" - and I think this for the (admittedly technically vague) reasons I gave above- but what are the differences?

I've been happy with the replies so far...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kieran said:


> But is the main difference in the range or scope of the music? For example, I love The Sound of Music, but the songs are repeated, there's less of them than an average opera, they're less dense, less complex, they don't have those great ambitious ensembles? A musical is lighter, less demanding of the audience? This is not a fault, by the way, but a point of comparison. Or, as wooduck put it, they're "basically a play with occasional musical numbers?"


I'll stand by my description of the basic traditional differences between the genres. As we're all pointing out, the boundaries were never rigid and have broken down frequently in recent times, but it's still useful to see where these forms of musical theater arose and how they were originally conceived.

I agree with your point about the generally greater musical complexity of opera, and this has to do with the role music plays in it. "Musical" is an adjective that became a noun, and it's short for "musical play" or "musical theater"; it's drama _with_ music. Opera was called by the Florentine Camerata _dramma per musica_, drama _for_ music, and by Wagner _Musikdrama_, drama _through_ music. In opera, music is the primary medium of expression, and the dramatic values of the work are centered in it and in the deployment of the highly trained voice (and, increasingly, the orchestra).

Given opera's focus on exploiting the capacity of music to create dramatic shape and convey the full range of emotion, it was inevitable that operatic music would become highly complex. "Light opera," or operetta, preserved opera's emphasis on the trained voice but propelled much of the action forward through spoken dialogue, with its plot and music conveying less complex emotions; it was thus a major step toward the "play with music" that became the musical. A further step was the adoption of American popular music styles, which required less highly trained singers and reduced most of the music to relatively simple songs which were no longer expected to carry the major burden of dramatic and psychological meaning. The play was shaped, and the characters portrayed, mainly by the action, not by the music.

The purpose of the musical, like that of the operetta, was to entertain, and there was no real need for more than the flimsiest of story lines to tie together songs and dances which, minus the plot, could constitute little more than a revue or variety show. Inevitably, some composers tried to infuse this light entertainment with greater artistic weight, and have written more complex scores making greater demands on singers, thus blurring the boundary with opera.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

um....I don't know where to being. They're a lot more different than similar imo.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> um....I don't know where to being.


Just close your eyes and point (but first move that "g").


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Traditionally known as Musical Comedies, where the lead performers would sing AND dance and the plot was lighthearted. Many of the most famous performers were vaudevilians where Comedic timing was important. Since Showboat that hasn't always been the case but it's where the genre comes from. Arguably LLoyd Webber has moved more toward Operetta but it's still possible seek out the old traditonal Musicals as they have a lightness and wit that Opera rarely attempts. 


I love both forms (But not ALW).


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Kieran said:


> But is the main difference in the range or scope of the music? For example, I love The Sound of Music, but the songs are repeated, there's less of them than an average opera, they're less dense, less complex, they don't have those great ambitious ensembles? A musical is lighter, less demanding of the audience? This is not a fault, by the way, but a point of comparison. Or, as wooduck put it, they're "basically a play with occasional musical numbers?"


Many Broadway shows do not have as many reprised numbers as _The Sound of Music_; some have none, depending on how one considers leitmotifs, callbacks, and quotations, all of which are seen in opera, too (one that immediately comes to mind is "Dio, che nell'alma infondere" as Posa dies in _Don Carlo_).

There are, of course, other musicals. The book musical was a big innovation, but so were the megamusicals of the 70s and 80s. _Les Misérables_ is sung-through, complex, dense, and long. It has a cast of 12 and is full of big ensembles such as "At the End of the Day" and "One Day More." There's also no dancing to speak of.

This isn't a pop score; I think the latest orchestra was cut to 14 players but the original West End and Broadway runs had larger orchestras and there have been multiple major recordings of this work with full orchestras (on the order of 70 players) and it really goes well.

As has been said, "a play with occasional musical numbers" describes SOME musicals, but that has nothing to do with many others. Same with lighter and less demanding. Let's talk about the musicals of Stephen Sondheim, Jason Robert Brown, and Michael John LaChiusa. The latter is especially interesting given the variety of work he has done, both as Broadway shows and operas. Let's also look at works by George Gershwin and Gian Carlo Menotti.

That is, we should look at the full range of operas. We have _L'Orfeo_, _Les Indes galantes_, and _Les Troyens_. We have _Don Giovanni_, _Gianni Schicchi_, and _Jonny spielt auf_. Let's include _La voix humaine_, _Greek_, _Svadba_, and _Doctor Atomic_. Opera is incredibly wide, and I find trying to include it all disqualifies all of the rules.

There are edge cases that are difficult even if there are easier answers when look at certain types of each.


----------



## Madiel (Apr 25, 2018)

Kieran said:


> Why not? I'm asking if there are "defining differences which show them to be classifiably different." For example, a normal play has no singing and therefore is classifiably different to a musical. I'm just curious, because I tend to think in the cliched way that "opera is a higher art form than the musical" - and I think this for the (admittedly technically vague) reasons I gave above- but what are the differences?
> 
> I've been happy with the replies so far...


I daresay that the differences are self-evident once a person has experienced both forms.
Take my wife, she is not a musical person, but being my wife during the years she has seen a lot of operas and a good number of musicals, and she has no doubt that they are completely different things. Then of course on a basic level they both are a form of theater with music and choreography, so why not include kabuki in the comparison? :devil:
Opera is a higher art form than musical is not a cliché, it is an evident fact, art is a technique/skill and the difference is quite evident: just considering the years of study an opera singer needs before being ready to sing an opera, even a person who doesn't get opera singing should get this. Nowadays a lot of people prefer to emphasize the ability to move/excite as the defining trait of art, they should be coherent and ban from their lives their cellphones and live happy with one of these


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Madiel said:


> I daresay that the differences are self-evident once a person has experienced both forms.
> Take my wife, she is not a musical person, but being my wife during the years she has seen a lot of operas and a good number of musicals, and she has no doubt that they are completely different things. Then of course on a basic level they both are a form of theater with music and choreography, so why not include kabuki in the comparison? :devil:
> Opera is a higher art form than musical is not a cliché, it is an evident fact, art is a technique/skill and the difference is quite evident: just considering the years of study an opera singer needs before being ready to sing an opera, even a person who doesn't get opera singing should get this. Nowadays a lot of people prefer to emphasize the ability to move/excite as the defining trait of art, they should be coherent and ban from their lives their cellphones and live happy with one of these
> View attachment 104196


I wouldn't mind a phone like that myself! 

I get the self-evident bit, would just like a more clear definition of what the evidence is. For example, the difference surely doesn't only reside in how long an opera singer studied technique, because opera singers perform in musicals too...


----------



## Madiel (Apr 25, 2018)

Kieran said:


> For example, the difference surely doesn't only reside in how long an opera singer studied technique, because opera singers perform in musicals too...


I have a neighbor who has a degree in ancient languages but he makes a living with logistics :devil:
we cannot define who's what by individual choices which are the result of career opportunities, personal character, economical reasons or else, you are not what you wear, singing operas doesn't make Bocelli an opera singer, it only proves that opera audience includes a lot of people who can't tell a tenor from a howling dog.
The way I see it "canto lirico" defines opera, an art form in itself spanning four hundred years and while many things have changed along these centuries that's what makes the music of Claudio Monteverdi and George Benjamin distinguishable from that of Andrew Lloyd Webber, or Schönberg's Gurre-Lieder distinguishable from Schönberg's Les Miserables and you don't need to be musically educated to get the difference - then of course we could go into technicalities about music, mise-en-scène et cetera, but they are beside the point, "canto lirico" truncates the argument regarding musical theater: if it is there, it's an opera, otherwise it's not.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Where would you place Candide? Apparently it was conceived as ‘a play with music’ but opened on Broadway as a musical. By the time I saw it in Liverpool in 1958 it was billed as an operetta. There was a full orchestra and I seem to remember it had very little dialogue. Btw it remains one of the best shows of any genre I’ve ever seen!


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

LezLee said:


> Where would you place Candide? Apparently it was conceived as 'a play with music' but opened on Broadway as a musical. By the time I saw it in Liverpool in 1958 it was billed as an operetta. There was a full orchestra and I seem to remember it had very little dialogue. Btw it remains one of the best shows of any genre I've ever seen!


Agreed. I'd just prefer to call it "oneof the best shows of any genre..."

Operetta. Perhaps the hardest of all to define. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operetta


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Madiel said:


> Opera is a higher art form than musical is not a cliché, it is an evident fact, art is a technique/skill and the difference is quite evident: just considering the years of study an opera singer needs before being ready to sing an opera, even a person who doesn't get opera singing should get this. Nowadays a lot of people prefer to emphasize the ability to move/excite as the defining trait of art, they should be coherent and ban from their lives their cellphones and live happy with one of these
> View attachment 104196


But the ability to move is a learnt skill and it takes years of training to do it to a highest level. Comedy though, is a gift from the gods. :lol:

This debate minds me of lists of top 100 films. Comedies are underrated and always underrepresented. Any top 10 without Some Like it Hot and Groundhog Day is of little interest to me. AND Groundhog Day is both PROFOUND and funny with much to tell us of the human condition. There is also a rather good Musical Comedy based on it which is even darker than the film.

I'm sorry but a valid answer to the Question of what the differences are, is not that Opera is a higher form.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Their clear difference is in their respective abilities to fill a theatre or make plenty of money.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Broadway singers also train for years to do what they do.

I have come up with a list of criteria that I think are the most telling:

*If it is profitable, it is probably a musical.*
Of course there are many musicals that flop, and unsuccessful runs. There are also opera runs that sell out, but that's different from being profitable.

*If the work itself is funny, it is probably a musical.*
I am not talking about the production, or updated subtitles, or rewritten dialogues. I mean the core piece of musical theater itself. And I don't mean amusing or droll. I mean laugh-out-loud funny. The only exception I can think of is _Flight_, which has two big things going for it: it's recent (1990), it's in English (the language I speak). Of course there are other recent operas in English, but they don't always try to be funny. I am willing to accept that there are probably some operattas that I don't know that are actually funny (as it is they are often easiest to give a funny production).

Of course there are also musicals that attempt to be funny that I don't find funny. That's not the distinction I'm pointing out.

*If more than one production has been released on video, it is probably an opera.*
My wife is a fan of musicals and she is just shocked at the variety of operas available. Not just multiple performances of well-known works, but also many obscure ones. Of course there are many operas (and opera productions) not available on video, but the percentages are much better.

Anyway on multiple versions of the same work, for _Les Misérables_ there are a few concert productions and that's it (unless you count the film, which you should not). There are a few musicals with old TV versions from the 1950s (_Peter Pan_, _Cinderella_) that have an additional version (but I don't know these well enough to say to what extent they count). There is an _Into the Woods_ on DVD and another one available via a proprietary streaming site.

Meanwhile I own three versions of _Parsifal_, want several more (including the film), and am upset that another one never made it to video. I own two versions of _Moses und Aron_ and there's yet another one available (plus the film version, too).

Of course these are not complete criteria. They are not useful in all situations, but neither are the other ones people have been suggesting.


----------



## sharkeysnight (Oct 19, 2017)

The Sondheim quote is on point, but I like to think of musicals and operas as frequently existing on two sides of the same gauzy curtain, and they find their way to the other side, which makes them "feel" different. A musical is often referred to as a piece where, when the characters are too full of emotion to simply talk, move into the musical realm to express their feelings. Thus, the characters and their ideas are in transit from the land of words towards the land of music, which can make them verbally heady. In opera, as others have mentioned, the music is dominant, and sometimes it seems to me as if the text in an opera is like the aurora borealis, the translation of the ineffable into the concrete, using the semiotics of real life to briefly anchor something that can't be otherwise grasped. In other words, in musicals, the words go up and turn into clouds of emotion, and in operas, the music condenses into tactile concepts. This probably all sounds very silly but it's how it's sorted out in my head.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Forget this nonsense about if it makes money then...

One of Sondheim's most revived pieces Merrily we Roll Along, had an intial run of 16 performances before the producers pulled the plug. A well known British DJ, Mike Read, wrote a musicla about Oscar Wilde. It never got to the second night. I could go on.

ALW's only known joke

"The only sure way to end up a millionaire putting on Musicals, is to start as a Billionaire"


Mr McCabe any definition that starts with probably; is of little use, probably.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Belowpar said:


> Forget this nonsense about if it makes money then...
> 
> One of Sondheim's most revived pieces Merrily we Roll Along, had an intial run of 16 performances before the producers pulled the plug. A well known British DJ, Mike Read, wrote a musicla about Oscar Wilde. It never got to the second night. I could go on.
> 
> ...


I acknowledged that there are musical flops. You're not saying anything counter to my statement.

*If it is profitable, it is probably a musical.* This statement doesn't say anything at all about works that are unprofitable; it's only about works that are profitable.

Andrew Lloyd Webber has had his share of flops, but he has also written several musicals that have made a lot of money for a lot of people.

Opera was once a commercial thing and historically, sure, they made people money. But we are long past that point. Opera companies now rely on public money and/or donations.



Belowpar said:


> Mr McCabe any definition that starts with probably; is of little use, probably.


That's more or less my point. All of these definitions should start with "probably" or "mostly" or "looking only at the most popular operas" or "looking only at early book musicals."


----------



## Madiel (Apr 25, 2018)

mountmccabe said:


> *If it is profitable, it is probably a musical.* This statement


when I read your "statement" I said to myself, this guy is an American, only an American could use the making money argument into a discussion that's mostly gone about artistic differences :lol:


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Just close your eyes and point (but first move that "g").


Teeeeeeeeeee Hee!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Madiel said:


> when I read your "statement" I said to myself, this guy is an American, only an American could use the making money argument into a discussion that's mostly gone about artistic differences :lol:


It makes more sense for Europe.
The thing is that musicals are made for private theatres that exist to make profit while opera houses exist because they should exist and ticket sales is only a fraction of what finances their budget.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Madiel said:


> when I read your "statement" I said to myself, this guy is an American, only an American could use the making money argument into a discussion that's mostly gone about artistic differences :lol:


But a lot of those "artistic differences" are due to financial constraints.

It's not uncommon for productions to reduce the size of their orchestra in order to keep running. Let's also look at how many composers for Broadway would be writing for an orchestra of twelve with half of them doubling or tripling instruments if they had the luxury of even considering working with an orchestra of thirty (nevermind more).

Plenty of musicals are innovative in form and content and confound expectations... and they're generally flops. Some musicals are written for highly-trained and/or highly-specific voices, they become difficult (and expensive) to cast and don't get done frequently, or only in short runs (or are cast unsatisfyingly). This all would be different if money were no object. But money is important, and writers for Broadway know that.

People love to talk about how opera is for everyone and ticket prices are comparable to or cheaper than prices for rock concerts, Broadway shows, and sporting events, but none of those other ventures have the luxury of having their ticket prices cover only half their costs.

And, as I noted, producing opera has not always been a non-profit venture. It started out as state-funded - and rich monarchs and other generous benefactors were still a factor - but in the mid-1700s commercial theaters started to take over. I'd love to see real numbers, but my understand is that throughout the 1800s the majority of operas were put on for-profit.

But that doesn't mean opera was different in the 1800s, when it was written to be popular, right? I mean there aren't people who are obsessed with Rossini and Verdi and Puccini but won't even bother with Henze, Birtwistle, Reimann, Saariaho, or Adès.


----------



## Ludwig Von Chumpsky (Apr 19, 2018)

Interesting discussion but I'd ask who cares? I imagine if Sondheim wanted to write something with a first act that seemed like an opera, and whose next act the orchestra left the pit, and the actors did nothing but texas two steps, he'd do it. He wouldn't think, gee the stuff I have in my head doesn't accord with existing definitions therefore I'd better stop. It's the doing, not the defining that has meaning. 

As for a line in this thread about which is higher, operas or musicals...I'd ask who is more valuable, or higher, a plumber or Albert Einstein? Depends on the context. I wouldn't want Einstein trying to unplug my toilet.


----------



## Winslow (Jun 11, 2018)

I say, it’s a good question. I believe it’s like love and hate, you know the difference as it come through the air, you can feel it. I dont like to think of it terms of high or low art, as I appreciate most art forms, and the people associated with them. However, I believe the line of distinction is on the ease or difficulty of attaining the emotional connection with the material. Broadway, musicals, film, and music of all genres, have differing entrance points, and opera may be the most difficult for some, because the emotional “payoff” is not among the low hanging fruit (as one may find in pop music), you have to get on the ladder, and even then, reach a little higher.


----------

