# A Weird Type Of Opera Fan



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

A friend of mine and opera blogger sent me the following commentary a couple years ago:

_Italian opera, and the bel canto rep in particular, is a corruption of opera's idealized origins as dramma per musica, the Italians over the centuries having generally (there are exceptions) turned opera into little more than a crowd-pleasing showcase for canaries and other assorted songbirds. I exclude entirely Mozart's "Italian" operas from this discussion as they're sui generis and Italian in nominal form only. What I hold in contempt are TOFs (True Opera Fan - a little like a teenage movie fan only worse, much worse). You know, the diva-centric sort who, at bottom, care nothing for genuine opera, and understand it less. For the TOF, singers are the be-all and end-all of opera, and nothing else really matters. Opera - genuine opera; opera as dramma per musica - is NOT about singers. Singers are but one *element* of the performing apparatus of opera. One can almost forgive TOFs their almost exclusive preoccupation with singers (but not their teenage-movie-fan preoccupation), for as it's come down to us, the singers of the bel canto rep and the "songs" they sing really *are* what their operas are about as those operas have precious little else to recommend them.

Things were not supposed to be that way. At opera's beginning - that point at which opera first became a genre separate unto itself, that beginning dated by almost all experts to the Florentine Camerata of the last third of the 16th century - that's not what opera was supposed to be about. Briefly (very briefly), what opera was supposed to be about was dramma per musica: drama through music, in the sense of drama through the agency of music, a concept the members of the Camerata imagined, rightly or wrongly, had its beginning in ancient Greece where, they imagined - again, rightly or wrongly - that all Greek drama was *sung* rather than spoken. This was the idealized archetype the Camerata established for opera at its birth as a genre separate unto itself. It wasn't very long, however, after the establishment of public halls for opera (as opposed to courtly private presentations for the nobility and aristocrats only) that the Italians saw on which side their bread was buttered, so to speak. The prole opera-going public didn't give a rat's *** about drama, much less dramma per musica. What they wanted were spectacular singers singing spectacular songs in spectacular settings. That's what they were willing to pay for, and all they were willing to pay for. And so that's what the Italian composers and producers gave them, whereupon opera fast became corrupted beyond redemption, seemingly forever.

In the 18th century, Gluck attempted to bring opera back to its dramma per musica origins, but lacked the musical chops to bring it off, and so his attempt at reform failed. Mozart, who did have the musical chops to bring it off had he wanted to - and in spades - had no interest in being a reformer, and simply took the corrupted form as it was, and through his transcendent genius bent it to his will to make of it genuine dramma per musica while, at the same time, satisfying singers' colossal egos, and the public's taste for spectacular singers singing spectacular songs in spectacular settings - the only composer to ever have done so, and the only composer capable of doing so - before Verdi in his old age, and following Wagner, managed to achieve that singular feat in Otello and Falstaff.

One consequence of the TOF's approach to opera is his propensity to engage in reading and/or writing running commentary - in Web forums, blog comments sections, and/or in specially set up chat rooms - on the singers' performances while a live broadcast or streaming audio of the opera is in progress, much like the running commentary on the athletes' performances provided by sports announcers during the live broadcast of, say, a baseball or football game. It's those very TOFs that the Italians centuries ago set out to pander to; ergo their corruption of opera as an artform, making it a showcase for songbirds. And, yes, I hold those showcases in contempt as well. The music for those showcases is quite often very pretty and engaging, but pretty and engaging in the same way that, say, high-class street trollops are pretty and engaging._

-------

Any thoughts on either his view of Italian opera generally or his derisive TOF label?

As far as TOF's go, yes, I have encountered plenty of them..... I think the term "fanatic" is literally apt with these types. And yes I think they're weird. They are almost all male and you'll find them almost exclusively in opera houses and at voice recitals by opera singers. In short, many opera lovers are not music lovers at all.

And you know what? I'm not even sure they are opera lovers. Opera is merely the excuse that puts their beloved singers on stage; opera provides the trappings that surround the human voice, and voices are what this excitable group is all about. The cheers for fading divas making their latest farewell tours can rock a concert hall for minutes. Public responses to arias in the opera house often edge toward hysteria.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Opera is musical theater. What that originally meant is irrelevant. Every operatic composer id free to interpret just what opera and musical theater is. Some composers will stress vocal pyrotechnics over all else. Others will stress the drama and employ the orchestral score as an equal partner to the vocals in order to bring this about. The notion that there is one correct or proper way to compose opera and one proper way to listen to opera is beyond pretentious. I personally listen to opera for the whole experience: the narrative drama, the visuals, the singers and the music... If someone else chooses to listen solely for the beauty of the music, that is their decision and deriding them for this is purely infantile. While I enjoy and prefer to experience opera as a whole musical theater, this is not always possible. At times I just listen to the work as pure music... or highlights... selected arias and overtures as "songs" and orchestral music. I am sorry, but there is no single proper way to either experience and enjoy opera any more than there is one proper correct way to compose opera. If your friend is so set upon the correct way to write an opera, tell him to write his or her own.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

I won't comment on the whole 'True Opera Fan' mentality, as I have never been exposed to those folks, if they exist as this writer describes them. I appreciate certain singers and have my favorites. I also think that the quality of a singer goes a long way to deciding whether a performance is effective or not. Does that make me a TOF? (Making running commentaries on social media while I performance is in progress is pretty ridiculous, though -- and I could see how that would come across as mere voice fetishing rather than true engagement with the opera experience, which is an immersive one).

The notion that Italians ruined opera by turning it into a 'showcase for songbirds,' however, makes no sense to me. He says that Verdi only became a true dramatist in his final operas -- what of 'Rigoletto' or 'La Traviata'? Those operas don't feature genuine dramatic tension and realistic characterizations? What about 'Lucia di Lammermoor,' where family duties are set in an ethical conflict against the duties towards one's lover? What about 'La Boheme' and 'Tosca,' two post-verismo dramas with well-drawn characters and situations?

Maybe this guy has simply read too much into Wagner's writings. After all, if we're to believe Wagner, opera as an art form only found its true destiny in his own works. Sure, 'Lucia' or 'Tosca' don't work on the same orchestral or dramatic principles that 'The Ring' does. No one should expect them to, or blame them for failing to. It's not a failure if Donizetti's operas don't have the orchestral richness or musical complexity of Wagner's operas. Different composers had their own unique aims.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think that aricle kind of generalises things a bit. While I do agree with most of it, I do think that even if a lot of Italian operas don't give as much importance to the drama in the work, a lot of the operas I enjoy watching. I don't like operas in the sense that it puts singers on stage in various settings, I like operas for the plot and the action.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The notion that there is one correct or proper way to compose opera and one proper way to listen to opera is beyond pretentious.


You completely missed the point.

This is NOT about those opera lovers who regard opera as pure music. (I happen to be one of them). What he is referring to here are those operagoers (not newbies mind you) who seemingly don't realize how complex most operas are.

Listening to and appreciating opera is (for the most part) a major cognitive task that requires considerable processing resources to unpick all the harmonies, rhythm, colors, and melody.

I'm sorry but I find it totally ridiculous to witness grown men in their 50's and 60's crazily cheering their favorite divas and writing opera books that focus entirely on Callas or Moffo or Sutherland and bel canto rep. Sorry but opera history is MUCH MORE than this.

Look up most opera books written by "opera queens" and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Some composers will stress vocal pyrotechnics over all else.


Well I can tell you that none of the greatest operas ever written... "stress vocal pyrotechnics over all else"


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You completely missed the point.

This is NOT about those opera lovers who regard opera as pure music. (I happen to be one of them). What he is referring to here are those operagoers (not newbies mind you) who seemingly don't realize how complex most operas are.

Listening to and appreciating opera is (for the most part) a major cognitive task that requires considerable processing resources to unpick all the harmonies, rhythm, colors, and melody.

I'm sorry but I find it totally ridiculous to witness grown men in their 50's and 60's crazily cheering their favorite divas and writing opera books that focus entirely on Callas or Moffo or Sutherland and bel canto rep. Sorry but opera history is MUCH MORE than this.

Look up most opera books written by "opera queens" and you'll see what I mean.

I don't think I missed the point... I think it might have just whizzed over your head. I'll say it again: "The notion that there is one correct or proper way to compose opera and one proper way to listen to opera is beyond pretentious."

You are free to believe that your manner of listening to opera is cognitively superior to those who approach opera as a whole musical theater (and not as pure music) or those who approach opera focusing upon the performance of the singers. Others are free to disagree. I happen to appreciate Monteverdi, Handel, Mozart, _bel canto_, Wagner, Strauss, Britten... and even Glass. I appreciate all the aspects of opera... including spectacular performances.

Again, to suggest that "In short, many opera lovers are not music lovers at all. And you know what? I'm not even sure they are opera lovers." Such certainly strike me as rather presumptuous comments... as if those who appreciate an aspect of an art form that you find secondary are inherently inferior... and not even worthy of being deemed "music lovers".


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Again, to suggest that "In short, many opera lovers are not music lovers at all. And you know what? I'm not even sure they are opera lovers." Such certainly strike me as rather presumptuous comments... as if those who appreciate an aspect of an art form that you find secondary are inherently inferior... and not even worthy of being deemed "music lovers".




Opera is first and foremost a musical phenomenon. In opera the ESSENTIAL argument is posed in MUSICAL language.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Wagner Wagner Wagner... the air that I breathe, the food that sustains me.

_And when Wagner had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me._


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

There are people who think all opera fans of any description are weird. 

Reality is that there are many ways of listening to opera, no one of them the only "right" way.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

Every 'Artist' (by which I mean anyone who takes Very Seriously, their output in their chosen medium as a means to express their View of Life) tends to be slightly dismissive of those who don't share their View, or their Passion, or their absorption in the medium.

The Consumer and the Critic can read oh-so-much or oh-so-little into the Artist's output, but only the Critic feels obliged to classify, pigeonhole, compare and reduce in relation to what has gone before.

If someone hasn't already put Figaro into an opera with Brunnhilde and set it to the music of Andy Vores, then perhaps they should, and watch the Purists revile! As a Consumer myself, I'd love to see the outcome.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Moira said:


> Reality is that there are many ways of listening to opera, no one of them the only "right" way.


Of course there are many ways to listen since listening is such an intimate, solitary and highly subjective enterprise. I wasn't addressing how one listens to opera. I also should have clarified in my initial post that I disagree with his views on Italian opera. That topic doesn't really concern me anyway.

What I'm talking about here is the large coterie of listeners (usually middle-aged men known as 'opera queens') who believe that the bel canto repertory is the summit of the art form AND who fetishize extravagant vocalism, especially mezzos and sopranos.

This is not what the art of opera is about. And anyone who holds the operas of Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini in such high regard has very questionable taste in my book.

(Re: vocal sound - we all have our favorites of course. Mine happens to be basses (i.e. Karl Ridderbusch, Gerd Nienstedt, Gustav Niedlinger) but this is neither here nor there.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2012)

Xavier said:


> This is not what the art of opera is about. And anyone who holds the operas of Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini in such high regard has very questionable taste in my book.


Is it alright just to _like _Rossini (as opposed to holding in high regard) and not have questionable taste?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Xavier said:


> A friend of mine and opera blogger sent me the following commentary a couple years ago:


I hate to say it, but I suspect your friend is a dyed-in-the-wool Wagnerite. He is essentially parroting Wagner's "Art and Revolution".


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Couchie said:


> I hate to say it, but I suspect your friend is a dyed-in-the-wool Wagnerite. He is essentially parroting Wagner's "Art and Revolution".


Yes. And he can be an absolutist/crackpot at times since he maintains that the literary and musical aspects of the operas are absolutely inseparable from one another, even in thought.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Xavier said:


> Yes. And he can be an absolutist/crackpot at times since he maintains that the literary and musical aspects of the operas are absolutely inseparable from one another, even in thought.


Is this his blog? http://www.soundsandfury.com/


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Is this his blog? http://www.soundsandfury.com/


Yes that's him -- A. C. Douglas.

I was on his site more or less when it first began, but had to leave because of his nastiness. He ALWAYS has to be in the right, especially when it comes to discussions of Wagner. He can be extremely condescending and nasty and obstinate. And he quite often accuses people of "misreading" his posts when they make a good point.

And of course he constantly puts down Italian opera, which he does to gain attention and controversy. He even admitted on his blog:

_"We freely confess we consider outraging TOFs to be one of life's small pleasures"_

He's actually a very nice person deep down but when it comes to opera he just never gives an inch.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I hate to say it, but I suspect your friend is a dyed-in-the-wool Wagnerite. He is essentially parroting Wagner's "Art and Revolution".

So it is OK to be a "Wagner Queen" and hold Wagner and the vocalism of Wagnerian sopranos in high esteem, but to be an "Opera Queen" and hold the vocalism of bel canto sopranos and the operas of the Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini in such high regard is clearly unacceptable?

And Baroque opera? But I believe we already have you opinion on that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I really find it hard to disentangle the ideology from the music in your opening quote, Xavier. Its above my head maybe as I'm overall not an opera person.

I think the opera audience is generally over 50, judging from my own experience here. However, the audience for classical music in general tends to be something like 40 up, but in some things (eg. new music concerts) I've found a bit more of a mix, more younger people. But its just based on my observations, not only any hard statistics.

As for what the OP quote says of Mozart, well I think he did innovate, esp. with those three great operas - Magic Flute, Marriage of Figaro and Don Giovanni. He made opera more 'real' and less kind of stylised and cliche. I mean these were not just the usual things like people standing around singing about the gods. These operas not only had great music but also engaging plots to go with them.

Otherwise I think I agree with the gist of at least a good deal of the OP quote. I think that online is a different ball game from 'out there' being amongst and talking to real people I know on the ground who like classical music. There is less ideology, bullsh*t and dogma, basically. Less point scoring stuff which is getting tiresome for me now after being here so long. But overall this forum is good, its just wise to kind of step back and cool down, not be too reactive.

The other thing is that I know composers like Handel and Rossini did not like singers overdoing ornamentation. Bel canto came in during Rossini's time and he was not a fan of singers going overboard with all the vocal pyrotechnics obscuring the basic 'thrust' of his melodies. Handel was similar in his own time, I understand, from what evidence I've read. This may or may not be a similar issue to the OP quote, seriously, its kind of convoluted.

But thats my two cents worth anyways.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I hate to say it, but I suspect your friend is a dyed-in-the-wool Wagnerite. He is essentially parroting Wagner's "Art and Revolution".
> 
> So it is OK to be a "Wagner Queen" and hold Wagner and the vocalism of Wagnerian sopranos in high esteem, but to be an "Opera Queen" and hold the vocalism of bel canto sopranos and the operas of the Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini in such high regard is clearly unacceptable?


Are you asking what _I_ think or asking me to speculate on what A. C. Douglas thinks?

Personally I check Wagner's writings at the door, although I suppose an authentic Wagnerite will also adopt Wagner's philosophy of art wholesale (excluding _Jewishness in Music_, hopefully), which would answer your question concerning the operas. Concerning sopranos, presumably the difference is we applaud Wagnerian sopranos for their ability to deliver the drama at the end of the act vs. congratulating a soprano after every aria where she shows off some good runs, interrupting the flow of drama.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> And Baroque opera? But I believe we already have you opinion on that.


The most popular _Guilio Cesare _on here is the Glydenbourne which essentially satirizes a _seria _into a _buffa. _I enjoyed it as much as the next person but clearly there's something wrong with the relevance Baroque opera.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Couchie said:


> The most popular _Guilio Cesare _on here is the Glydenbourne which essentially *satirizes a seria into a buffa.* I enjoyed it as much as the next person but clearly there's something wrong with the relevance Baroque opera.


Not entirely, the Cornelia/Sesto interchanges are actually more serious and tragic than on any other DVD I've seen.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Sid James said:


> As for what the OP quote says of Mozart, well I think he did innovate, esp. with those three great operas - Magic Flute, Marriage of Figaro and Don Giovanni. He made opera more 'real' and less kind of stylised and cliche. I mean these were not just the usual things like people standing around singing about the gods. These operas not only had great music but also engaging plots to go with them.


with all due respect to Mozart, 18th century buffo "verismo", so to speak, was already trendy by the late '70s and definitely in the 1780s in Italy and had been around even during Pergolesi's time. The gods were in opera seria, buffa was all about real people trying to get hitched and servants sticking it to their masters.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Why stop at just opera?

There are the instrumentalist-centric fans who do the shallow gossip and catty rating of the instrumental soloists.

There are the big mid to late romantic symphonist fans who consume those symphonies in the traditional mold of strings, winds, big brass section, and nothing else -- who also dis this conductor, that composer.

I would not call many of those especially 'music lovers,' LOL

As to opera, yes it is musical theater, and some of the best have the sillier of libretti, and people put up with all the conventions for the spectacle, _the theater_ of it, and do really love them for what they are. I think both you and the writer are wrong to criticize those who do not only go for the 'straight' drama of the more believable libretti, or verismo over some of the fripperous libretti of say, some baroque or romantic era piece.

Those 'specialist' listeners, who are there more for a soloist, the pyrotechnics, and who are sometimes more than lugubriously eager for the tightrope walkers to fall to their deaths and ready to criticize every minute wobble along the way -- well, their pleasure may judged as slight, but may be for all we know 'just as intense' as the experience had by another kind of listener.

While I think I know how you feel --at least if you are that much more fully involved than these other groups, more there for the circus aspect than the music and theatrical aspect -- it is nastily catty in itself to start dissecting what type of listeners there are, or to measure how much more shallow their purposes for listening are to yours -- which is really an exercise in contrasting them to enhance your feeling of superiority as a listener.

So... are those who 'fully get it' and are there for the 'right reason' supposed to get a badge they can wear so they can be singled out by the other audience members?


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Xavier said:


> I'm sorry but I find it totally ridiculous to witness grown men in their 50's and 60's crazily cheering their favorite divas and writing opera books that focus entirely on Callas or Moffo or Sutherland and bel canto rep. Sorry but opera history is MUCH MORE than this.
> 
> Look up most opera books written by "opera queens" and you'll see what I mean.


I think I'm a Gesamtkunstwerk queen …


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

The problem with this criticism of Italian opera and of the more Italianate predilection for vocal prowess is that it does not take into account the _way_ in which drama is communicated. He can blabber on about _dramma per musica_ (he seems to be unaware of the irony of using an Italian term to bash Italianness in Music) until _le mucche tornano a casa_, but it's all just a bad case of cultural ignorance. In Italian opera it is the singer who is directly responsible for creating a dramatic tension in the work. Wagner tried to do all that work himself. It is actually more difficult to be a good interpreter of an Italian role than a Wagner role because every _Norma_ has to make a soul for her, and pour it out for the audience to experience. An Isolde communicates Wagner's expression of Isolde directly. This may make Wagner a greater genius than Bellini, or whatever ridiculous justification for our own tastes we have to use to feel our Wille zur Macht actualized, but it doesn't make his operas "better" in performance. (Disclaimer: As somebody who prefers Italian singing to Wagner singing, and tends to like best those performances of Wagner operas with more Italianate voices, I'm making armchair conclusions from a biased perspective. I fully expect to be proven wrong.)


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Sorry to double post, but I thought of a much better way to say what I was trying to say above. In Italian opera, sometimes the performers are required to be artists of equal genius to the composer: the composer is writing something that is used by individual artists to create their own work from it. Their medium happens to be the voice instead of music per se. In Wagnerian operas, Wagner is the artist, and the performers are interpreters. Hence, the worship of Callas is analogous to the worship of Wagner: both of them are great, controversial artists in their field. The bel canto "Opera queen" is no more a "weird fan" than a Wagnerian, or a Verdian, or a Puccinian like me. They're just into a different kind of opera, and admiring different artists.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> This is not what the art of opera is about. And anyone who holds the operas of Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini in such high regard has very questionable taste in my book.


What's this book's title? _"The Purest Form of Opera Love or How to Become The 2nd Greatest Self-Proclaimed Sophisticate and Pretentious Operagoer In The Universe, After The Author"_?


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

:lol: :lol: ............. :lol:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Sorry to double post, but I thought of a much better way to say what I was trying to say above.


your first post was great  it's maybe a different approach to writing, trusting the singer with his/her interpretation, as before 1850 or so composers and singers seemed to live in more of a symbiosis whereas afterwards the composer was writing by himself and with a general fach rather than with a specific singer in mind, and so he needed to provide everything in the score. Or so I understand it.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Yep, that's purest Wagner. Right down to the characteristic long-winded way of arguing for some state of affairs by alleging that it existed at some point in the past, accounting for its downfall, calling for a revival and so forth.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Wagner Wagner Wagner... the air that I breathe, the food that sustains me.
> 
> _And when Wagner had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me._


And in saying that you have put your finger on the problem with Wagner fanatics.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

This blog mentioned by OP seems to be the usual case of a Wagner fanatic taking a narrow and 'holier than thou' view to Opera. He has swallowed Wagner's philosophy whole to the exclusion of everything else. He is also taking a far too serious view of opera.
Opera is essentially an entertainment. It may be a highbrow entertainment in the view of some but it is nonetheless an entertainment not (eg) a religion. 
To say there is only one way of doing opera is narrow minded and takes no account of taste. There are, if fact, many different opera forms. What we prefer is a matter of taste. I personally dislike the operas of Bellini. Other people adore them. Good luck! Each to his own. 
Unfortunately there are always people who want to tell us there is only one way of doing things. HIP people have a tendency that way. So do certain strains of opera lovers. Relax, guys, it's just an entertainment!


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Well the OP is over a year old but since I'm just now seeing it for the first time I thought I'd add my thoughts as to why it's a silly and specious argument.
Let's consider an analogy to painting as art. The origins of that date back to cave paintings at Lescaux and the like. Thus we can infer that the only "proper" art is representational artwork of animals and handprints, given that such subjects were the original intent. Sadly, that excludes many of my favorite artists and works (and likely yours too). Guernica partially makes the grade I guess, but even if we take liberties with original intent and extend it to all representational paintings, that eliminates entire schools of painting. Someone had best get on the phone to the Philadelphia art museum and tell them that Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase #2" is not actually a work of art. Ditto MoMA with their Pollocks.
The "not a real fan" argument is best left on sports team message boards where it belongs.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

rgz said:


> Thus we can infer that the only "proper" art is representational artwork of animals and handprints, given that such subjects were the original intent.


MOMA must get this asap:


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

deggial said:


> MOMA must get this asap:
> 
> View attachment 31731


They'd have to make me a mighty good offer to pry it out of my living room


----------

