# Question for opera lovers



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Why do you prefer opera, and vocal music in general, over instrumental music? Is there anything you particularly dislike about instrumental music? I have a short list of reasons why I have not found opera particularly appealing:

I have always been more attracted to instrumental music because its abstract-ness. For me, music represents everything that words fail to express, and attaching words to music causes it to lose its mystical value. Also (this is a bit hard to explain), I find when people are singing in opera, the music seems to be happening to _them_ and not the listener; it's like you're eavesdropping instead of having the music directly affect _you_. So, when I hear instrumental music, I can relate it to my own life easily without having to think about how it affects anyone else.

I have also had a hard time appreciating any type of opera besides Wagner, for a simple reason (which I may be wrong about and you may correct me). Most opera seems to be made up of simple songs separated by interludes. There is a general lack of larger musical structures and thematic development. In the Wagnerian operas, I can sense a larger structural whole to the music as it continues seemlessly for several hours, and that makes it attractive to me.

The final matter is one of inconvenience. One has to pay close attention to the libretto at all times, since without it the opera becomes meaningless. This usually means that I must have 2-3 hours of uninterrupted free time, which I do not have except at night when I am tired. I am open to the idea of getting CDs of operatic highlights; would you recommend these?


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Well, the easiest way to reply to your question about why I love opera, is that I find it very beautiful. I love operatic singing. I also love the fact that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. When you say "simple songs separated by interludes" - this is true of numbers operas but not of written-through operas, of which Wagner is only one among many examples (granted, he's the best example but there are many other written-through operas). Do I have anything against instrumental music? Of course not. I love symphonic music, and I love overtures and intermezzi in opera. I just love even more vocal music. About the libretto, often (not always) it adds to the enjoyment. And yes, opera takes time and commitment, but so do many good things in life.

In terms of CDs of operatic highlights, I highly recommend this one, which unlike most compilations, is actually made of good tracks with top singers and orchestras:



6 CDs, and for a bargain: $23 at amazon.com and $13 (I'm factoring in the shipping) at amazon market vendors.


----------



## prettyhippo (Apr 19, 2011)

I love opera, and no offense, I think you may be generalizing a little. I appreciate instrumental music just as much as I appreciate vocal music. I believe that the best operas are those that have a balanced combination of the two. To hear an epic voice with and epic orchestra, well, it's simply the best. Have you listened to Verdi? I think that La Traviata is is both vocally and instrumentally pleasing. Also, Puccini. When I first heard the aria "Nessun Dorma" from Turandot, it was just the orchestra, no words, and it was amazing. Personally, I find that once I have read the libretto and have a general grasp of the plot and dialogue, I don't need to pay much attention to what is specifically being said, I just take the time to appreciate the beauty of the sound.


----------



## BalloinMaschera (Apr 4, 2011)

When I was still a child, I used to think that all 10 year old kids rush home from school, to listen to opera. Alas, I soon found out that this was not so.

Yet this did not matter. Already then, I must have realized on some level that opera is truly the greatest of art forms. While I understand that some may argue that opera can at some times be a compromise between other valuable art forms like acting, orchestration, production, visual arts, and of course singing, I find that opera, even when not performed or recorded well, adds up to more than the mere sum of its parts.

This occurs, because opera begets art. Opera challenges, transcends, emotes, and beautifies. It is difficult to imagine not being touched by opera, as it often grips the core of what makes us human beings. Opera is a very giving and humbling art form.

That said, opera is not without difficulty. Language barriers, sheer length of some of the works, undistinguished production/direction, sloppy singing and/or conducting, and a generally perceived hue of exaggerated sophistication, may all lend to the notion of opera often being perceieved as inaccessable.

Yet, I'd still submit that a badly performed or recorded opera, is better than no opera at all.

Like so many art forms, in the big picture, opera is more important than me, or you, so why not embrace it and celebrate it?


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

I think that making a difference between opera/vocal music and instrumental music is shallow. When you hear Dvorak's Cello concerto and the entering of the cello, you don't associate this with a _vox humana_? In the same way listening to Arvo Pärt's works I sometimes have the impression, that these pure human voices sound as abstract as synthesizers. Trained singers take care of their voice and vocal cords like a famous violinist takes care of his/her Stradivarius. Basically I listen to all music as human expression and the foremost of human expression is the human voice. Glenn Gould maintains that all of Bach's compositions, especially the most 'abstract', are to be understood out of singing them. That's why he was humming all the time to despair of the recording engineers.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

BalloinMaschera said:


> When I was still a child, I used to think that all 10 year old kids rush home from school, to listen to opera. Alas, I soon found out that this was not so.
> 
> Yet this did not matter. Already then, I must have realized on some level that opera is truly the greatest of art forms. While I understand that some may argue that opera can at some times be a compromise between other valuable art forms like acting, orchestration, production, visual arts, and of course singing, I find that opera, even when not performed or recorded well, adds up to more than the mere sum of its parts.
> 
> ...


Very well said. You should blog this post.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

TxllxT said:


> I think that making a difference between opera/vocal music and instrumental music is shallow. When you hear Dvorak's Cello concerto and the entering of the cello, you don't associate this with a _vox humana_? In the same way listening to Arvo Pärt's works I sometimes have the impression, that these pure human voices sound as abstract as synthesizers. Trained singers take care of their voice and vocal cords like a famous violinist takes care of his/her Stradivarius. Basically I listen to all music as human expression and the foremost of human expression is the human voice. Glenn Gould maintains that all of Bach's compositions, especially the most 'abstract', are to be understood out of singing them. That's why he was humming all the time to despair of the recording engineers.


The human voice is the most beautiful of all instruments. In the famous quartet in Rigoletto, Bella figlia del amore, the four voices enter one by one and behave like different instruments to the point that the orchestra quiets down and lets the voices run the show.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

To me,it makes no difference whether music is purely instrumental or vocal and operatic,
If the music is great , it's great, and that's enough for me. 
But I don't believe that even purely instrumental is totally abstract, and consider programmatic music to be just as valid as absolute music.
Even absolute music is highly expressive. You can't divorce it from the extra musical.,because music doesn't exist in a vacuum.
If you think that Wagner's operas (or music dramas as he preferred to call his later works) "lack a larger structure and thematic development", you need to get to know his operas much better, because with all due respect, you're way off the mark here !
Unlike a typical opera by Handel or Mozart, Tristan and the Ring etc, are through-composed , that is the music is continuous throughout each act, and not a series of discreet arias, duets etc separated by recitative.
The Leitmotivfs Wagner uses are subject ot constant development according to the dramatic situation and the emotional and psychological states of the characters; 
in fact, they are developed much more extensively than the themes of any symphony by Haydn,Mozart,Beethoven or Schubert. 
With Wagner on CD or DVD, it can be helpful to listen to one act at a time and give yourself a breather to avoid mental fatigue.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

superhorn said:


> If you think that Wagner's operas (or music dramas as he preferred to call his later works) "lack a larger structure and thematic development", you need to get to know his operas much better, because with all due respect, you're way off the mark here !


It looks to me like the original poster did grant Wagner an exception, by saying: "In the Wagnerian operas, I can sense a larger structural whole to the music as it continues seemlessly for several hours, and that makes it attractive to me." My point was to say that Wagner's music dramas are not the only through-composed operas out there.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Ravellian said:


> Why do you prefer opera, and vocal music in general, over instrumental music? ... I have always been more attracted to instrumental music because its abstract-ness.


I don't prefer opera to instrumental music. There was a time, very long ago, when I felt much like you. I too found the human voice an intrusion, and I would have expressed myself in a way similar to yours. I think I understand exactly what you mean about 'abstractness - though I don't feel that way any more.



> For me, music represents everything that words fail to express, and attaching words to music causes it to lose its mystical value.


And again, at that time I'd have said something similar to this. The 'mystical value' was supremely important to me, and the voices seemed to wreck it completely.



> I have also had a hard time appreciating any type of opera besides Wagner, for a simple reason (which I may be wrong about and you may correct me). Most opera seems to be made up of simple songs separated by interludes. There is a general lack of larger musical structures and thematic development. In the Wagnerian operas, I can sense a larger structural whole to the music as it continues seemlessly for several hours, and that makes it attractive to me.


My experience exactly. Wagner was the sole exception to my dislike of opera. It seemed to be something completely different. I still regard _Der Ring_ as a thing apart, worthy of a name of its own, other than 'opera'.

So our paths started similarly, but of course there's no guarantee that they'd continue to do so. It may be worth adding that very early on, I heard some excerpts from _Der Rosenkavalier_ that made me realise that the same kind of mystical expression could be found outside my established favourite instrumental music. Then I found my way gradually to Puccini; stuck there for a while; then discovered the French Romantics, then plunged headlong into baroque opera and I was in so deep that there was no going back. So I'd say - just keep going. Keep listening to Wagner, yes do. And why not try some highlights CDs as you say, yourself? If you want to taste the Richard Strauss approach to mystical romance, try 'The Presentation of the Rose' from _Der Rosenkavalier_. Two voices seeking each other, entwining and rising together in search of a kind of mystical ecstasy. It starts in earnest at about 2.20 here (but I wouldn't recommend skipping the initial 2 minutes):






From 4.20 onwards, the orchestra and the two voices achieve a sublimity the like of which I've never found anywhere else, except perhaps in the trio and finale of this same opera (given below from a different production, but one is spoilt for choice):






Watching and listening to these again, for the 5 millionth time, makes me wonder, as usual, why I ever listen to anything else.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> The final matter is one of inconvenience. One has to pay close attention to the libretto at all times, since without it the opera becomes meaningless.


Not necessarily. I believe that the measure for a truly good opera is that it has to work on its own as _absolute_ music. I think of the human voice as a fantastic instrument which is given the libretto as a means to expose itself, but I don't think that the plot actually enhances the opera very much.

That's at least my personal opinion. I started listening to opera mainly because I love the operatic singing voice.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Thank you all for your insightful comments. It appears that the majority of opera lovers like it for the simple fact that it "sounds beautiful," not really for the story or the structure.

For the record, I enjoy beautiful music too, and the human voice is very beautiful. That is not the reason why I have not found opera particularly attractive. I occasionally enjoy art songs and madrigals very much. However, again, it is difficult to listen to this type of singing for several hours at a time, while straining to follow a plot. I don't understand how people here can enjoy the opera without following the plot; how else can you follow what's happening during all the interludes and recitatives?

And again, the lack of large-scale structures is a problem for me. I was introduced to classical music through Beethoven and Mozart, the masters of sonata form, skilled at making logical progressions and contrasts within a single musical piece. The emphasis of their music is not simply to make a beautiful sound, but to create an entirely abstract _journey_ for the listener. Every moment of a 40-minute symphony has not just absolute, but relative meaning. This contrasts with individual 3-5 minute opera arias where the arias are rarely directly related to each other musically.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Choral music was my initial musical love and still remains my favorite genre. Undoubtedly, this owes much to the fact that I was raised in the Lutheran church and my mother sang in the church choir. To my mind there was.. nothing so transcendent as a beautiful choral passage. With the passage of time my interest in music broadened to include a vast array of styles and genre... yet within the classical realm I remained fascinated with vocal music. Song, after all, was undoubtedly the core of all music. From choral music I moved into an interest in lieder, chanson, melodies, romances, and all the forms of art song, madrigals, motets, chants, and other early musical forms, and opera. As others have suggested, my primary interest is in the beauty of the sound... the music. While I agree with Almaviva and others who argue that opera is a grand... perhaps the grandest of multi-media spectacles... involving costumes, stage sets, acting, lighting, etc... it is the music that speaks... or must speak to me first and foremost. Upon first listening to an opera I tend to simply play the entire work through as a work of music. upon a second hearing I will read through the synopsis in advance and perhaps loosely follow along. I will then give a third listening in which I will follow closely with the libretto... or ideally with a DVD or in live performance. When I listen, though, I feel no more obligation to follow the libretto than a feel an obligation to follow the score looking for how the composer has employed a given formal structure or broken from it when I am listening to purely instrumental music. Of course with the works that I become most familiar with I develop an even deeper understanding that often includes a grasp of what is being said... even if I do not speak the language. 

Does this mean I dislike instrumental music or find it wanting? Of course not. I love symphonic and instrumental music. I have spent a great deal of time listening to Beethoven and Schubert's sonatas and symphonies, Bach's WTC, cello sonatas, and other instrumental work, Mozart's piano concertos, Chopin's Nocturnes, Brahms' chamber works, Mahler and Bruckner's symphonies, etc... Unlike a great majority of classical music fans, however, a top-ten or top twenty list of favorite works would undoubtedly be predominately vocal.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Thank you all for your insightful comments. It appears that the majority of opera lovers like it for the simple fact that it "sounds beautiful," not really for the story or the structure.
> 
> For the record, I enjoy beautiful music too, and the human voice is very beautiful. That is not the reason why I have not found opera particularly attractive. I occasionally enjoy art songs and madrigals very much. However, again, it is difficult to listen to this type of singing for several hours at a time, while straining to follow a plot. I don't understand how people here can enjoy the opera without following the plot; how else can you follow what's happening during all the interludes and recitatives?
> 
> And again, the lack of large-scale structures is a problem for me. I was introduced to classical music through Beethoven and Mozart, the masters of sonata form, skilled at making logical progressions and contrasts within a single musical piece. The emphasis of their music is not simply to make a beautiful sound, but to create an entirely abstract _journey_ for the listener. Every moment of a 40-minute symphony has not just absolute, but relative meaning. This contrasts with individual 3-5 minute opera arias where the arias are rarely directly related to each other musically.


No, I didn't try to imply that I exclusively love opera because of the beautiful music and the beautiful sound of human operatic voices. That's why I said "the whole is more than the sum of the parts." Yes, of course I follow the libretti. I actually do a lot of homework when I approach a major opera, often reading the entire libretto in original language (when I know it) or in translation before I even listen to the opera - and I also learn about the context, the composer's biography, about his style, etc. I pay close attention to the theatrical elements, and to characteristics such as pace, dramatic intensity, logical progression, integration between parts, and so forth. I also enjoy the visual aspects, the scenario/costumes/props, the staging concept, the acting. A great opera needs good music, good libretto, good theatrical impact, etc. It is a very difficult genre, and even major composers have failed at opera because of not mastering its full aspects (e.g., Haydn). I experience immense pleasure when everything clicks and all parts mix together in a fabulous whole.

I disagree with saying that each individual 3-5 minute opera arias do not relate to each other. It depends on the style of the opera. La Traviata, for instance, is composed in groups of four arias called scenes. Verdi did it like this from beginning to end, and each bloc of four has a logical progression, and furthermore, they all keep a relationship with the overture. In an opera like Othello even these scenes had dissolved already entirely and it is through-composed, in a beautiful flowing sea of music (so is Falstaff). There are plenty of operas that have enormous structural complexity. The more you watch them/listen to them, the more you will little by little become aware of an opera's structure. By the way, there is nothing more structurally complex in all of classical music than Wagner's Ring.

In terms of the time commitment and need to pay attention to a plot, this is not fundamentally different from, say, movies, or a theatrical play. The most common duration of an opera falls somewhere between 120 and 150 minutes, and there are many that are much shorter - 30 minutes, one hour... there are numerous examples of those. Of course, there are longer ones too, such as most Wagner operas, Berlioz's Les Troyens, certain Meyerbeer operas, etc.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Okay, Alma, it sounds like you enjoy going about as in-depth as you can about any particular opera--doing a lot of homework and such-- but surely you can't expect many people to be willing to put that much time into it? From what I gather you are an exception here.

And yes, I understand that late Verdi and Puccini also created operas in a through-composed style that emulates Wagner. Do you generally prefer these types of operas, or does it matter?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

You know I enjoy both about equally, and that I never like anything just because it "sounds beautiful." I've found and been directed to several operas that are very appealing to me from an instrumentalist's point of view, like Enescu's Oedipe, Saariaho's L'amour de loin, both of Berg's operas, Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov, Britten's Church Parables (Curlew River, The Burning Fiery Furnace, and The Prodigal Son), and Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, among others.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Okay, Alma, it sounds like you enjoy going about as in-depth as you can about any particular opera--doing a lot of homework and such-- but surely you can't expect many people to be willing to put that much time into it? From what I gather you are an exception here.
> 
> And yes, I understand that late Verdi and Puccini also created operas in a through-composed style that emulates Wagner. Do you generally prefer these types of operas, or does it matter?


No, I think that many opera lovers do put a lot of homework into their operas, I don't think I'm an exception. Maybe it's a minority of opera lovers doing that, but definitely not as rare as to be characterized as exceptions.
And it's not just Wagner, Verdi and Puccini; in fact, most modern and contemporary operas are also through-composed, and many don't even have arias per se.
If I prefer them? Well, my favorite opera is the Ring, and my second favorite, Tristan und Isolde (although at times I'd say that Les Troyens is my second favorite). I also like modern and contemporary opera. So I do like through-composed operas, but this doesn't mean I don't like numbers operas, even the long repetitive ones like certain baroque operas with endless da capo aria after da capo aria. Basically I like ALL of opera. If it matters? It does. But like in any other genre, there are great through-composed operas and not-so-great through-composed operas, and there are great numbers operas and not-so-great numbers operas. I think that the quality of the composer has more to do with the quality of the opera than what specific style, sub-genre, or era we're talking about. For example, while Wagner was a fabulous composer and his through-composed operas are spectacular, Handel was just as good and his numbers operas are equally spectacular.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Okay, Alma, it sounds like you enjoy going about as in-depth as you can about any particular opera--doing a lot of homework and such-- but surely you can't expect many people to be willing to put that much time into it? From what I gather you are an exception here.


I'm not an expert & never will be but I am an enthusiast & I've found 'doing homework' pays dividends. I often don't care for an opera on first hearing/watching but I persevere & sometimes end up totally falling in love with it. I often think to myself 'thank goodness I didn't give up'


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

I can't add anything to Almaviva's responses. I don't have the ability to read librettos in their original language, and can't match his personal degree of commitment to opera, but in principle I go along with pretty well everything he says here. Certainly I don't go along with the 'sounds beautiful' idea. That's not it, at all. It's a kind of synthesis of musical statements, drama, and the expression of aspects of the human condition.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Just a clarification: my opening statement was " the easiest way to reply to your question about why I love opera, is that I find it very beautiful" - emphasis on 'the easiest way.' I did add other aspects. I do find it very beautiful, but by beautiful I meant *all* the ways in which opera touches me, not just the beauty of the human voice.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> Just a clarification: my opening statement was " the easiest way to reply to your question about why I love opera, is that I find it very beautiful" - emphasis on 'the easiest way.' I did add other aspects. I do find it very beautiful, but by beautiful I meant *all* the ways in which opera touches me, not just the beauty of the human voice.


I understood perfectly what you meant Alma, but now see I introduced confusion in my own post. Oh woe! Apologies! I should have said 'not _merely_ beautiful', perhaps. Maybe the word 'beautiful' is just too vague to be useful when applied to an art form so complex as opera.

[Curious irrelevant fact: some of the most tedious prose ever written is to be found in theoretical discussions of the concept of 'beauty' among philosophers of aesthetics. I remember attending a seminar on the subject during which I came close to gnawing my arm off.]


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Oh, alright. Thanks for clearing that up, I guess I misinterpreted a few of the posts. Eh. So, for some of you, it is vitally necessary to understand the work and follow the libretto in order to fully enjoy the opera.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Ravellian said:


> So, for some of you, it is vitally necessary to understand the work and follow the libretto in order to fully enjoy the opera.


I think it's hard to lay down cut and dried rules. When I first heard (and was shaken by) the passages from _Rosenkavalier_ I mentioned above, I was listening to them on an excerpts recording without libretto, and knowing only the merest outline of the plot. That limitation didn't trouble me for years; when I did eventually read a translation, it came as no surprise and changed very little, because the essence of what was happening was in the music, and I'd already got that pretty well.

One can listen to whole sections of _Der Ring_ purely as music, with voices as instruments, and I often do so; but the full richness of the interweaving of text and score only becomes apparent when one focuses on the libretto, and the way the leitmotives bind the whole together _in conjunction with the evolving drama_.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Ravellian said:


> Oh, alright. Thanks for clearing that up, I guess I misinterpreted a few of the posts. Eh. So, for some of you, it is vitally necessary to understand the work and follow the libretto in order to fully enjoy the opera.


For me, yes, absolutely. Of course for the operas I'm very familiar with it's no longer necessary, although even to them I usually listen with the libretto in hand. But anyway, knowing what's going on is essential to me. As for WHY I love opera - it must be a variety of reasons to complicated to explain or even understand, but the fact that it's so emotional must be a big part of it.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

There are some works where I think it's essential to know what is happening. Tristan and Isolde springs to mind for me, my first encounter with it via CD on the "just let it wash over you" principle was disastrous, it seemed just too unfocused and frustrating. But I persevered, watched a couple of versions, watched the docos, listened with the libretto and read "the Tristan chord" and now I get it.

On the other had there are some works where I think the plot doesn't really help. For example I can listen to Handel operas with all their star-crossed lovers and just enjoy the arias for themselves. I'm currently watching Ernani and on second viewing I can definitely confirm that it should be renamed Inane-y, the characters are so one-dimensional and wilfully self-destructive in a half-witted fashion. But the music is wonderful and I will still continue to listen to it on CD. (Luckily Verdi redeemed himself with his later psychologicaly complex works).


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> I'm currently watching Ernani and on second viewing I can definitely confirm that it should be renamed Inane-y, the characters are so one-dimensional and wilfully self-destructive in a half-witted fashion. But the music is wonderful and I will still continue to listen to it on CD. (Luckily Verdi redeemed himself with his later psychologicaly complex works).


I think Ernani could win the prize for weakest libretto in all of opera, or at least be a strong contender.


----------



## delallan (Jan 4, 2011)

I love both instrumental and vocal music; I enjoy opera very much (but yes, need the libretto in hand to navigate my way through). I love the human voice, and believe it to be the most beautiful of instruments. As other posters have said, listening to opera often requires extended periods of sustained listening, but is well worth the effort. For me, it is transformative.
Peace,
Del


----------

