# Underestimated Rossini



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

OK, guys, I'm sick and tired of the idea that Rossini was a lesser composer, an entertainer, a sort of pop opera businessman who wasn't as good as Donizetti, Bellini, or Verdi.

I may have even issued the same opinion myself, even here, and even recently. But I have just watched _L'Occasione fa il Ladro_, one of his early operas that premiered when he was 20 years old. Of approximately the same period is another one that I saw recently, _La Pietra del Paragone_.

As early operas go, both these efforts are *extremely* successful.

_L'occasione_ has one of the weakest libretti I've ever seen. The thing is preposterous, beyond ridiculous. There are the usual mistaken identities, the usual issues regarding servants and lords, the usual love stories. So, the plot tries to get as many of these elements as possible and make something funny out of them. Well, it's not funny. It just doesn't work. And the poetry is of very low quality. This is really lowly, bottom material as far as libretti go.

Oh well, Rossini must have thought - this is a mess, but I don't care. I'll make it entertaining with my music. I'll rescue it. Because he did. The music is very lively, it keeps a hectic pace, it makes of boring scenes something exciting with the famous Rossini crescendos and a hell of a rhythm. At age 19, this is a master showing full control of his trade. It is VERY impressive musically (not theatrically since the libretto is so weak), for a 19 years old guy to be composing.

Then he gets a prime libretto for _La Pietra del Paragone _and then he reaches even higher peaks. _La Pietra _is a small gem, a tiny masterpiece.

Watching these two early operas, one understands that the composer of something as wildly entertaining as _The Barber of Seville _knew what he was doing.

We tend to associate entertainment with lesser art. Rossini's operas are to be watched with a smile on your face. They are charming, enchanting, happy things.

Rossini liked money and good things in life. He recycled some of his own music in order to accept more commissions and make more money. He ended up *very* rich and took an early retirement in Paris, enjoying his fortune and his convivial, relaxed lifestyle. He was a talented cook who loved to entertain at home, and who created several enduring recipes, the most famous of them being Tournedos Rossini.

That's my kind of guy. Not a tortured soul, but a hedonist. A gourmet, a bon-vivant, who loved to make people happy through his music and his cooking. A really nice guy.

This is not lesser art. His ability to entertain and build up a rhythm and a crescendo are uncanny. When he wanted, he could be extremely melodious.

This is sheer talent, my friends.

Don't underestimate Rossini.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

I never have  Actually Rossini was the first 19th century opera composer I "accepted" and started listening to while I was almost exclusively into baroque opera. I think my favourite is La Pietra del Paragone.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Amongst my collection I have three lesser known Rossini (Carreras as I have a weakness for him)




























I don't listen to them as often as I listen to Verdi & Donizetti but love them all the same. But then I'm hopelessly biased where early Carreras is concerned.

O mio babbino caro is Puccini


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> We tend to associate entertainment with lesser art.


I don't. "Art" is just a name anyway, it's not a quality label. Even a turd in the corner of the room is art if I can think of a smart explanation as to why it's there.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Yes, he was musically gifted but that's all. His music is very well written but it is lesser, lower art. Nothing wrong in listening and enjoying it from time to time (not that I would do so) but with his ideas like _simple melody and variety in rhythm_ he was one of those that wrote more of historical pop music than what we call art music. I guess he realised it himself (see his quote about Petite Messe Solennelle).

He didn't come close to his greater contemporaries. Bellini died so young and yet he achieved much more as an artist.


----------



## Dulcamara (Sep 22, 2010)

Aramis said:


> He didn't come close to his greater contemporaries. Bellini died so young and yet he achieved much more as an artist.


One wonders what heights Rossini might have reached (beyond his already notable achievements) if he had spend his whole life composing. However, I rather like how Almaviva put it. I like viewing Rossini as a fun-loving chap who achieved a great deal in opera but figured "Meh, might as well enjoy life, too." So he gave up composing to spend a long, long retirement hanging out with family and friends. I can't fault him for that. Anyway, he had already achieved Master Composer status.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Of course he was a great composer. It is as if composition was so easy for him that he could produce pieces at will. 

But the facts are that he did use formulae to create his operas, allowing him to write them quickly and succesfully. His main focus was on entertainment and becoming succesfull in order to earn money and gain more fame and commisions. 

So lets face it, he was a great composer with great technical faculty, but he wasnt really a genius nor did he write serious masterpieces of art (perhaps his religious music?)


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Actually,Rossini only retired from writing operas. He continued to compose a variety of other works,including such major choral works as the Stabat Mater, the Petite Messe Solonelle,both of which contain very operatic music,piano pieces such as the "Sins of my old age" and a variety of other works.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> Of course he was a great composer. It is as if composition was so easy for him that he could produce pieces at will.
> 
> But the facts are that he did use formulae to create his operas, allowing him to write them quickly and succesfully. His main focus was on entertainment and becoming succesfull in order to earn money and gain more fame and commisions.
> 
> So lets face it, he was a great composer with great technical faculty, but he wasnt really a genius nor did he write serious masterpieces of art (perhaps his religious music?)


Maybe he was a genius at providing us with many entertaining 'non-serious' operas then. Something which puts his creations above the 'art' of no doubt many another now long forgotten composer who aimed higher, but failed.


----------



## Dulcamara (Sep 22, 2010)

superhorn said:


> Actually,Rossini only retired from writing operas. He continued to compose a variety of other works


My mistake... I seem to recall reading something about Rossini rather recently that talked about him dabbling in music occasionally after his "retirement." Methinks I may have read this in an opera magazine, which could very well have been biased against Rossini's non-operatic output.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Like Grieg said: "Artists like Bach and Beethoven erected churches and temples on the heights. I only wanted... to build dwellings for men in which they might feel happy and at home."

"Erecting temples" for sure demands greater genius and higher inspiration than to "build a dwelling for men in which they might feel happy and at home". Rossini was one to build nice and pleasant "dwelling" - good for him and for those that look for such places in music. 

But don't call him "underestimated". It's ridiculous. He has popularity. That's what he deserved. Also, he is much less estimated as an artist than popular - that's what he deserved too.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

OK, the thread is leaning again towards the notion, affirmed by some and disputed by others, that entertaining art is lesser art.

I remind the ones who affirm it that Rossini's operas are not merely entertaining. They are *wildly* entertaining. 

It takes sheer talent to produce something *this* enjoyable.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

While I quite like "heavy" and "serious" music as much as anyone (Bach, Wagner, Beethoven) I agree that there are those who have something of a bias against those composers (Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Offenbach, and Puccini... as well as Rossini) who are imminently entertaining. I suspect part of this is due to a Modernist prejudice... the notion that the serious artist thumbs his or her nose at the petty bourgeois and their artistic wants. Personally, I quite like Rossini. I am encouraged by the fact that more of his operas are becoming available again. Some years back it seemed as if all that was available by Rossini was The Barber of Seville, Cinderella, the overtures, and the Stabat Mater.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sospiro said:


> O mio babbino caro is Puccini


Oops, I guess I had too much to drink last night.

Two big spelling mistakes:

Librettos for libretti 

Reach for rich

And worst of all, _O mio babbino caro_ wrongly attributed to Rossini, what was I thinking? _Gianni Schicchi_ *is* one of my favorite Puccinis. 

Fortunately the edit function is still available.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Like Grieg said: "Artists like Bach and Beethoven erected churches and temples on the heights. I only wanted... to build dwellings for men in which they might feel happy and at home."

And Matisse had his infamous quote in which he proclaimed that his intention was to create a painting that that would offer comfort to the businessman at the end of the long day... like a comfy chair... and yet Matisse ranks along side Picasso as one of the two giants of 20th century art. The merit in art lies in the artist's mastery of the art... not in the subject matter. Great art is not something reserved to those attempting to "erect churches and temples"... to artists who choose "profound" subject matter like death and God and war.

So lets face it, he was a great composer with great technical faculty, but he wasnt really a genius nor did he write serious masterpieces of art (perhaps his religious music?)

So one only attains the level of genius by confronting "serious" themes? And who decides what themes are "serious"?

There are many who make similar accusations about Mozart... but what it seemingly comes down to is an assumption that the music isn't "serious" because it's not written in a minor key, there isn't a lot of overt drama (or some might say bombast), or it doesn't speak to issues of death, God, war, or some other really "serious" subject.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> So lets face it, he was a great composer with great technical faculty, but he wasnt really a genius nor did he write serious masterpieces of art (perhaps his religious music?)


OK, he repeated himself several times, but wrote some - what, 38 operas? - in a relativelly short period, so, if we eliminate the repetitious formulaic ones, we still end up with a good number of excellent operas.

I respectfully disagree with not considering him a genius, and with dismissing all of his operas as serious masterpieces of art.

Short of Mozart's da Ponte operas, can you really think of an opera as entertaining as The Barber of Seville? It isn't even one of my top favorites, and I'm often much more moved by operas like _Tristan und Isolde_ or _Otello _or _Les Troyens._ Still, I can recognize that _Il Barbiere_ *is* a masterpiece.

There are several entertaining operas and operettas. Rarely one of them is *this* entertaining. That's why I consider it a masterpiece.

So, my point is: Rossini was a master entertainer, a genius of entertainment. Would you disagree with this statement?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Short of Mozart's da Ponte operas, can you really think of an opera as entertaining as The Barber of Seville?


How about Jesus Christ Superstar.


----------



## Dulcamara (Sep 22, 2010)

While Rossini's intention may have been to "build a dwelling for men in which they might feel happy and at home," once his work is out in the public sphere, people can take from it what they will. Perhaps some listeners even value Rossini's music more than the composer himself did, but there's nothing wrong with that. Of course, if people are free to promote whatever music they like as art, then others are free to argue the opposite, and so the debate will live on.

I've been thinking about trying some unfamiliar Rossini works. How's that Tournedos?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

To me these labels don't mean that much. To me Il Barbiere is as great as Fidelio.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aramis said:


> How about Jesus Christ Superstar.


Hehehe, Aramis, I don't know how to take this statement of yours. You're probably being sarcastic... although I do like Jesus Christ Superstar, which *is* classified as opera by some.

You know what? I consider Star Wars, the first trilogy, as a masterpiece.

George Lucas is nowhere near my favorite directors (those would be Bergman, Kurosawa, Fellini, Visconti, etc) but there is something to be said for someone who produced a modern fairy tale that enchanted millions of people around the world. This is not so easy to do, and can't be done without impressive talent (in the case of Lucas, not only his own which is questionable but at least that of the Light and Magic group - or something like this, I don't recall their exact name - that he gathered around himself to design and produce Star Wars).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Dulcamara said:


> I've been thinking about trying some unfamiliar Rossini works. How's that Tournedos?


Tasty. But I prefer Risotto Giuseppe Verdi (a real recipe that I have cooked at home).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> While I quite like "heavy" and "serious" music as much as anyone (Bach, Wagner, Beethoven) I agree that there are those who have something of a bias against those composers (Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Offenbach, and Puccini... as well as Rossini) who are imminently entertaining. I suspect part of this is due to a Modernist prejudice... the notion that the serious artist thumbs his or her nose at the petty bourgeois and their artistic wants. Personally, I quite like Rossini. I am encouraged by the fact that more of his operas are becoming available again. Some years back it seemed as if all that was available by Rossini was The Barber of Seville, Cinderella, the overtures, and the Stabat Mater.


I'm glad that you mentioned Offenbach. It's another one who is often underestimated due to his less "serious" music. So, in spite of the risk of changing the topic of this thread (but not entirely), let's think of Offenbach a little.

First of all, I'd be upset at anyone who denies masterpiece status to _Les Contes d'Hoffmann._ I consider it to be a small miracle. If Offenbach had composed just this one, I'd still rank him among the first class opera composers.

I know only three other works by him, _Orphée aux Enfers, La Belle Hélène, _and _La Vie Parisienne. _I'm waiting for _La Périchole _in the mail.

I consider the above three _opérettes_ extremely witty in their long-reaching critique of the aristocracy and _haute bourgeosie_ as well as the politics of the time. They are also genuinously funny and contain some fabulous pieces of musique.

This is a tiny fraction of the man's production - another opera, two ballets, and about 100 other stage works that he classified variously under the subgenres _opérette, opérette fantastique, opérette bouffe, opéra comique, opéra bouffe, revue, pièce d'occasion_, etc.

The four that I know are far from formulaic, they are quite different from each other and very accomplished. So, I strongly suspect genius status for Offenbach. I firmly believe that if he were into composing full blown operas more often (started so late that he died before finishing _Les Contes d'Hoffmann) _he'd be more highly regarded today.

I'd love to see an Offenbach revival in order to be able to further explore his less known works.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

To the general public the name Rossini is well known, his tunes show up everywhere including *Bugs Bunny cartoons* because of their universal timeless appeal. 



> We tend to associate entertainment with lesser art. Rossini's operas are to be watched with a *smile on your face*. They are charming, enchanting, happy things.


The overtures are such magnificent works, next Rossini opera DVD you watch check the pit orchestra playing the overture....they will almost always be smiling at different parts recognizing the clever playful nature of these endlessly engaging works, what other composer can get this reaction from professional orchestra


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkAngel said:


> To the general public the name Rossini is well known, his tunes show up everywhere including *Bugs Bunny cartoons* because of their universal timeless appeal.
> 
> The overtures are such magnificent works, next Rossini opera DVD you watch check the pit orchestra playing the overture....they will almost always be smiling at different parts recognizing the clever playful nature of these endlessly engaging works, what other composer can get this reaction from professional orchestra


Excellent points, DarkAngel!:tiphat:


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I have good comparison for you, Almaviva, for your claim that Rossini's operas are masterpieces of entertainment/fun not inferior to serious masterpieces of art. 

There are two pictures: frescos by Michelangelo in Sistine Chapel and picture of nude lady with cool ****. Work of Michelangelo is masterpiece because of it's high values, both technical and non-technical. People come to it and feel closer to divinity and stuff, you know. Picture of nude lady with cool **** doesn't make anyone feel this way, but some guys can't resist to jerk off while seeing it. So, is picture of nude lady with cool **** masterpiece of jerking off equal to Michelangelo's frescos? You know, it's just diffrent kind of genius!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Tasty. But I prefer Risotto Giuseppe Verdi (a real recipe that I have cooked at home).


Great dish. Sometimes I can't get asparagus & use green beans.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I have good comparison for you, Almaviva, for your claim that Rossini's operas are masterpieces of entertainment/fun not inferior to serious masterpieces of art.
> 
> There are two pictures: frescos by Michelangelo in Sistine Chapel and picture of nude lady with cool ****. Work of Michelangelo is masterpiece because of it's high values, both technical and non-technical. People come to it and feel closer to divinity and stuff, you know. Picture of nude lady with cool **** doesn't make anyone feel this way, but some guys can't resist to jerk off while seeing it. So, is picture of nude lady with cool **** masterpiece of jerking off equal to Michelangelo's frescos? You know, it's just diffrent kind of genius!


It depends, Aramis. Maybe nude lady with cool **** is a masterpiece of nature if her name is Adriana Lima.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aramis said:


> IThere are two pictures: frescos by Michelangelo in Sistine Chapel and picture of nude lady with cool ****.


Not actually an apposite or convicing argument, as you are not necessarily comparing a work of art made for edification and another work of art for entertainment. You need to specify the source of your nude lady.

Many of Rossini's operas are work of art, even if they are entertaining.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sospiro said:


> Great dish. Sometimes I can't get asparagus & use green beans.


That should work. Asparagus is harder to match with wine, so, you may have a point.

I once had a Verdi soirée with friends. We cooked Risotto Giuseppe Verdi, had Lambrusco wine (his favorite - not great, but we had to abide by the Maestro's tastes), watched a documentary, then watched _La Traviata_. It was great fun.

We also did a Tchaikovsky soirée with blinis, caviar, vodka, and _Eugene Onegin._

We're planning a champagne party with _Die Fledermaus_.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> I once had a Verdi soirée with friends. We cooked Risotto Giuseppe Verdi, had Lambrusco wine (his favorite - not great, but we had to abide by the Maestro's tastes), watched a documentary, then watched _La Traviata_. It was great fun.
> 
> We also did a Tchaikovsky soirée with blinis, caviar, vodka, and _Eugene Onegin._
> 
> We're planning a champagne party with _Die Fledermaus_.


OMG. You have friends who like opera?!!!







All of mine would rather chew their own toenails off rather than listen to a minute of it.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Not actually an apposite or convicing argument, as you are not necessarily comparing a work of art made for edification and another work of art for entertainment. You need to specify the source of your nude lady.


Point of my comparison is summary of two paintings: one that brings people's minds and souls to divinity and another one that stimulates them to something low, low but enjoyable, something that they do with pleasure.

That's exactly how it is with serious opera and Rossini, things that real masterpieces can do to the listener compared to entertainment given to him by Rossini are just like rapture and astonishment experienced while watching frescos and jerking off.



> Many of Rossini's operas are work of art, even if they are entertaining.


Just like painting of nude lady with cool **** is art, to some extent. After all, it's still a painting.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> OMG. You have friends who like opera?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not too many, and not even the entire couples.
1 Russian female friend, divorced (who gave us a big lecture on _Eugene Onegin_ and could sing along many arias which she knows by heart - great fun)
1 Croatian female friend whose husband hates opera and doesn't come when it's opera
1 American male friend whose wife is indifferent to opera and doesn't come
1 American female friend whose husband hates opera and doesn't come
Plus, my wife and I who both love opera

So, we warn these people in advance that the soirée is an opera one, so the right member of the couple shows up. They do come as a couple when it's another kind of gathering.

In addition to this, I have a brother and a sister who love opera as much as I do, but they live far away and rarely visit. When they do, it's great fun; we explore my DVDs of operas that they don't know, or vice-versa (they bring their DVDs).

We are serious about these opera soirées. We don't want people who hate opera and will be restless and bored, and will try to interrupt and talk. We eat and drink first, but when we sit to watch the opera we want focus and concentration and silence just like when we are at the opera house, that's why the non-opera loving friends are not welcome. I mean, they're welcome if they want to join us and behave, but they know better and don't come.:lol:

But you know, it's a question of recruitment. The American male friend, for example, didn't love opera to start with, but we taught him and now he has joined our small group. So, you can start by exposing one of your best friends to the most accessible and popular operas, and go from there. Maybe in a while you'll have a small core of opera-loving friends and will be able to have these soirées too.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Maybe in a while you'll have a small core of opera-loving friends and will be able to have these soirées too.


Well, it sounds lovely, but my husband also detests opera and thinks I'm an airhead for watching it. I have to use headphones when he's at home. On the plus side he doesn't watch TV either so I have free access to the TV. But you are lucky to have a spouse who shares your enthusiasm.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Point of my comparison is summary of two paintings: one that brings people's minds and souls to divinity and another one that stimulates them to something low


Sex is not low.



> That's exactly how it is with serious opera and Rossini, things that real masterpieces can do to the listener compared to entertainment given to him by Rossini


Rossini has composed serious opera as well.

But I see your point about some sort of superior, refined art that inspires the listener to an oceanic sentiment of ecstasis as opposed to entertaining, laughing fun.

My only point is that there are different kinds of funny entertainment.

You can have a gross comedy with jokes about farting, and you can even laugh at those if you're in the mood for this kind of sillyness, but you know that it isn't properly art.

On the other hand, not many would deny that Charles Chaplin was a genius, and that what he did was art although it was so funny and so entertaining.

My point is that Rossini was *so* skilfull in producing exquisite entertainment that his operas do qualify as masterpieces and he does qualify as a genius.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> That should work. Asparagus is harder to match with wine, so, you may have a point.
> 
> I once had a Verdi soirée with friends. We cooked Risotto Giuseppe Verdi, had Lambrusco wine (his favorite - not great, but we had to abide by the Maestro's tastes), watched a documentary, then watched _La Traviata_. It was great fun.
> 
> ...


He he

I do the same with some of my friends for Grands Prix. Tomorrow it's the Singapore GP & we're having Nasi Goreng which is Malaysian but close enough. I'm making a version of 'Singapore Sling' with gin and pineapple juice.

For Oz GP we throw prawns on the (indoor) barbie & have tinnies but as race is 04:00 UK time it plays hell with the digestion.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> Well, it sounds lovely, but my husband also detests opera and thinks I'm an airhead for watching it. I have to use headphones when he's at home. On the plus side he doesn't watch TV either so I have free access to the TV. But you are lucky to have a spouse who shares your enthusiasm.


Well, she does, but is not as committed to the genre as I am. She wouldn't dream of participating of an opera forum like this one, and says that I spend too much time here. Sometimes she asks me to use headphones when she gets tired or overdosed (I do watch *a lot* of opera, good and not so good). But she does join me for the best ones, appreciates them, and joins me for live performances as well and for Met in HD broadcasts, so, I'm happy with her moderate interest although it's not as extreme as mine.

Like, right now I'm using the guest room TV to watch L'Incoronazione di Poppea (second act now) and since I know this one well full concentration is not essential, I'm paying partial attention, just enjoying the visual aspects from time to time but typing here at the same time. My wife is using the living room TV for something else and didn't want to watch Poppea.

Due to this difference in enthusiasm, I have equipped the guest room with a decent audio-visual set up including surround sound; not as good as the one in the living room, but when she is not in the mood for opera, I retire to the guest room.

I really need to use headphones when my teenage son is at home. He hates it with a passion and claims that he can't concentrate in anything else "while these people are screaming on TV." I have tried to interest him but it was a complete failure. Well, he is young, maybe one day he will acquire the taste.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sospiro said:


> He he
> 
> I do the same with some of my friends for Grands Prix. Tomorrow it's the Singapore GP & we're having Nasi Goreng which is Malaysian but close enough. I'm making a version of 'Singapore Sling' with gin and pineapple juice.
> 
> For Oz GP we throw prawns on the (indoor) barbie & have tinnies but as race is 04:00 UK time it plays hell with the digestion.


Over here we do this for American football - the Superbowl is a traditional occasion for a BIG party with all sorts of junk food and beer and barbecue. Usually everybody joins it, and the people who don't like American football (a rarety over here anyway, it's our most popular sport, beloved by most males and many females) still enjoy it for the clever ads on TV - all the big advertising agencies put forward their best efforts, since pretty much the whole country is glued to the TV, so there is a sort of parallel attraction, we enjoy ranking the best commercials. I know, we're silly... but it's fun.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> My point is that Rossini was *so* skilfull in producing exquisite entertainment that his operas do qualify as masterpieces and he does qualify as a genius.


Then your point changed because at the beginning it was that:



> I'm sick and tired of the idea that Rossini was a lesser composer, an entertainer, a sort of pop opera businessman


Well, Rossini obviously is an entertainer (even you admit it) and therefore a lesser composer than those who did more than just entertain, since entertainment is not the highest thing that art can give to a man.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> OMG. You have friends who like opera?!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know what you mean. I only have one opera loving friend & she lives quite a distance from me. She'd never seen one live so I took her to see JDF's La Fille at ROH & we had a fabulous time but she doesn't have much money so it's awkward.

There's a guy at work who likes opera but only likes the happy stories.

This place is wonderful though for meeting other fans.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Then your point changed because at the beginning it was that:
> 
> Well, Rossini obviously is an entertainer (even you admit it) and therefore a lesser composer than those who did more than just entertain, since entertainment is not the highest thing that art can give to a man.


No, I didn't change my point. My point is that there are entertainers and entertainers. People who write gross comedies, and Charles Chaplin. People who write lesser opera buffa, and people who write opera buffa masterpieces like Rossini.

What I've been saying is that in spite of Rossini being an entertainer, a businessman, etc, he was SUCH a good one that he still qualifies for being a genius able to write masterpieces.

Where I don't agree with you is when you say "an entertainer therefore a lesser composer."

Why do you think that if something is entertaining, it's not good art? In my example of Charles Chaplin, do you think what he did was not good art?

Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist is entertaining. Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote is entertaining. Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor is entertaining.

So what Dickens, Cervantes, and Shakespeare did wasn't good art?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aramis said:


> Point of my comparison is summary of two paintings: one that brings people's minds and souls to divinity and another one that stimulates them to something low, low but enjoyable, something that they do with pleasure.
> 
> That's exactly how it is with serious opera and Rossini, things that real masterpieces can do to the listener compared to entertainment given to him by Rossini are just like rapture and astonishment experienced while watching frescos and jerking off.
> 
> Just like painting of nude lady with cool **** is art, to some extent. After all, it's still a painting.


You're still generalising in a facile way. Who is the second painter? After all you quoted Michelangelo as your first painter.

For example:










The aim is to entertain, not edify. But Botticelli is still a great painter.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist is entertaining. Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote is entertaining. Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor is entertaining.
> 
> So what Dickens, Cervantes, and Shakespeare did wasn't good art?


If Shakespeare would write only Merry Wives of Windsor he would never reach his actual status of titan.

Rossini is Shakespeare who never wrote Macbeth, Hamlet and Julius Caesar, just kept writing another entertaining plays without any greater depth. An obvious talent and unusual musical mind that served purposes of low art and entertainment.

Like I said: you ask for higher esteem for Rossini and that's where you go too far. There is popularity as reward for giving entertainment and higher esteem for giving more than that. Rossini deserved and obtained first of those rewards. Do not ask for more.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Who is the second painter? After all you quoted Michelangelo as your first painter.


Hmmm.... okay, second painter is Achille Deveria. Have nice time googling his paintings.

Your example with Botticelli is not valid. His works represent ideas of renaissance and are not vulgar.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aramis said:


> Hmmm.... okay, second painter is Achille Deveria. Have nice time googling his paintings.
> 
> Your example with Botticelli is not valid. His works represent ideas of renaissance and are not vulgar.


I don't find Rossini vulgar. Entertaining, but not vulgar.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aramis said:


> If Shakespeare would write only Merry Wives of Windsor he would never reach his actual status of titan.
> 
> Rossini is Shakespeare who never wrote Macbeth, Hamlet and Julius Caesar, just kept writing another entertaining plays without any greater depth. An obvious talent and unusual musical mind that served purposes of low art and entertainment.
> 
> Like I said: you ask for higher esteem for Rossini and that's where you go too far. There is popularity as reward for giving entertainment and higher esteem for giving more than that. Rossini deserved and obtained first of those rewards. Do not ask for more.


I know that we'll never agree on this, and may have to settle for agreeing to disagree.
But I'll try once more.

There is such think as higher entertainment. Not everything that is comedic and entertaining is lesser art. While _American Pie_, a silly T&A comedic movie, is not high art, movies like _The Golden Rush_ or _The Great Dictator_ or _Modern Times_ by Charles Chaplin *are* high art. They can't be automatically dismissed as high art *just because* they are entertaining, which sometimes it seems to me that you are doing.

And this allows me to draw another comparison. Charles Chaplin proved that his genial talent, while greatly concentrated in comedies, could at will generate great drama as well, like we see in _Monsieur Verdoux_ or _Limelight_. But even without these serious works, people still recognize Chaplin's genius for his comedies.

Similarly, while Rossini excelled in the opera buffa genre, he also wrote some pretty good serious operas like _Armida_ and _Semiramide_. Maybe not his forte, but these are definitely not too shabby either.

Similarly, like mamascarlatti said, Botticelli's painting of the nude Venus may not have the same high purposes of inspiring pious sentiments like the Sistine Chapel paintings, but it is still great art.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I know that we'll never agree on this, and may have to settle for agreeing to disagree.


:tiphat:

jjtjgfegergr


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I think I'll better be careful in the future to call an opera 'entertaining' because even though I always meant it as a compliment, I've now learned that it's actually an insult to do so.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There are two pictures: frescos by Michelangelo in Sistine Chapel and picture of nude lady with cool ****. Work of Michelangelo is masterpiece because of it's high values, both technical and non-technical. People come to it and feel closer to divinity and stuff, you know. Picture of nude lady with cool **** doesn't make anyone feel this way, but some guys can't resist to jerk off while seeing it. So, is picture of nude lady with cool **** masterpiece of jerking off equal to Michelangelo's frescos? You know, it's just diffrent kind of genius!

You are really stretching, here... First of all lets look at some lovely paintings of boobs:











__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content














































continued....


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Every last one of these paintings is considered a masterpiece.

Your example with Botticelli is not valid. His works represent ideas of renaissance and are not vulgar.

I would like to know just what these Renaissance ideals are that Botticelli was illuminating. The reality is that in many cases... including the Sistine Ceiling... Neo-Platonic concepts were employed simply as a means of legitimization or justification for subjects that the church traditionally frowned upon... such as eroticism. While the Sistine admittedly conveys more than the erotic, the erotic remains at the core of the work... and of many other masterpieces of art. As to whether a given work is "vulgar" or not... who makes that decision. There are many who would find all of these paintings... and the Sistine itself... to be vulgar.

Point of my comparison is summary of two paintings: one that brings people's minds and souls to divinity and another one that stimulates them to something low, low but enjoyable, something that they do with pleasure.

Your argument sounds like something that might be made by a prudish nineteenth century critic who imagined the role of art as being moral edification. You need to read a little Oscar Wilde:

_The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.

They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless._

-Preface to _The Picture of Dorian Gray_

If Shakespeare would write only Merry Wives of Windsor he would never reach his actual status of titan. 

Nonsense. If Shakespeare had continued to write only comedies on the level of _The Taming of the Shrew_ and _A Mid-Summer Night's Dream_ he would most certainly have still ranked among the greatest writers of all time. Moliere is a giant of literature... in spite of the fact that his greatest plays are all comedies. _Don Quixote_ and Lawrence Sterne's _Tristan Shandy_ are towering works of fiction... in spite of being largely comic in intent.

Rossini is Shakespeare who never wrote Macbeth, Hamlet and Julius Caesar, just kept writing another entertaining plays without any greater depth. An obvious talent and unusual musical mind that served purposes of low art and entertainment. 

Who decides what purposes are "low" or "vulgar"... you? Again, you are taking the position of a moralist, and we are talking about art, not morals.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aramis said:


> Hmmm.... okay, second painter is Achille Deveria.


What does 19thC soft porn have to do with Rossini? That's a self-serving spurious comparison if ever I heard one. What Rossini wrote is often fantastically artistically accomplished and sophisticated, and could stand on those merits even if it was not entertaining as well. Your Deveria is (from my brief look) not in any way accomplished, merely titilatory and rather naive.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.


You've made some great points there but this is what came home to me most clearly.

If you get "impure thoughts" when seeing these beautiful works of art it says more about you than the artist.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Well, Rossini obviously is an entertainer (even you admit it) and therefore a lesser composer than those who did more than just entertain, since entertainment is not the highest thing that art can give to a man.


That's a very Romantic period ideal. It would be wrong to use that to judge all composers of that period and especially the Baroque and Classical. You would dismiss the vast majority of great composers (and operas too, incidentally) because their job was to entertain their audiences and employers. So only a handful of composers like Mahler were therefore "great" using this absurd ideal, because they gave humanity epic works that were frescos of humanity, right?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> That's a very Romantic period ideal.


It's not, what did Bach say about purposes of music, what Handel intended to do to people with his Messiah? They were not romantic composers.

Actually mainstream romanticism (first half of XIXth century) wasn't focused on such ideas, there was more composers that wrote kind of sentimental music that has little to do with ideals of Bachs, Beethovens or Mahlers.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Nonsense. If Shakespeare had continued to write only comedies on the level of _The Taming of the Shrew_ and _A Mid-Summer Night's Dream_ he would most certainly have still ranked among the greatest writers of all time. Moliere is a giant of literature... in spite of the fact that his greatest plays are all comedies. _Don Quixote_ and Lawrence Sterne's _Tristan Shandy_ are towering works of fiction... in spite of being largely comic in intent.


Outstanding post. Thank you. I'm glat that I started this thread, which became one of the most interesting ones in this forum, thanks to contributions like yours.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You've made some great points there but this is what came home to me most clearly.

If you get "impure thoughts" when seeing these beautiful works of art it says more about you than the artist.

Well of course Oscar Wilde was never wrong about anything.

How can you not help but respect a man whose dying words were,

"The wallpaper is atrocious. Either that wallpaper goes, or I do.":lol:


----------



## marmaluot_45 (Sep 17, 2010)

Good Almaviva, you see, my same position that you tried to calm me down and now you makes as me, when guys less clever say these things that got me in anger.

The Rossini's tomb is in Santa Croce in Firenze, the cimitery of the greatest of the world.
In this church are gathered the tombs of Galilei, Alfieri, Michelangelo, Rossini, Dante, but the true tomb is in Ravenna ecc.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

marmaluot_45 said:


> Good Almaviva, you see, my same position that you tried to calm me down and now you makes as me, when guys less clever say these things that got me in anger.
> I don'say: be calm.
> But i say with force: beat them, beat those hardheads that don't try to know anything.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not doing it like you did. The difference between us is that I don't call the people who disagree with me stupid or dummies. We just have a difference of opinion, and I'm not interesting in beating anybody up, just in discussing our different opinions in a friendly and respectful manner. This is what I've been trying to tell you, but unfortunately you haven't been listening.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramis said:


> It's not, what did Bach say about purposes of music, what Handel intended to do to people with his Messiah? They were not romantic composers.
> 
> Actually mainstream romanticism (first half of XIXth century) wasn't focused on such ideas, there was more composers that wrote kind of sentimental music that has little to do with ideals of Bachs, Beethovens or Mahlers.


Charles Jennens (1700 - 1773), the librettist of _The Messiah_ (and several other oratorios of Handel), was a linguistically punctilious person, keen supporter of Handel and his music and was an editor of numerous Shakespeare works (publishing his own editions), described _The Messiah_ after listening to it as _*a fine entertainment*_.

J. S. Bach wrote music to glorify his God and to pursue musical science, the latter was his real musical goal especially towards the final decade of his life.

I think the point is these Baroque folks and all of their contemporaries were certainly there to entertain; first and foremost. The highest paid composers of their times who were successful under royal patronage were paid/recognised for that role. Opera for example, was enormously expensive to produce and needed commercial realism for it to continue. The route from opera to oratorio for Handel was indeed the result of operatic failures earlier on his career. Handel was a just a genius who excelled in his favourite genres, which may of course appear as if he wrote _The Messiah_ to edity humanity. You could agrue that the product of genius was to paint humanity, which is of course a possible argument as a result of interpreting/listening to their music, but I doubt in the main that Baroque and Classical folks wrote what they did primarily with that in mind as the most important singular cause.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Wasn't it this librettist's claim that made Handel say: I should be sorry if I only entertained them, I wish to make them better? If so, what means conteption of librettist compared to composer's? We are, after all, talking about music. 

Baroque ideals were not focused on entertainment. Historical circumstances are another case, but whatever you will say about things that forced composers in baroque to write entertaining music can be said about any period, all those "romantic" piano virtuosos writing variations on popular themes were far from ideas of their period as well.

Entertaining banes were present from the beginning of the music and will be present as long as music will be written.

It still doesn't change fact that "spiritual leaders" that shaped visions of those that cared about artistic goals had their own thoughts and these thoughts are what we call ideas of particular period, even if in their times they were often shadowed by populists.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think I can agree with you to the extent that entertainment will always be a product of their works. But to take a further step by saying every work of "giant composer X" wrote music as a higher form may not be true. You could say that Bach's B minor mass (composed over a decade to summarise his art in vocal contrapunctal writing) was about humanity etc. but the fact that it could not have possibly been performed in any single mass setting in his day (and the concept and practice of a concert mass performance did not yet exist) meant that it was really just his own summary (and possibly a job CV). There is nothing debased about entertainment, as opera often is described as the highest form of artistic entertainment.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> Similarly, like mamascarlatti said, Botticelli's painting of the nude Venus may not have the same high purposes of inspiring pious sentiments like the Sistine Chapel paintings, but it is still great art.


Now that we seem to enter into the discussion of visual art, I want to clarify something. 
Botticelli's art is Neo-Platonistic. He was part of a philosophic wave of painters, a kind of intellectual elite, and his paintings were not supposed to be entertainment in his day. Rather the opposite; they are packed with allegories and symbols (even more evident in La Primavera) that were only understood by people with classical and intellectual schooling and therefore they had no appeal to lower classes. Even though the meaning is not religious, Neo-Platonistic ideas sought towards a higher power or higher understanding which could be reached through creation of images. The Birth of Venus has become a kind of icon today and we see it on anything from postcards to umbrellas, it had a different meaning in its day. On a side note, paintings that we see today as a beautiful, classical nude and a great piece of art, were often painted as a nude with a great pair of **** in its day, and placed in some rich duke's bedroom. If they called her Venus then the nudity was allowed since she was a goddess, and human rules didn't apply to deities...

When the debate of "higher" and "lower" music is compared to visual art I agree it's tempting to draw the same line, however while the so-called lower visual arts can annoy me like nothing else - especially if it's given more credit/praise than it deserves - I still see no reason to think of Rossini as "lower" art or something not worth liking.

That said, how come EVERY discussion we have on this forum tends towards the question WHAT IS ART??


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

karenpat said:


> That said, how come EVERY discussion we have on this forum tends towards the question WHAT IS ART??


Every discussion?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

karenpat said:


> That said, how come EVERY discussion we have on this forum tends towards the question WHAT IS ART??


To me it's not even that interesting a discussion, because words like 'art' and 'entertainment' only tell me what was aimed for and only in the vaguest possible manner at that. But since there is both poor art and great entertainment it tells me nothing about how good a work is. Besides, the dividing line between art and entertainment is often rather obscure. So obscure that I personally don't care about what belongs in which category.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

karenpat said:


> That said, how come EVERY discussion we have on this forum tends towards the question WHAT IS ART??


I think it happens because we all attach different meanings to the word 'Art', and that happens, at least in part, because we don't have a completely satisfactory account of what art _is_. We probably never will, because one of the purposes of art seems to be to explore and extend what it is, but I find it a useful rule of thumb to think of it as a potentially perception-changing activity. The artist is _showing_ us something that can't be communicated in any other way.

On the one hand, we have art (which is about perception: about being shown something seen through the eyes of the artist). On the other hand, we have entertainment (which is about passing the time in ways we like).

I think it's clear that Rossini was a great artist. One only has to listen to the way people talk about his music to realise that he was capable of 'showing' people musical structures, ways of singing, combinations of music with drama, that are unique to his personal vision. He's capable of conveying that, vividly, and many people attest to it. They're not talking about personal preference - they're talking about something that happens to them. So it seems to me that here's something close to a fact: we may or may not be able to see it for ourselves, but the communicative impact of Rossini is undeniable.

Is he entertaining? Not to me, he's not. While acknowledging his greatness, I find much of his music makes me grit my teeth and reach for the volume control or the off switch. The mistake would be for me to think this reaction had anything to do with his qualities as an artist. It doesn't - it's just something to do with me and my personal preferences about how to spend my time.

So I think the question of 'is he a good artist or an entertainer' is the wrong kind of question. It's like asking if Jack is a gardener or a father. It isn't 'or'. There are _two_ separate questions that don't really have much to do with each other: 
(1) Is he a great artist? (By any reasonable definition, surely yes.)
(2) Is he an entertainer? (This isn't really a question about _him_, but about _us_, so we'll all give different answers.)

Incidentally, I sympathise with Gaston (in the post above). It isn't an interesting discussion because it isn't really a discussion at all.... (like discussing whether Jack is a gardener or a father).


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Great post as usual, Alan.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

The daft thing is, Gaston, that thinking about all this (arguably pointless) stuff is something I actually find .... _entertaining!!!_


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> The daft thing is, Gaston, that thinking about all this (arguably pointless) stuff is something I actually find .... _entertaining!!!_


Yes, to tell you the truth, I'm kinda curious myself now whether Jack is a gardener or a father.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> Yes, to tell you the truth, I'm kinda curious myself now whether Jack is a gardener or a father.


He's neither. He's a tap dancing ventriloquist, heavily influenced by Rossini.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I think it happens because we all attach different meanings to the word 'Art', and that happens, at least in part, because we don't have a completely satisfactory account of what art _is_. We probably never will, because one of the purposes of art seems to be to explore and extend what it is, but I find it a useful rule of thumb to think of it as a potentially perception-changing activity.
> On the one hand, we have art (which is about perception: about being shown something seen through the eyes of the artist). On the other hand, we have entertainment (which is about passing the time in ways we like).
> 
> I think it's clear that Rossini was a great artist. One only has to listen to the way people talk about his music to realise that he was capable of 'showing' people musical structures, ways of singing, combinations of music with drama, that are unique to his personal vision. He's capable of conveying that, vividly, and many people attest to it. They're not talking about personal preference - they're talking about something that happens to them. So it seems to me that here's something close to a fact: we may or may not be able to see it for ourselves, but the communicative impact of Rossini is undeniable.
> ...


Excellent post, thank you, except for a couple of really minor details, I don't mean to be nitpicking but here they go:

1-I think the discussion *is* interesting, as demonstrated by the fact that some of us are having a lot of fun with it.
2-When you say "The artist is _showing_ us something that can't be communicated in any other way" there is a hint that we may infer from this that art needs to be unique. Vanguard art, inovative art may require uniqueness, but not all art. This goes to say that when Rossini is repetitious it isn't enough to disqualify what he does as art.
3-About the different and personal evaluations of Rossini's entertainment value: curiously, it's the people who *aren't* entertained by him who keep saying, in a demeaning way, that he is entertaining - while I firmly believe that his ability to entertain so exquisitely is part of his artistic talent.

Otherwise, I entirely agree with your post.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> 1-I think the discussion *is* interesting, as demonstrated by the fact that some of us are having a lot of fun with it.


Yes of course it is, but it's only interesting provided we all agree on the meaning of the words we're using, otherwise it's a muddle. What I mean is: the discussion about whether Rossini is a great artist is interesting; and the discussion about whether he's entertaining is interesting. But a discussion about whether he's a great artist _or_ an entertainer is a muddle - like trying to decide whether ice cream is creamy or delicious. Or whether my woolly jumper is warm or brown.



> 2-When you say "The artist is _showing_ us something that can't be communicated in any other way" there is a hint that we may infer from this that art needs to be unique.


I didn't mean to imply that. I was trying to express the idea that art is about 'showing' something that can only be shown _through art_. So Rembrandt expresses something about himself in one of his self-portraits that can't be expressed in any other way. He can't show us by writing it, or composing a tone poem about it - what he wants to show us has to be _painted_. In Rossini's case, what he has to show us can only be shown through music and/or opera. I don't think repetition has a bearing on this; certainly I didn't intend it to have one. I'm quite content that Rossini might want to show us the same thing several times in different contexts. That doesn't stop it being 'art'.

So I think we agree even more than you thought!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Now this is something I'd love to see

http://www.santacecilia.it/en/news/guillaumetell.html








Antonio Pappano and Gerald Finley


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

sospiro said:


> Now this is something I'd love to see
> 
> http://www.santacecilia.it/en/news/guillaumetell.html
> 
> ...


Isn't that like 4hrs long opera.......rarely performed for that reason?


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Almost any Rossini opera with *Sam Ramey* is a good buy for me, recently picked these CDs up cheap used and was delighted with lesser known performances:










Nice to have soprano support like Ricciarelli and Battle......


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I think it happens because we all attach different meanings to the word 'Art', and that happens, at least in part, because we don't have a completely satisfactory account of what art _is_. We probably never will, because one of the purposes of art seems to be to explore and extend what it is, but I find it a useful rule of thumb to think of it as a potentially perception-changing activity. The artist is _showing_ us something that can't be communicated in any other way.
> 
> On the one hand, we have art (which is about perception: about being shown something seen through the eyes of the artist). On the other hand, we have entertainment (which is about passing the time in ways we like).
> 
> ...


Another one of your typically long-winded posts to explain a fairly obvious idea, though an important one which folks often miss. I would add to it that great composers (artists) tend to be entertaining (most of us would find many of Mozart's operas sublime), whereas a great entertainer does not necessarily imply a great artist (your fellow citizen Susan Boyle, for example). Speaking of English citizenship, I have the highest esteem for the greatest English composers ever, a great artist who also happen to be a great entertainer, and my Avatar ...


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Yes of course it is, but it's only interesting provided we all agree on the meaning of the words we're using, otherwise it's a muddle. What I mean is: the discussion about whether Rossini is a great artist is interesting; and the discussion about whether he's entertaining is interesting. But a discussion about whether he's a great artist _or_ an entertainer is a muddle - like trying to decide whether ice cream is creamy or delicious. Or whether my woolly jumper is warm or brown.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that. I was trying to express the idea that art is about 'showing' something that can only be shown _through art_. So Rembrandt expresses something about himself in one of his self-portraits that can't be expressed in any other way. He can't show us by writing it, or composing a tone poem about it - what he wants to show us has to be _painted_. In Rossini's case, what he has to show us can only be shown through music and/or opera. I don't think repetition has a bearing on this; certainly I didn't intend it to have one. I'm quite content that Rossini might want to show us the same thing several times in different contexts. That doesn't stop it being 'art'.
> 
> So I think we agree even more than you thought!


I wasn't properly disagreeing, just, raising some possible different interpretations of what you had said - like if in a sense, "people might infer from this that... etc," not necessarily saying that this was the way you meant it.

I was just disputing the notion - not necessarily proposed by you, but something that someone reading you or reading others here migh infer - of certain characteristics of "art" that should be considered_ sine qua non. _

I think that this is a very tricky notion, I'm not even sure if there *is* anything indispensable in order to consider something to be art. The same object in two different contexts may or may not have artistic value.

And certainly repetition is not one of these conditions. Different bizantine painters for instance repeat over and over the same figures of saints and angels done in the same style. It's still art.

Even your clarification about the idea of uniqueness could be challenged. Take for instance the longing for death typical of romantic heroes. You can see it expressed in music, like in Schubert's song cycles. You can see it expressed in poems, like in Keats. Or in a novel, like in Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther. Or in an opera, like in Massenet's Werther. Depending on an artist's specialization or multi-talented skills, the same idea could be expressed in different media like Leonardo da Vinci was capable of doing. And is it true that this longing for death can be only shown through art? Maybe a real life romantically influenced person could show it in non-artistic ways.

Even the idea of a transmission of something from the artist to the spectator is faulty. Once an artwork is out there, the intention of the artist can become completely irrelevant, and different spectators can get a different message from it.

So for me the definition of art starts with the artist. He or she arranges elements of reality in a certain way. People look at the result, or read it, or listen to it, etc, and experience some sort of emotion which is produced because of the fact that those elements were arranged that way, and not in a different way.

This is a non-demanding definition. It's very inclusive.

Still, we can get a sense of a gradation. The emotion produced may be very mild, just a little blimp above indifference, or very intense, even life-transforming. There is a wide range, and it has to do with both the artist and the spectator.

For me, the way Rossini arranged rhythms, harmonies, etc, causes in me a very intense reaction. Thus, I consider Rossini to be a rather talented artist. I can only use my own standard, the way it vibrates for me, the way it resonates in me. For someone else, Rossini's music may fail to cause any effect. So maybe for that person what Rossini does is not art, but for me it is, and probably both opinions in a way are correct.

End of convoluted rant.:lol:


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> Depending on an artist's specialization or multi-talented skills, the same idea could be expressed in different media like Leonardo da Vinci was capable of doing.


I think I'd argue that the art is in the 'showing', and that the various showings (in different media) are not the same. We're into the old problem of the medium and the message, here - and also the problem that the concept of art develops through time. But setting that aside, I'd suggest that 'the longing for death' is no more than a label which (for convenience of reference) we attach to various art experiences (the Keats, Goethe, Massenet examples you mention), but what is communicated is in each case something different. We _call_ it 'the longing for death', but Keats, Goethe, and Massenet each _show_ us aspects of that which can only be communicated through their special art forms.



> Thus, I consider Rossini to be a rather talented artist. I can only use my own standard, the way it vibrates for me, the way it resonates in me. For someone else, Rossini's music may fail to cause any effect. So maybe for that person what Rossini does is not art, but for me it is, and probably both opinions in a way are correct.


Ah, now here I take a very different view - simply on the grounds that my own views change. At present Rossini's music doesn't resonate for me (except unpleasantly), but I have plenty of reasons (lots of parallel precedents) to suppose that one day that may change. But it will be _I_ who has changed, not Rossini's music. I wouldn't be at all happy about declaring today that Rossini's music isn't art, and then next year declare that it is, just because my understanding and/or sensitivity has improved. On the contrary, it's obvious to me, purely by listening to _your_ descriptions of Rossini's music, that it _is_ art of considerable merit, even though I can't see it myself at present. If it were not, it couldn't sustain your depth of personal involvement with it (nor of the thousands of others who say similar things).

That's why I think we need to separate mere personal likes and dislikes from the idea of what art is. It enables me to say - without contradicting myself - that I have good grounds for believing that Rossini is a fine artist, but (as far as I'm concerned) he's not at all entertaining.


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

As much as I love Wagner, I have a great affection for Rossini. One of the best nights I have ever been to was seeing JDF in Il Barbiere the night Joyce DiDonato broke her leg. They were a great combination. Also the other Rossini opera that I like is Il Turco in Italia where at the Royal Opera they have a fantastic production by Moshe Leiser and Patrice Caurier and hoped that one day they would put it out on DVD. Its not the usual Rossini crescendo music a lot of his critics carp on about. However I have seen Matile Di Shabran and that is not great.


----------



## Dulcamara (Sep 22, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> That's why I think we need to separate mere personal likes and dislikes from the idea of what art is. It enables me to say - without contradicting myself - that I have good grounds for believing that Rossini is a fine artist, but (as far as I'm concerned) he's not at all entertaining.


Ultimately, I think it is very difficult to completely separate personal tastes from the idea of what art is. For example, as an opera fan, I might give a disliked opera composer the benefit of the doubt over an artist working in a medium I dislike. If one despises a genre so much, one might not even be able to see its potential for art. At any rate, I like your idea that one might strive to separate personal likes and dislikes. One can see, for example, that Rossini is highly regarded by many opera aficionados (if not all), and figure that perhaps the masses are on to something.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dulcamara said:


> One can see, for example, that Rossini is highly regarded by many opera aficionados (if not all)


That's the key issue, in my view, though I immediately want to qualify my agreement by saying that it's nothing to do with mere numbers, or mere fondness. My argument is that if we listen to the _manner_ in which lovers of Rossini speak of his music, and can recognise that they're saying the same sort of things we ourselves might say about the music we can see for ourselves is great, then we know they're onto something. Does he widen their universe? Does his music change them in significant ways? If so, this is something more than just 'a good time'. I'm thinking of the effect that CS Lewis talks about when he reads great literature: "I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. ... I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. ... I transcend myself, and am never more myself than when I do." When people talk in that way about an experience, I know they've had an encounter with the real thing, even if I can't see it for myself.


----------



## Dulcamara (Sep 22, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> My argument is that if we listen to the _manner_ in which lovers of Rossini speak of his music, and can recognise that they're saying the same sort of things we ourselves might say about the music we can see for ourselves is great, then we know they're onto something.


Ah, that's exactly what I mean. You just articulated it much better than I did!


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't think it's about whether or not Rossini's entertaining. Plenty of great artists are entertaining. The question is whether he meets the criteria customarily used when judging music: melody, harmony, rhythm, structure, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. Handel does well on these criteria, even if the Messiah is mere "entertainment." But does Rossini? Most critics say no.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Webernite said:


> I don't think it's about whether or not Rossini's entertaining. Plenty of great artists are entertaining. The question is whether he meets the criteria customarily used when judging music: melody, harmony, rhythm, structure, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. Handel does well on these criteria, even if the Messiah is mere "entertainment." But does Rossini? Most critics say no.


And 100 years from now some critics will probably still be saying it and people will still be enjoying his music just the same. Let's face it - if Rossini wasn't a great composer he would have been forgotten ages ago. It's not as though there have been only a few people in history that have composed operas and people as a result are forced to listen to them because there are no others. If almost 200 years after their creation people are still listening to his operas common sense tells us that he must have done something right. One could argue that he aimed to be popular. Maybe, but I'm sure that there must have been countless other now forgotten (if they were ever popular to begin with) composers throughout history that aimed for exactly the same thing. The reason why they didn't achieve their goal while Rossini did is simply because Rossini was great and they weren't.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Let's face it - if Rossini wasn't a great composer he would have been forgotten ages ago.


Your faith in judgement of the masses is very naive.

First of all, people enjoy what they are given to enjoy. Who really decides about what's going to be performed are impresarios and conductors. Most of composers that are considered major figures in our times are considered as such not because people find them as great masters but because somewhere back in time some influential figures decided that something deserve to be heard.

Of course if people don't like it those people can't do anything about it. But many popular composers could be replaced by (now) much less popular composers and then this thread would be devoted to diffrent fop than Rossini and you would claim that this diffrent, non-Rossini fop is great because audiences kept him alive and all that Rossini would have would be note on wikipedia that he was popular composer during his lifetime and now you can hear his music on three recordings released by Baboon's *** Records which are avaiable to buy in eastern Zimbabwe.

This is not an argument in any case.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Your faith in judgement of the masses is very naive.


Most people that know me in real life think of me as rather cynical about the tastes of the masses actually. But I'm just as cynical about self-proclaimed judges of 'good taste' that think they are somehow superior because they prefer atonal piano sonatas to Viennese waltzes. But yes - I admit that I believe that there is such a thing as 'the test of time.' It might not be perfect in that there may be talented composers that have been unfairly overlooked. On the other hand, in my opinion there is no way that you can keep fooling audiences, impressarios, musicians, singers, conductors and whoever else needs to be fooled for 200 years. It's probably safe to say that not all of them have been/are idiots.



> This is not an argument in any case.


It is an argument, allright. It's just one that you don't happen to agree with, that's all. But I'm ok with that. It's not as though I have the ambition of making a Rossini fan out of you. :lol: As long as I can express my opinions I'm a happy camper. If others think my posts are intellectually inferior - so be it. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it, that's for sure.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Your faith in judgement of the masses is very naive.


That's a misunderstanding of what he's saying. I think he has in mind something along the lines of what Ruskin says about the appreciation of all the arts down the ages. Persistent admiration over a long period is significant, says Ruskin, "not because the average intellect and feeling of the majority of the public are competent in any way to distinguish what is really excellent, but because all erroneous opinion is inconsistent, and all ungrounded opinion transitory ... On this gradual victory of what is consistent over what is vacillating , depends the reputation of all that is highest in art and literature."

Again, I suggest that the real way to find out about Rossini is _not _to bring a pre-judged set of rules, apply them, and find Rossini wanting. _Any_ art can be rubbished in that way (and often has been), just by adopting different sets of rules. The far more telling test is to seek to find _how people are listening to it._ That's _much_ harder to do, which is why critics generally adopt the set of rules, I suppose.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Let's face it - if Rossini wasn't a great composer he would have been forgotten ages ago. 

Your faith in judgement of the masses is very naive.

What have the masses to do with Rossini's survival? The audience for the whole of classical music is rather limited or "elite"... albeit an "elite" of choice, not of class. They have made the choice that classical music is something of importance to them. Or do you simply assume that only those whose opinions mirror your own are of any merit or worthy of consideration?


----------



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Your faith in judgement of the masses is very naive.
> 
> *First of all, people enjoy what they are given to enjoy. Who really decides about what's going to be performed are impresarios and conductors. Most of composers that are considered major figures in our times are considered as such not because people find them as great masters but because somewhere back in time some influential figures decided that something deserve to be heard. *
> Of course if people don't like it those people can't do anything about it. But many popular composers could be replaced by (now) much less popular composers and then this thread would be devoted to diffrent fop than Rossini and you would claim that this diffrent, non-Rossini fop is great because audiences kept him alive and all that Rossini would have would be note on wikipedia that he was popular composer during his lifetime and now you can hear his music on three recordings released by Baboon's *** Records which are avaiable to buy in eastern Zimbabwe.
> ...


That's interesting. I wouldn't have thought this applied to opera/composers, but it shouldn't surprise me (especially considering the historical perspective).

Look at actors and artists. I've known people in both professions and they all say the same thing--real talent is often never discovered (or allowed to be discovered), while the American Idol drone who can't act his way out of a hat becomes a major box office draw. Same forces, different era? Perhaps.

For my money though, I'd rather take the worst that opera has to offer compared to the intellectually degenerate rap/pop of our generation. But I digress...:lol:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Your faith in judgement of the masses is very naive.
> 
> First of all, people enjoy what they are given to enjoy. Who really decides about what's going to be performed are impresarios and conductors. Most of composers that are considered major figures in our times are considered as such not because people find them as great masters but because somewhere back in time some influential figures decided that something deserve to be heard.
> 
> ...


Your posts are funny, Aramis. We'd need to invent you if we didn't have you. Even when I disagree with you (and in this case I do), I like reading what you post.:tiphat:

One potential problem with your argument is what you consider to be "the masses." Opera is not the most popular of genres. It was at some point, but most definitely it isn't any longer. Opera aficionados are generally relatively knowledgeable and relatively mature in terms of musical taste, since opera is often an acquired taste that comes later in life. So, although levels of expertise obviously vary and everybody needs to start from some point, I wouldn't entirely dismiss the value of the popularity of certain operas *among opera aficionados* as an indication of their musical value.

See, Mariah Carey is popular. Britney Spears is popular. McDonald's is a popular food chain. I don't think this kind of popularity is indicative of quality.

But when we say that Rossini's operas are popular, they are so *among a slice of the population* who are opera aficionados, and have a better chance of understanding some basic notions of music than Britney Spears' and Mariah Carey's fans.

Similarly, when you say that Jean Georges and Per Se are popular restaurants *among discriminating foodies,* it does carry more weight in terms of an endorsement of their quality than when you say that the masses like McDonald's.

Another aspect that counts, in my opinion, is the idea of *enduring* popularity. It is not always indicative of quality, but it often is. Why are we still reading Homer some 3,000 years later? Because whoever was writing those poems (either a man named Homer or some multi-author oral tradition) was onto something in terms of expressing the human condition. Homer is still read 3,000 years later because he is darn good!

Take Claudio Monteverdi and Jacomo Peri. They were both among the pioneers and composed their operas almost 400 years ago. Why is it that Monteverdi's operas are a lot more enduring than Peri's, and remain in the standard repertoire 400 years later? Is it because of some impresario? Peri and Monteverdi were members of the same group. They were both trying to create and diffuse a new genre, and trying to stage their works in the same cultural and artistic environment (Florence). So why do we still listen to Monteverdi fairly often and rarely to Peri? Wouldn't it be because Monteverdi's operas were just... better? More inventive, more musically interesting than old-fashioned Peri whose style fizzled within his lifetime?

So, Rossini had several contemporaries, some of them hugely popular during their lifetime. Examples include Giovanni Pacini and Saverio Mercadante. They were actually *more* popular at the time than Rossini, so, if the deciding factor was some impresario who was promoting them, they probably had a better one. Still, their operas did not endure, while Rossini's did. Couldn't it be, again, because Rossini's were just... better?

Then, let's think again about popularity and entertainment value. Meyerbeer was very popular and entertaining in his Grand Opéra style. Strauss II was very popular and entertaining with his waltzy operettas. And while some of their works have endured, you'll be hard pressed to find today someone who thinks that they are more important names than Rossini's in the operatic universe.

So, it's not just popularity, not just entertainment value, and not just what pleases the masses.

It's enduring popularity (measured in centuries) and enduring entertainment value for a mostly discriminating public. This gotta count for something.

Your argument of Babbon's *** Recordings available in Zimbabwe would be valid if Rossini enjoyed such a restricted niche. But as a matter of fact, the opposite is true. Rossini's operas keep being recorded and re-recorded by the best labels and artists. Why so?

In my opinion, because they're darn good.


----------



## Dulcamara (Sep 22, 2010)

I agree that Rossini's endurance of the test of time is significant for reasons you all have mentioned above. However, just because Giovanni Pacini and Saverio Mercadante have faded in popularity doesn't necessarily make them worse composers than Rossini. While I think the test of time in Rossini's case does show the strength of his work, this same principal does not necessarily apply to composers who have drifted into obscurity. A great work can be resurrected, enter the popular repertoire, and be accepted by the operatic masses as a "classic." It stands to reason that there _could be_ forgotten works that are greater than those of Rossini. Perhaps some of these forgotten works would be embraced by all of us here if we were only to have a chance to hear them. Either way, Rossini has established himself whether or not such hidden masterpieces exist.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dulcamara said:


> I agree that Rossini's endurance of the test of time is significant for reasons you all have mentioned above. However, just because Giovanni Pacini and Saverio Mercadante have faded in popularity doesn't necessarily make them worse composers than Rossini. While I think the test of time in Rossini's case does show the strength of his work, this same principal does not necessarily apply to composers who have drifted into obscurity. A great work can be resurrected, enter the popular repertoire, and be accepted by the operatic masses as a "classic." It stands to reason that there _could be_ forgotten works that are greater than those of Rossini. Perhaps some of these forgotten works would be embraced by all of us here if we were only to have a chance to hear them. Either way, Rossini has established himself whether or not such hidden masterpieces exist.


Best post in this thread. Excellent points all. Thank you.

Yes - while the consistency of regard over time is generally a good indicator of merit, the converse is emphatically _not_ true. It's so, so easy for excellent art of any kind to disappear temporarily from view merely because of the random swings of fashion, and then it needs the accident of rediscovery to climb back out of its hole.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I've just finished an opera by Rossini that I had never heard/watched before. Here is the production, it has been commented upon here by other users, but I'll add my two admirative cents:










I'll tell you what, buddies, this is an *astounding* masterpiece. It reminds me of how on target I was when I started this thread about underestimated Rossini.

This may have been mentioned before in this very thread, but if it was, it deserves repeating:

Poet Heinrich Heine defended Rossini from German accusations of shallowness by saying, "Divino Maestro, forgive my poor fellow-countrymen for failing to perceive your depth because you decorate it with roses and for accusing you of not being sufficiently weighty and thorough because you flutter so effortlessly on your divine wings!"

My admiration for Rossini, already considerable like I made abundantly clear in this thread, reached today a new peak.

_Il Turco in Italia _is an extraordinary opera buffa.

It is successful in everything it sets up to accomplish. It is the expression of a master in full control of his trade.

It is so darn funny that I was rolling on the ground laughing. It's one of the funniest operas I've ever seen. It is witty and happy and bright and delightful.

It's incredibly sophisticated in its metalanguage, with its drama within a drama, in which every scene is being weighed against the metaphoric presence of the author/composer himself, in the figure of the Poet, with another layer in the figure of the Prompter.

Musically speaking, the score is very accomplished. It starts with the delightful overture, a true signature Rossini piece that I enjoyed so much that I listened to it three times before I let the DVD continue. Then the opera goes on in a cascade of dynamic and playfull sequences; never loses pace, never becomes dull. It's a rollercoaster from beginning to end, and whoever still dares to deny Rossini's talent after listening to this, must be deaf. By the way, the score is entirely original, with new material and no cannibalistic recycling of his own music like businessman Rossini sometimes did.

This opera has memorable scenes, like the extended duet between Selim who is trying to buy Geronio's wife the Turkish way, while the latter is rather willing to deal with the situation in the Italian way of a fist fight. This is one of the most interesting and funny scenes in all of opera, and I couldn't stop grinning and saying "wow" to myself during the entire scene.

It never takes itself seriously (like its metalanguage indicates) therefore there are some nice arias but nothing extreme (this may explain why it has never achieved the popularity that it otherwise deserves); this opera buffa plays with itself all the time and keeps reminding us that this *is all for fun* and not really serious business with hallmark arias. Still, the whole ensemble works very well. If Rossini had composed some rarefied coloratura arias, I think the whole "not serious, just for intense fun" attitude would have been broken.

In one of the last recitatifs, nice chap _bon vivant_ Rossini and his outstanding librettist Felice Romani (what an appropriate name!) tell us literally that they hope that the listeners have enjoyed themselves because that's what they wanted to accomplish. Let's not forget to praise Romani: this libretto is high quality, just like what Da Ponte and Boito were capable of doing.

As if this much fun weren't enough, this production is *stellar.* There isn't a single weak link. The mostly Italian cast sings divinely. Cecilia Bartoli as usual is a showstopper, completely in her element. Ruggero Raimondi lavishly displays his outstanding skills. Paolo Rumetz was born into the role of Don Geronio; he is comic even to look at, and impacts the exact balance into the role: pathetic and cunny; a victim and a tyrant all at the same time. Brilliant performance! Literally ALL the other performers in this production do an excellent job, both in singing and acting. I'ver rarely seen such an accomplished and homogeneous casting.

Franz Welser-Möst conducts the Orchestra of the Opera House Zurich in a lively and energetic manner.

Stage Director Cesare Lievi and Set and Costume Designer Daniela Schiavone come up with one of the most rewarding stagings I've seen in a while. It is colorful, visually stimulating, simple and resourceful at the same time, always tasteful and appropriate, and achieves the perfect combination between tradition and visual boldness. Stupid regietheater directors have a lot to learn from these two. This is a staging that enhances and enriches the experience without ever getting in the way. Bravo!

Finally, the DVD has an excellent, well balanced DTS 5.1 track, very sharp image, and the camera work is efficient and unobtrusive.

In summary, *this is a 10 out of 10 and a must have*. I highly recommend it, and it will be one of my favorite DVDs ever, one I'll be coming back to over and over.

There isn't a single weak point in this experience. Everything works like a Swiss clock, or rather, like a masterful opera buffa by this genius called Gioacchino Rossini.

I eccho what Stendhal said about this opera: that the vivid way the composer set the text to music, with brilliant ensembles and delicate cantilenas, is comparable, he said, "to Raphael's arabesques in the apartments of the Vatican."

My friends, this is a great opera. It completely dispels any pretension that Rossini was anything short of a musical genius.

It's funny how some operas get enormous popularity while others with even more merit are neglected. _Il turco in Italia _is not very popular, it's not staged very often, and it is seldomly remembered.

But in my humble opinion (well, I'm in the good company of Stendhal), it is up there with _Il Barbiere di Siviglia _and _La Cenerentola, _and thus belongs with the very best Rossini operas.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> I've just finished an opera by Rossini that I had never heard/watched before. Here is the production, it has been commented upon here by other users, but I'll add my two admirative cents:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bought it a couple months ago as part of my Rossini build out......great deal $7 used at Amazon sellers, wonderful stuff. Also will mention those interesting exaggerated costumes and wild hats that add to the fun

Around the same time I tried a few versions of *L'Italiana in Algeri*
This ended up my fav although I am not a huge Jennifer Larmore fan overall it wins










Even Maria loved (surprising to some) to cut loose with these sparkling female roles
It would be priceless to have a video of Callas taking the Sultan Selim down a few notches.....


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

DarkAngel said:


> Around the same time I tried a few versions of *L'Italiana in Algeri*
> This ended up my fav although I am not a huge Jennifer Larmore fan overall it wins


Larmore was extremely compelling and moving as Gertrude in the Met Hamlet. I find it hard to imagine her in a comic role. 
But I probably will end up buying this (credit card screams and attempts to self-destruct)


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> Larmore was extremely compelling and moving as Gertrude in the Met Hamlet. I find it hard to imagine her in a comic role.
> But I probably will end up buying this (credit card screams and attempts to self-destruct)


Larmore in the well known aria from that DVD of *L'Italiana in Algeri*

*Larmore*


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DarkAngel said:


> Larmore in the well known aria from that DVD of *L'Italiana in Algeri*
> 
> *Larmore*


I saw a live recital with Larmore last year. It was dreadful. Horrible. Disgusting. Her voice is completely shot, someone needs to break the news to her and tell her to retire.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

The most recent stuff I heard with Jennifer Larmore was one of the Vivaldi Operas..... Orlando Furioso? I'm not sure. However I was not impressed with her voice in it. She sounds much better in the Barbiere DVD I have but then that's from 1992.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Watching this right now:










Simply excellent, reinforcing once more the title of my thread.
Spectacular overture. Rossini is a specialist in overtures, but this one is even better.
Good traditional Met production with Jimmy Levine in great form, satisfactory singing all around, very good Isabella (as far as singing is concerned, not looks or age), funny Mustafa.
This is a very entertaining opera buffa, in my opinion one of Rossini's best. Good signature crescendos and ensembles, wild finales, nice cavatina from Lindoro, the crazy Pappataci... It's very good!


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Rossini è comme l'Italia!*

Rossini is fresh and funny...Many other composers aren't.

I like of course the very nice Barbiere and Cenerentolla but also his William Tell, la scala di setta.... He's not among my favorite composers...A bit superficial for my taste...

Martin Pitchon

:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Rossini is fresh and funny...Many other composers aren't.
> 
> I like of course the very nice Barbiere and Cenerentolla but also his William Tell, la scala di setta.... He's not among my favorite composers...A bit superficial for my taste...
> 
> ...


I'm glad that you enjoy his freshness and his comedic flair. As for being superficial, it's done in purpose. Rossini proved to everybody that he could compose outstanding and sophisticated music when he wanted to do it - just look at his overtures. But he also wanted success and money, so, he gave to the people what the people craved.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I love this opera...deeply. I have a version sung in Russian, the very best...Kozlovsky sings Leporello.

Martin


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm listening to this, and what a *beautiful* CD!


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Since when being entertaining strips away the quality of being declared art? For me, Rossini is a genius, just like Mozart is God himself. I realized I loved every Rossinian piece of music I listened. Il Barbiere is unbelievable well constructed, with wonderful arias. So is La Cenerentola. I Turco in Italia, marvelous too! I am not going to discuss all his operas. I still have many of them on my list.
I don't know what to say about his decision of quitting music composition so early. Maybe we should just be happy for what he left us, music so beautiful, it entertains.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sabrina said:


> Since when being entertaining strips away the quality of being declared art? For me, Rossini is a genius, just like Mozart is God himself. I realized I loved every Rossinian piece of music I listened. Il Barbiere is unbelievable well constructed, with wonderful arias. So is La Cenerentola. I Turco in Italia, marvelous too! I am not going to discuss all his operas. I still have many of them on my list.
> I don't know what to say about his decision of quitting music composition so early. Maybe we should just be happy for what he left us, music so beautiful, it entertains.


Actually he quit opera composition but continued to compose music.
I'm glad that you entirely agree with me in terms of Rossini's genius.
I don't love all operas by him that I know, some I don't particularly care for (not that they are bad, they just don't please me as much)

Here are the ones I know - in red the ones I love, in black the one's I don't particularly care for, in no particular order (the numbers have nothing to do with it):

1. La Pietra del Paragone
2. Il barbiere di Siviglia
3. La Cenerentola
4. Armida
5. Il viaggio a Reims
6. La Gazza Ladra
7. L'occasione fa il ladro
8. Il turco in Italia
9. Guglielmo Tell
10. Semiramide
11. L'Italiana in Algeri
12. La Gazzetta
13. Ermione
14. Le Comte Ory


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Actually he quit opera composition but continued to compose music.
> I'm glad that you entirely agree with me in terms of Rossini's genius.
> I don't love all operas by him that I know, some I don't particularly care for (not that they are bad, they just don't please me as much)
> 
> ...


OMG! I admire you as you managed to find/listen to all these Rossini operas. I don't even have all of them on any medium. As for DVDs I only have Il Barbiere and la Cenerentola. The rest are either CDs (mainly with Maria Callas) or some mp3. As a Rossini lover, I hope one day, I'll find them all. Partly it is a money problem. I bought most of my opera CDs/DVDs from Amazon. HMV local stores don't carry a lot of opera.
I hope things are better in US, at least in some places.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sabrina said:


> OMG! I admire you as you managed to find/listen to all these Rossini operas. I don't even have all of them on any medium. As for DVDs I only have Il Barbiere and la Cenerentola. The rest are either CDs (mainly with Maria Callas) or some mp3. As a Rossini lover, I hope one day, I'll find them all. Partly it is a money problem. I bought most of my opera CDs/DVDs from Amazon. HMV local stores don't carry a lot of opera.
> I hope things are better in US, at least in some places.


I don't have them all. Armida for example I only know from attending the Met in HD broadcast. La Gazza Ladra and Guglielmo Tell I don't have either, I rented them from Netflix. On the other hand I have a couple of other Rossini DVDs that I did not list above because they're still in my unwatched pile.

Do you have Netflix in Canada? They have hundreds of opera DVDs. You can enroll for like 9 bucks per month and have access to a large number of operas on DVD.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Do you have Netflix in Canada? They have hundreds of opera DVDs. You can enroll for like 9 bucks per month and have access to a large number of operas on DVD.


Yes, we have Netflix in Canada, but as far as I know it works online. You talk about DVDs. That means it is like Blockbuster? Can you rent real DVDs? 
I'm thinking of applying for Netflix, but I already have an extensive cable package, that includes Treasure HD. This channel started presenting operas. All their programs are HD and ad free. It looks most of the productions presented are from the Royal opera house. I don't know if this channel is available in US. As far as I know it's Canadian.
I'll check Netflix here, and how it works. I didn't know they have operas. Thank you for this information!


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sabrina said:


> Yes, we have Netflix in Canada, but as far as I know it works online. You talk about DVDs. That means it is like Blockbuster? Can you rent real DVDs?
> I'm thinking of applying for Netflix, but I already have an extensive cable package, that includes Treasure HD. This channel started presenting operas. All their programs are HD and ad free. It looks most of the productions presented are from the Royal opera house. I don't know if this channel is available in US. As far as I know it's Canadian.
> I'll check Netflix here, and how it works. I didn't know they have operas. Thank you for this information!


Netflix has both online services *and* real DVD's mailed to you, and like I said they have hundreds of opera DVDs. They do not stream opera DVDs online, with the exception of one Othello with Placido Domingo that is their first opera online streaming, but they do mail opera DVDs to your mailbox. I didn't know this Treasure HD channel, I'll look for it in my provider's lineup, I hope they have it. You're welcome.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Netflix has both online services *and* real DVD's mailed to you, and like I said they have hundreds of opera DVDs. They do not stream opera DVDs online, with the exception of one Othello with Placido Domingo that is their first opera online streaming, but they do mail opera DVDs to your mailbox.


I checked Netflix online and all the opera (I checked Traviata, Il Barbiere) was unavailable. I don't know about those DVDs. Do you buy those DVDs, or you rent them? How/where do you return them?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sabrina said:


> I checked Netflix online and all the opera (I checked Traviata, Il Barbiere) was unavailable. I don't know about those DVDs. Do you buy those DVDs, or you rent them? How/where do you return them?


Like I said, they don't do opera online, but included in your membership is the ability to have actual DVDs mailed to your mailbox, unlimited. They have different plans: one at a time, two at a time, three, etc. I have the cheapest plan, 1 at a time, so I usually get one on Friday, watch it, send it back on Saturday, get another one on Tuesday and send it back on Wednesday. They come in an envelope that can be also used to return them. You just drop them in a mailbox and when they receive it back they mail the next one to you. You make a list (a queue) and they send them to you one by one, going down your list. If your plan is two at a time, they send simultaneously the next two from your list, etc. The cheapest (1 at a time plan) is like $8.99 per month. Any of the plans also give you access to their online streaming, and they have some 35,000 movies for streaming (but like I said, only one of them is an opera).

I also buy DVDs, since Netflix doesn't always have the best versions (they tend to have lots of Kultur DVD's which are of lesser quality).


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Thanks!, One more question, please: do you pay for sending back (like a stamp, whatever)?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sabrina said:


> Thanks!, One more question, please: do you pay for sending back (like a stamp, whatever)?


No. The envelope is one of those with "no postage necessary."
There are two downsides to Netflix for the opera lover, though: 
1. Not a lot of choice of best versions. They do have every important opera, but often in one or two versions that are not considered the best ones in the market
2. Some more popular operas are listed "short wait" and my experience with this "short wait" is that it is never short. You eventually get them, if you keep placing them first in your list (they usually send you the next one down your list that is not "short wait" but if you insist long enough you eventually receive the one you're looking for - my strategy is to always list a bunch of operas on "short wait" as my first, second, third, fourth choices etc, and they keep skipping them and going to the next one with no wait, but then one of them gets finally sent and I take it out of my list.) By now I've seen almost their entire collection. They also have numerous recitals, concerts, opera documentaries, etc.

There are many other ways to have access to opera. MetPlayer is one (mamascarlatti and jhar26 can tell you more - I have had a membership for 5 months and a half, it's about to expire, and I only saw some 4 or 5, but they are avid MetPlayer consumers). Your local library is another one. There are a number of web sites with free streaming or pay-per-view, and these are all listed in one of our threads; browse the forum pages and you'll eventually see a thread called "web sites for streaming opera" or something like this, I don't remember the exact thread title.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Thank you a lot for the information. I viewed everything our library have, except for Wagner and Gilbert&Sullivan. Now I have borrowed a lot of Wagner, but again I struggle with it. I figured out what I don't like. I like/love the prelude. But when they start singing, German sounds like pebbles, metal rocks falling, a lot of ts, ts in my stupid ears. Interesting enough, in Mozart the German language is not an issue for me. Otherwise, I have nothing against spoken German. 
Sorry for the out of topic discussion.
I am so happy Rossini was Italian (LOL).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

sabrina said:


> Thank you a lot for the information. I viewed everything our library have, except for Wagner and Gilbert&Sullivan. Now I have borrowed a lot of Wagner, but again I struggle with it. I figured out what I don't like. I like/love the prelude. But when they start singing, German sounds like pebbles, metal rocks falling, a lot of ts, ts in my stupid ears. Interesting enough, in Mozart the German language is not an issue for me. Otherwise, I have nothing against spoken German.
> Sorry for the out of topic discussion.
> I am so happy Rossini was Italian (LOL).


Oh well, we're not so rigid with off-topic discussion here, as long as the off-topic is also operatic. We do engage in some chatting in most of our threads. When the discussion deviates too much, we don't penalize members (as long as the members are not trying to disrupt threads in purpose like a couple of naughty boys did in the past), we just open another thread and move the posts to it. These posts here could be grouped under a thread called "Alternatives for access to opera." It is an idea. I may do it at some point (kind of tired now to go chase all the related posts in other threads).

Wagner = it depends a lot on the version, more than for any other composer. There are some outrageous productions out there. But when you get a good recording/good production, it's pure magic. German can be *very* beautiful in operatic singing. See for instance Richard Strauss in operas like Der Rosenkavalier or Die Frau ohne Schatten. They are very melodious.

For advice on good versions, consult this thread (and join the voting if you want, we've done some 80 operas but still some 20 to go):

http://www.talkclassical.com/12300-talk-classical-most-recommended.html


----------

