# Phantom of the Opera is the Greatest Opera of the 20th Century



## Casadesus (Mar 5, 2019)

Yes, I believe that Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Phantom of the Opera” (1986) is the greatest opera of the 20th century. Like Meyerbeer before him, who was the undisputed king of the Paris Opéra and was acknowledged in his time as greatest opera composer of the 19th century, Webber is the king of Broadway, which is effectively the modern-day Paris Opéra, the height of large-scale theatrical achievement in Western culture. 

Now I know there will be objections: let me anticipate a few. First, you say, “But Phantom of the Opera ISN’T an opera! It’s a musical!” Andrew Lloyd Webber begs to differ: he has identified the genre of the piece as opera rather than a musical, and who are we to challenge that? And furthermore, what really is the difference between a musical and an opera anyway? I challenge anyone to state definitive criteria for this generic categorization. Operas are sung through, you say, while musicals have spoken dialogue. But, I reply, plenty of musicals, such as Webber’s “Evita” and Claude-Michel Schönberg’s “Les Misérables” are sung through, while plenty of operas, such as Mozart’s “Die Zauberflöte” and Beethoven’s “Fidelio” have spoken dialogue. The difference is in the use of the orchestra, you say! But look no further than “Phantom” for sophisticated use of a full orchestra and compare, if you will, the flimsily-orchestrated operas of Bellini. We could debate the matter ad nauseam and not be any nearer to a clear difference between opera and musical. So if Andrew Lloyd Webber wants to call “Phantom” an opera, it is an opera, and appropriately so, given its subject matter! It even contains an opera-within-an-opera! 

So now we come to the question of... quality! I believe the comparison with Meyerbeer is apt: it was said in his time that the key to his genius and the forging of the new style of grand opera was his innovative combination of the beautiful bel canto vocal melodies of Rossini with the sophisticated orchestral technique of Beethoven, presented on stage with the most state-of-the-art technology the theatre had to offer. Some of the most innovative theatrical techniques of the time were developed for Meyerbeer’s operas. Fast-forward to Webber, who combines the most beautiful vocal melodies pop music can invent (pop is the new bel canto!) with the most modern and up-to-date orchestration, including an electric guitar and keyboards in the orchestra! And he has the theatrical resources of Broadway to create the greatest total work of art (to use the Wagnerian term) possible in 20th-century music theatre. 

Are you concerned that his music is not dissonant enough to qualify as proper 20th-century opera? Look no further than the ingenious opera-within-an-opera scene, where the Phantom’s opera about Don Juan is performed: Webber makes free use of the whole-tone mode in both melody and harmony in this section to depict the depravity of the Phantom’s musical invention. And there are plenty of dissonant passages elsewhere during dramatic or violent events. But even 20th-century operas don’t need to be dissonant to be legitimate, nor does featuring pop music preclude it’s being a serious 20th-century opera: what of Kurt Weill’s “Street Scene,” composed in the middle of Weill’s Broadway career? Or Bernstein’s “A Quiet Place,” filled with pop passages? 

So why is it the greatest? Well, simply put, it has the best of all worlds, so how could it not be the greatest? It has both popular music and sophisticated modern orchestration, it has melodies familiar the world over, iconic stage images (everyone has seen or heard of the falling chandelier, the phantom’s mask, and the mysterious gondola), and the most cutting-edge theatrical presentation of its time. There’s no contest! 

So: who here agrees with me? Who will cast off the snobbery of highbrow gatekeepers and acknowledge Phantom of the Opera as not only an opera but the greatest opera of the 20th century?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If Ronald's Happy Meal is your idea of gourmet cuisine, my dear, then - _bon appetit!_


----------



## FleshRobot (Jan 27, 2014)

Not so sure about it being the greatest or not, but I have no problem with calling it an opera.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Well, he certainly plagiarizes from a real operatic composer in it.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The difference is in the vocal technique, not how much you call it great. A great musical is not somehow elevated to opera. Cut the mics and have it sung by classically trained singers, then you might have an opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

howlingfantods said:


> Well, he certainly plagiarizes from a real operatic composer in it.


And he doesn't even plagiarize from the greatest opera of the 20th century.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I heard Phantom and thought it sensational-classic romantic story and music. But Andrew Lloyd Webber is too successful to be appreciated by those who never give him credit for anything other than being a commercial success and consider him nothing but a plagiarist. I don't agree. He studied his a** off on classical opera, including Mozart, to write Phantom with the addition of a more contemporary pulsating beat, and he struck gold. IMO, it's been so justifiably successful that it's sold more than $1 billion in ticket sales... And yet some don't want to think of it as an opera or having elements of opera, though I would consider it closer to an opera than to the typical Broadway musical. I was impressed, enjoyed every moment of song, and had a memorable evening. But I have the advantage of not thinking in genres and categories; I think in terms of creative _talent_ that doesn't conveniently fit into any pigeonhole.

https://m.ok.ru/video/38034279024


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

It's a musical, simple as that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Opera or musical? What matters is not what it's called, but what it is. Is it great theater? Is it great music? If we want to call it an opera, is its music good enough to rank it with the best operas of the 20th century, those of Puccini, Giordano, Cilea, Alfano, Dvorak, Janacek, Charpentier, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Szymanowski, Enescu, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Strauss, Berg, Korngold, Stravinsky, Britten? The OP claims not only that it belongs in that company, but surpasses them all: surpasses Madama Butterfly, Turandot, Rusalka, Jenufa, Louise, Pelleas et Melisande, Bluebeard's Castle, King Roger, Oedipe, War and Peace, Katya Kabanova, Elektra, Rosenkavalier, Wozzeck, The Rake's Progress, Peter Grimes, etc., etc.

Is _The Phantom of the Opera_ a profound work by a great composer, capable, like some of the operas listed, of opening up new pathways in our minds? Or is it a cleverly concocted commercial product, glitzy, sentimental, and essentially shallow? Does Webber's extensive musical background recommend his work to us? Is the enormous popularity of it sufficient to rank it among the highest achievements of musical drama? And maybe most pertinently: is this sort of comparison relevant to what _Phantom_ tries to be, and is it fair to Andrew Lloyd Webber?

One last question: are these all rhetorical questions?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

This was posted four weeks early.


----------



## sharkeysnight (Oct 19, 2017)

I like a lot of Phantom, but aside from the fact that without Maria Björnson and Hal Prince it wouldn't be a tenth of the show that it is, Evita is a much, much better piece and makes a stronger case for being a truly great opera.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

However you categorize it, Phantom of the Opera is an extremely enjoyable show with melodies that are fun to sing. I'd love to see its level of production value in more operas.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Well this thread brightened my day. Or is that Brightman'd my day?


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Opera or musical? What matters is not what it's called, but what it is. Is it great theater? Is it great music? If we want to call it an opera, is its music good enough to rank it with the best operas of the 20th century, those of Puccini, Giordano, Cilea, Alfano, Dvorak, Janacek, Charpentier, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Szymanowski, Enescu, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Strauss, Berg, Korngold, Stravinsky, Britten? The OP claims not only that it belongs in that company, but surpasses them all: surpasses Madama Butterfly, Turandot, Rusalka, Jenufa, Louise, Pelleas et Melisande, Bluebeard's Castle, King Roger, Oedipe, War and Peace, Katya Kabanova, Elektra, Rosenkavalier, Wozzeck, The Rake's Progress, Peter Grimes, etc., etc.
> 
> Is _The Phantom of the Opera_ a profound work by a great composer, capable, like some of the operas listed, of opening up new pathways in our minds? Or is it a cleverly concocted commercial product, glitzy, sentimental, and essentially shallow? Does Webber's extensive musical background recommend his work to us? Is the enormous popularity of it sufficient to rank it among the highest achievements of musical drama? And maybe most pertinently: is this sort of comparison relevant to what _Phantom_ tries to be, and is it fair to Andrew Lloyd Webber?
> 
> One last question: are these all rhetorical questions?


Woodduck has taken the words right out my mouth, I only reply at all to add another name and title to his excellent list of the truly great 20th Century operas, and opera composers: Ligeti and his opera Le Grand Macabre!

...with that done, I will quietly back away from this 1st post troll bait...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

lextune said:


> Woodduck has taken the words right out my mouth, I only reply at all to add another name and title to his excellent list of the truly great 20th Century operas, and opera composers: Ligeti and his opera Le Grand Macabre!
> 
> ...with that done, I will quietly back away from this 1st post troll bait...


I'm glad to see that I didn't take _all_ the words out of your mouth.

Of course my list wasn't intended to be comprehensive. As I was writing I was impressed at just how much great opera came out of the 20th century.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I did see the movie version and both my wife and I were bored stiff. Simply awful IMO. Excruciating!


----------



## Rangstrom (Sep 24, 2010)

And I suppose Hamilton is the greatest opera of the 21st century.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I did see the movie version and both my wife and I were bored stiff. Simply awful IMO. Excruciating!


The play version is much better than the film version. Check out either the original cast recording or the Royal Albert Hall version for a better approximation of what you would find in the touring production.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

bharbeke said:


> The play version is much better than the film version. Check out either the original cast recording or the Royal Albert Hall version for a better approximation of what you would find in the touring production.


I can`t sit through that again. Sorry!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Rangstrom said:


> And I suppose Hamilton is the greatest opera of the 21st century.


Now we're getting somewhere!

But do we have to get somewhere?


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Rangstrom said:


> And I suppose Hamilton is the greatest opera of the 21st century.


I think you'll find it's _Love Never Dies_, the sort of sequel to _The Phantom of the Opera_.

Though, really, only in the version that Otto, ALW's cat, deleted, which is more properly referred to by the name used at the time, _Phantom: Once Upon Another Time_. Or, hmm, maybe that name was new after he (Andrew, not Otto) reconstructed the orchestration. But that name just glides off the tongue, doesn't it, so it is only fitting that it should match with such a sublime score.

The rewritten versions just aren't near the masterpiece the version no one ever heard was.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Casadesus said: "But Phantom of the Opera ISN'T an opera! It's a musical!" Andrew Lloyd Webber begs to differ: he has identified the genre of the piece as opera rather than a musical, and who are we to challenge that?"

He oughta know. He purloined enough of it to suggest that it is an opera (which it is definitely not!)

Just one example:
"Past the point of no return, no backward glances, *THE GAMES WE'VE PLAYED TILL NOW ARE AT AN END*.."

(Mimi's deathbed aria): "Sono andate, fingevo di dormire, *PERCHE VOI CON TE SOLA RESTARE*


----------



## Casadesus (Mar 5, 2019)

I am happy to see such a great discussion going on and especially happy to see I have some fellow Webber fans! A few objections have been made to my claim, however, and I shall now address them.

Several here have agreed that Phantom is indeed an opera and others have said that whether or not it is an opera isn’t at issue, so we can safely lay that question aside.

Next, the charge of plagiarism, easily deflected. The great composers all “plagiarized”: Handel, Bach, Mozart, they all did it. It takes a great craftsman to recognize a good tune and then refashion it in a new context, incorporating it into their own style and aesthetic apparatus. If you compare the score of Mozart’s Don Giovanni to Gazzaniga’s setting of the libretto Da Ponte based his on, you’ll find many melodic and structural similarities, and it is only natural that although Mozart “plagiarized” portions of Gazzaniga’s score, his Don Giovanni superseded the other in renown. Just so, Webber may have taken part of a melody from Puccini’s La Fanciulla del West, but while most people have never heard of that opera, everyone knows The Phantom of the Opera. It is obvious which is the better opera. Puccini’s original melody isn’t even as good - after hitting the high point that it has in common with Webber’s “Music of the Night,” it just meanders off unmemorably into the orchestral texture. The tune just comes and goes as if Puccini didn’t realize its true value. Webber crafted a song that is the true home of this melody (which is not absolutely identical, by the way) and finishes the melodic phrase in a much more well-proportioned and, well, melodic way, allowing the melody to find its full potential in a full-breathed flowering of song. 

Finally, what at first glance may seem a more difficult point: that of general quality. This point would seem to be difficult to discuss simply because aesthetic quality is ultimately subjective. Or is it? I argue that in this case we can definitively prove that Phantom is the greatest. Woodduck asks the excellent question, “Is The Phantom of the Opera a profound work by a great composer, capable, like some of the operas listed, of opening up new pathways in our minds?” Millions of Webber fans will tell you a resounding “Yes!”, far more than would claim the same of any other 20th-century opera. On these grounds, it is statistically provable that Phantom is the greatest opera of the century. 

I will argue my point further on other grounds. It takes more than simply great music to make the greatest opera of the century - plenty of 20th-century operas have that. What Phantom does places it higher than just having great music (which millions agree that it does): Phantom speaks using the combined languages of classical music and pop. Phantom transcends notions of style and speaks a truly cosmopolitan, universal language that everyone can appreciate. Other 20th-century operas are trapped in the polemics of classical music and are doomed to be either old-fashioned or chained to mistaken notions of modernist progress, while Webber knows the truth about music: it must always have direct popular appeal to be great, and given Phantom’s enormous popular appeal, we can definitively say that it is the greatest opera of the 20th century.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

The Who's Tommy -- greatest 20th century opera?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Casadesus said:


> I am happy to see such a great discussion going on and especially happy to see I have some fellow Webber fans! A few objections have been made to my claim, however, and I shall now address them.
> 
> Several here have agreed that Phantom is indeed an opera and others have said that whether or not it is an opera isn't at issue, so we can safely lay that question aside.
> 
> ...


Please, don't even go there. Comparing Lloyd Webber with Mozart. It is just self defeating


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

howlingfantods said:


> The Who's Tommy -- greatest 20th century opera?


I must confess I watch the film with high hopes and ended thinking it was a complete load of rubbish. But maybe it was Ken Russell's idiotic production .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Casadesus said:


> Woodduck asks the excellent question, "Is The Phantom of the Opera a profound work by a great composer, capable, like some of the operas listed, of opening up new pathways in our minds?" Millions of Webber fans will tell you a resounding "Yes!", far more than would claim the same of any other 20th-century opera. On these grounds, it is statistically provable that Phantom is the greatest opera of the century.


And who would not enjoy hearing from those millions of fans about the new pathways in their minds?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think Andrew Lloyd Webber is very pretentious if he calls The Phantom of the opera an opera. It is a musical and not a very inspired one at that . I wouldn't even put it as good as the old film with Claude Rains, which at least had some decent tunes in it. Of course the greatest 20th century music is West side story but the length of the street. But it doesn't purport to be anything else but a musical


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Phantom is a fun musical in 'operatic' style.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Nobody has yet invoked the name of Stephen Sondheim, whose brilliant musicals, diverse in style, are much closer to opera than anything Andrew Lloyd Webber ever wrote; not that he himself would call any of them opera.

Think of *Sweeney Todd*, which has been performed all over the world by opera companies as well as musical theatre companies. Don't go by the film, by the way, which excised most of its operatic elements, including the chorus. Of all his musicals,

Think of *Sunday in the Park with George* which mimics the pointilism of Georges Seurat with a sparkling pointilist score.

Think of *A Little Night Music*, Sondheim's apostrophe to operetta, in which every musical number is intentionally either in waltz time or compound time.

True his musicals are not as popular as Lord Lloyd Webber's, though these days they are all regularly revived, but popularity has never been a guage of greatness. If that were the case the novels of Dan Brown and Barbara Cartland would be considered greater than those of Virginia Woolf.

PS. I actually think *Evita* is Lloyd Webber's greatest musical. It has a cohesiveness of style completely lacking in *Phantom of the Opera*, with its uneasy amalgamation of rock music and quasi operatic style.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

^^^

Totally agree about Sondheim, and I'd add that West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Oliver!, Les Misérables and Miss Saigon are IMHO far more accomplished works than anything Lloyd Webber wrote, whether we classify them as operas or musicals. To those I'd add just about anything by Rodgers and Hammerstein.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Sondheim, of course. To my mind, there are at least three great opera/operetta/musical crossovers: Sweeney Todd, Candide and, or course, Porgy and Bess. I might add Frank Loesser's The Most Happy Fella. (I think of Night Music as a musical that uses operetta as a musical style.) 

I saw Phantom a few months after it opened on Broadway. By the second act, it had become background music, as I thought through what I needed to get done in the office the following day.

Hamilton, on the other hand, is not an opera, but it is brilliant.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Casadesus said:


> I am happy to see such a great discussion going on and especially happy to see I have some fellow Webber fans! A few objections have been made to my claim, however, and I shall now address them.
> 
> Several here have agreed that Phantom is indeed an opera and others have said that whether or not it is an opera isn't at issue, so we can safely lay that question aside.
> 
> ...


Please pass the barf bag.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Lloyd Webber?


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

sharkeysnight said:


> I like a lot of Phantom, but aside from the fact that without Maria Björnson and Hal Prince it wouldn't be a tenth of the show that it is, Evita is a much, much better piece and makes a stronger case for being a truly great opera.


That's interesting. I've seen EVITA but not THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, though I have heard much of the latter on CD. Personally, I enjoy EVITA but think it's a little too episodic. I admit I came to the PHANTOM original cast recording having heard all the stuff about how it's cheesy, derivative, and so forth, so perhaps some of my reaction was just surprise or relief, but I think a lot of the music (particularly that "Prima Donna" Sextet or whatever it is in the second act) extremely skillful and, at the very least, enjoyable.

Having read the novel of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, I do believe it's the best possible musical that could have been made of the novel. In fact, given that the novel was written in the 19th century, I'm frankly surprised that no composer before Lloyd Weber ever tried to musicalize it.

But this is all coming from someone whose first love is musicals rather than opera.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> Please pass the barf bag.


There's no need for a reply like that. How would you feel if you took the trouble to compose a well-thought-out if controversial post and someone gave a crass, one-sentence response to it?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> That's interesting. I've seen EVITA but not THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, though I have heard much of the latter on CD. Personally, I enjoy EVITA but think it's a little too episodic. I admit I came to the PHANTOM original cast recording having heard all the stuff about how it's cheesy, derivative, and so forth, so perhaps some of my reaction was just surprise or relief, but I think a lot of the music (particularly that "Prima Donna" Sextet or whatever it is in the second act) extremely skillful and, at the very least, enjoyable.
> 
> Having read the novel of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, I do believe it's the best possible musical that could have been made of the novel. *In fact, given that the novel was written in the 19th century, I'm frankly surprised that no composer before Lloyd Weber ever tried to musicalize it.*
> 
> But this is all coming from someone whose first love is musicals rather than opera.


Actually there was another contemporaneous version.

https://www.thoughtco.com/phantom-the-american-musical-sensation-2713332


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Casadesus said:


> I am happy to see such a great discussion going on and especially happy to see I have some fellow Webber fans! A few objections have been made to my claim, however, and I shall now address them.
> 
> Several here have agreed that Phantom is indeed an opera and others have said that whether or not it is an opera isn't at issue, so we can safely lay that question aside.
> 
> ...


You make interesting points here, even though I don't actually agree that PHANTOM is an opera; I think it's a musical that contains operatic pastiche.

Like I said in my earlier post, I think one could definitely make the claim that PHANTOM is the best musical that could have been made out of the novel; I think you could even legitimately believe (as I do) that the story makes a better musical than novel.


----------



## JoeSaunders (Jan 29, 2015)

Pretty sure OP is just testing out Cunningham's law: "The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

jegreenwood said:


> Sondheim, of course. To my mind, there are at least three great opera/operetta/musical crossovers: *Sweeney Todd*, Candide and, or course, Porgy and Bess. I might add Frank Loesser's The Most Happy Fella. (I think of Night Music as a musical that uses operetta as a musical style.)
> 
> I saw Phantom a few months after it opened on Broadway. By the second act, it had become background music, as I thought through what I needed to get done in the office the following day.
> 
> Hamilton, on the other hand, is not an opera, but it is brilliant.


Sweeny Todd is awful! Tuneless!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sweeny Todd is awful! Tuneless!


Tuneless?

Pretty women
Not while I'm around
Johanna
Green finch and linnet bird
Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd, to name but a few memorable tunes.

*Sweeney Todd* is far from tuneless.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

IMO: Brilliant Sweeney Todd has a plethora of unique, clever, plaintive, and funny tunes with lyrics out of the box and an audacious story that brought a new excitement to Broadway. It is arguably one of the finest musicals of all time written by a genius who once stated words to the effect, "if it is performed in an opera venue, it is an opera -- if not, it's a musical."
Talents like Sondheim rarely show their face.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> There's no need for a reply like that. How would you feel if you took the trouble to compose a well-thought-out if controversial post and someone gave a crass, one-sentence response to it?


I probably wouldn't like it.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Tuneless?
> 
> Pretty women
> Not while I'm around
> ...


Johanna is one of my earworms.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I must confess I watch the film with high hopes and ended thinking it was a complete load of rubbish. But maybe it was Ken Russell's idiotic production .


It was a joke, David. My point is that if Casadesus's criteria for what counts as "opera" is that the creator calls it "opera", then Tommy qualifies, and if what determines "greatness" is popularity, then Tommy beats Phantom in popularity and ipso facto is the greatest 20th century opera. I was doing that internet thing of "by your logic, etc".


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> It was a joke, David. My point is that if Casadesus's criteria for what counts as "opera" is that the creator calls it "opera", then Tommy qualifies, and if what determines "greatness" is popularity, then Tommy beats Phantom in popularity and ipso facto is the greatest 20th century opera. I was doing that internet thing of "by your logic, etc".


Just as an aside, I actually quite like *Tommy*, which doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, ie. a rock opera. I've no doubt Pete Townsend would be quite amused to find himself being compared to the likes of Puccini and Britten.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Casadesus said:


> So: who here agrees with me? Who will cast off the snobbery of highbrow gatekeepers and acknowledge Phantom of the Opera as not only an opera but the greatest opera of the 20th century?





Woodduck said:


> If Ronald's Happy Meal is your idea of gourmet cuisine, my dear, then - _bon appetit!_


It's hard to know how to respond to this without sounding like one of those 'highbrow gatekeepers' referred to here. But aren't we all gatekeepers, in a way, of the cultures and traditions that we hold dear? If those who have studied, loved, lived with and dedicated much of their lives to opera (or any art for that matter), are not thereby the most able to comment on its merits, then who is? Certainly everyone is entitled to their own tastes and shouldn't be thought of as less of a person simply because of that, and the 'gatekeepers' reputations as snobs are perhaps sometimes deserved. But if everyone's unstudied opinion is equal and the only things that qualifies a work for greatness is that one decides it is so without regard for the tradition in which is stands and the level of craftsmanship that goes into it, then I think Woodduck's comment is most apt.

For the record, and to the original point, I do enjoy listening to and seeing Webber's work. But I wouldn't equate it or elevate it above the great works of opera of the century or another. I don't think it's constructive to compare them - it's really a case of apples and oranges here, like comparing Marvel comic books to Charles Dickens novels - they're just too different for this to be meaningful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Please pass the barf bag.


Sorry, I've used up my supply while frequenting the "Music and the Ineffable" thread.

I'd better get over there before I've had breakfast.


----------



## sharkeysnight (Oct 19, 2017)

Sondheim has always been accused of being "unwhistleable", but "tuneless" is certainly not something I would ascribe to Sweeney Todd. In fact, I think its overall musicality is one of the great achievements in both terms of musicals and operas. The world Sondheim created through his music is astonishingly cohesive, and the way he uses it to create not only a thrilling dramatic propulsion but highlight the nastiness of the story and the time always amazes me. I don't think I can count the number of times I've listened to the original cast recording two or three times in a row.



Bellinilover said:


> That's interesting. I've seen EVITA but not THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, though I have heard much of the latter on CD. Personally, I enjoy EVITA but think it's a little too episodic. I admit I came to the PHANTOM original cast recording having heard all the stuff about how it's cheesy, derivative, and so forth, so perhaps some of my reaction was just surprise or relief, but I think a lot of the music (particularly that "Prima Donna" Sextet or whatever it is in the second act) extremely skillful and, at the very least, enjoyable.


I really prefer the overall arc of Evita much more to Phantom, which, for me, drags heavily in the second act. Evita has the dark satirical bite of a Weill piece, which I really love, particularly in Prince's original staging.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

I still say this whole thread is glorified troll bait, but Sondheim coming up has dragged me back for a second post. 

I am probably biased because I worked on a production of Sweeney Todd back in the early 90s, but I just think it is brilliant. Call it a musical, call it an opera, just call me in time before the curtain rises.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> My point is that if Casadesus's criteria for what counts as "opera" is that the creator calls it "opera", then Tommy qualifies, and if what determines "greatness" is popularity, then Tommy beats Phantom in popularity and ipso facto is the greatest 20th century opera.


Tommy does not beat Phantom for popularity, unless you're only looking at number of plays on Classic Rock Radio.

_The Who's Tommy_ ran for a respectable 899 performances on Broadway; the production in the West End ran for nearly a year, and there have been various tours. It did well; it's well regarded. The original album by The Who was successful, too, selling several million copies.

But _The Phantom of the Opera_ is a phenomenon. Both the West End and Broadway productions are still running; the former has over 13,000 performances; the latter should reach 13,000 performances in a couple months. The US touring production ran for 20 years. There was a sit-down production in California (Los Angeles then San Francisco) for a decade. It's played in 26 more countries, with a total audience of over 130 million people (as of 2011).

There have been at least a dozen recordings. The claim for the original London Cast recording is 24 million copies sold worldwide.

I prefer _The Who's Tommy_. If you go through my CDs you would be able to find a copy of the original cast recording, which is not the case for Phantom (though you'd be able to find _Evita_ on CD and vinyl, the same for _Cats_ plus a CD of a German translation, and if _Jesus Christ Superstar_ isn't in there it's an oversight). But _The Phantom of the Opera_ is, undeniably, one of the most popular/successful musicals of all time.

Arguing that it's the greatest musical, the greatest opera of the 20th century, or even the best work by Andrew Lloyd Webber... is a very different thing.

Because his best work is clearly _Starlight Express_. Trains on roller skates, baby!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

JoeSaunders said:


> Pretty sure OP is just testing out Cunningham's law: "The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer." :lol:


Well, that explains about 90% of the threads on TC! :lol:


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> Tommy does not beat Phantom for popularity, unless you're only looking at number of plays on Classic Rock Radio.


Go to any reasonably crowded bar, put Jukebox Hero and Music of the Night on the jukebox, and await the response. I expect one will get a singalong, the other will get you thrown out of the bar.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

howlingfantods said:


> Go to any reasonably crowded bar, put Jukebox Hero and Music of the Night on the jukebox, and await the response. I expect one will get a singalong, the other will get you thrown out of the bar.


Now you're bringing Foreigner into this? 

And I live in San Francisco; if I go into a bar I wouldn't be surprised if Music of the Night gets the bigger response.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

_Phantom_ is the "poor man's opera." It offers a sure-fire blend of romance, horror, and showmanship, Webber's typical hanky-moistening tunes, and an opportunity for Jack and Suzie Q Public to flatter themselves that they're enjoying something they think resembles "culture" without having to put even a modicum of effort into it.

To call Andrew LLoyd Webber the Meyerbeer of the modern musical would be to insult Meyerbeer, who to my knowledge wrote all his own tunes. But his appeal seems to me rather similar.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

But, easy mistake. I know we were all excited for _Jukebox Hero: The Musical_ that recently premiered in Toronto.

Not going to lie, I would totally see this musical. And I'm sure I'd love it. I was a huge fan in my early teens and had so many of their tapes.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Casadesus said:


> I am happy to see such a great discussion going on and especially happy to see I have some fellow Webber fans! A few objections have been made to my claim, however, and I shall now address them.
> 
> Several here have agreed that Phantom is indeed an opera and others have said that whether or not it is an opera isn't at issue, so we can safely lay that question aside.
> 
> ...


At first I wasn't sure if this whole thread was just an attempt at trolling.

At first.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I would see a Foreigner musical, too. It's a little more my style than something like Forever Plaid.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> At first I wasn't sure if this whole thread was just an attempt at trolling.
> 
> At first.


Trolls in old Norwegian fables are amusing too.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Google led me to the following:

Alan Jay Lerner was supposed to have been asked whether he'd heard any of the music from The Phantom of the Opera--for which Andrew Lloyd Webber had initially asked him to write lyrics--and Lerner replied 'Probably.'

And by the way, Music of the Night is really lifted from Come to Me, Bend to Me from Lerner and Loewe's Brigadoon.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> Now you're bringing Foreigner into this?
> 
> And I live in San Francisco; if I go into a bar I wouldn't be surprised if Music of the Night gets the bigger response.


Ooops, I meant Pinball Wizard! Sorry, it's been a very, very long time since I've listened to Tommy.

I also live in San Francisco. I know which bars would prefer Music of the Night, but even in SF, it's a much a smaller list of bars than the reverse.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> Google led me to the following:
> 
> Alan Jay Lerner was supposed to have been asked whether he'd heard any of the music from The Phantom of the Opera--for which Andrew Lloyd Webber had initially asked him to write lyrics--and Lerner replied 'Probably.'
> 
> And by the way, Music of the Night is really lifted from Come to Me, Bend to Me from Lerner and Loewe's Brigadoon.


Thanks for the tip about the _Brigadoon_ song, which I hadn't heard. So _Phantom_'s biggest hit is a hybrid of that and the waltz from _La Fanciulla del West..._ When Stravinsky said "good composers borrow, great ones steal," I doubt that he imagined this.

Casadesus, by the way, is obviously unaware of the full form and context of that bit of melody in _Fanciulla_ when he says : 'Puccini's original melody isn't even as good - after hitting the high point that it has in common with Webber's "Music of the Night," it just meanders off unmemorably into the orchestral texture. The tune just comes and goes as if Puccini didn't realize its true value. Webber crafted a song that is the true home of this melody (which is not absolutely identical, by the way) and finishes the melodic phrase in a much more well-proportioned and, well, melodic way, allowing the melody to find its full potential in a full-breathed flowering of song.'

Puccini's waltz melody is actually longer, more complex, and more interesting than the composite tune by Puccini/Loewe/Webber (and someone else perhaps?). The piece of it Webber purloined is also used by Puccini in other contexts.

Perhaps, before Casadesus contrives any more "proofs" of Phantom's blue-ribbon ranking, he should acquaint himself more adequately with the operas to which he compares it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

“Phantom speaks using the combined languages of classical music and pop. Phantom transcends notions of style and speaks a truly cosmopolitan, universal language that everyone can appreciate. Other 20th-century operas are trapped in the polemics of classical music and are doomed to be either old-fashioned or chained to mistaken notions of modernist progress, while Webber knows the truth about music.”

I believe this is essentially true and Phantom filled in the void left by contemporary operas that do not speak in a more universal language. Webber saw an opportunity, jumped in and made billions with a story and music he loved that was inspired by a number of sources. Whatever he took from others I believe he made something of it, including influences from Mozart and Gilbert and Sullivan, and made them as contemporary as part of today. The influence of Brigadoon on Music of the Night is there but only in one two-bar phrase, and he is in a different time signature and it's harmonically different. Still, the influence is undoubtedly there and maybe that’s good for Brigadoon. Whatever Webber did with Phantom turned into a masterpiece and even after more than 30 years it’s still going strong all over the world. He struck an aesthetic nerve, a gold mine in song, pleasure, and entertainment, and it was very well done, partly I believe because of his love of opera. It’s a stupendous success that will probably never be duplicated in the over $5 billion that it’s made since it was first premiered in 1985. Only something with a great universal appeal based on some instinctive understanding of human nature can do that.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Never heard of this Music of the Night. Perhaps I am well of in that.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Wanna have some more fun?
Slide your mouse from 7:25-7:45.
Sound familiar?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> "Phantom speaks using the combined languages of classical music and pop. Phantom transcends notions of style and speaks *a truly cosmopolitan, universal language *that everyone can appreciate. Other 20th-century operas are *trapped in the polemics of classical music* and are doomed to be either old-fashioned or chained to mistaken notions of modernist progress, while Webber knows *the truth about music.*"
> 
> I believe this is essentially true and Phantom filled in the void left by contemporary operas that do not speak in a more universal language. Webber saw an opportunity, jumped in and made billions with a story and music he loved that were inspired by a number of sources. Whatever he took from others I believe he made something of it, including influences from Mozart and Gilbert and Sullivan, and made them as contemporary as part of today. The influence of Brigadoon on Music of the Night is there but only in one two bar phrase, and his is in a different time signature and harmonically different. Still, the influence is undoubtedly there and maybe that's good for Brigadoon. Whatever Webber did turned into a masterpiece and even after more than 30 years it still going strong all over the world. He struck an aesthetic nerve, a gold mine in song, pleasure, and entertainment, and it was very well done, partly I think but because of his love of opera.


The "truth" about music? The "TRUTH"? Is this yet another thread destined to sink into the swamp of ersatz religiosity? Are millionrainbows and St. Josefina lurking somewhere in the wings?

What are "the polemics of classical music"? I've been listening to classical music all my life and have never heard any polemics.

"A universal language?" Another term for that might be "lowest common denominator."

The OP is amusing if we can recognize it as a benign sort of trolling. But it's a little shocking to see someone take it seriously. Or are you pulling our other leg?

_Phantom_ might be effective entertainment, and ALW has an ear for a good tune (wherever he finds it). But jeezoo! Lets not get


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I didn't even find it to be good entertainment. And it wasn't all that well received by the NYC critics. Here's the opening of the New York Times review.

IT may be possible to have a terrible time at ''The Phantom of the Opera,'' but you'll have to work at it. Only a terminal prig would let the avalanche of pre-opening publicity poison his enjoyment of this show, which usually wants nothing more than to shower the audience with fantasy and fun, and which often succeeds, at any price.

It would be equally ludicrous, however - and an invitation to severe disappointment - to let the hype kindle the hope that ''Phantom'' is a credible heir to the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals that haunt both Andrew Lloyd Webber's creative aspirations and the Majestic Theater as persistently as the evening's title character does. What one finds instead is a characteristic Lloyd Webber project - long on pop professionalism and melody, impoverished of artistic personality and passion - that the director Harold Prince, the designer Maria Bjornson and the mesmerizing actor Michael Crawford have elevated quite literally to the roof. ''The Phantom of the Opera'' is as much a victory of dynamic stagecraft over musical kitsch as it is a triumph of merchandising uber alles.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

nina foresti said:


> Wanna have some more fun?
> Slide your mouse from 7:25-7:45.
> Sound familiar?


There are countless such examples.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

howlingfantods said:


> It was a joke, David. My point is that if Casadesus's criteria for what counts as "opera" is that the creator calls it "opera", then Tommy qualifies, and if what determines "greatness" is popularity, then Tommy beats Phantom in popularity and ipso facto is the greatest 20th century opera. I was doing that internet thing of "by your logic, etc".


Sometimes irony is wasted!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Thomyum2 said:


> I don't think it's constructive to compare them - it's really a case of apples and oranges here, like comparing Marvel comic books to Charles Dickens novels - they're just too different for this to be meaningful.


And clearly Marvel is the winner here!


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> And clearly Marvel is the winner here!


Depends on who is the referee.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

GregMitchell said:


> Tuneless?
> 
> Pretty women
> Not while I'm around
> ...


And, of course, this:


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Casadesus said:


> Yes, I believe that Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom of the Opera" (1986) is the greatest opera of the 20th century. Like Meyerbeer before him, who was the undisputed king of the Paris Opéra and was acknowledged in his time as greatest opera composer of the 19th century, Webber is the king of Broadway, which is effectively the modern-day Paris Opéra, the height of large-scale theatrical achievement in Western culture. ...


Welcome, and thank you for saying positive things about Meyerbeer!

The Meyerbeer / Lloyd Webber parallel is intriguing. Lloyd Webber certainly invokes it himself. Phantom opens with an auction of pistols apparently from _Robert le Diable _(artistic licence; _Robert _is set in 11th century Sicily, well before the invention of guns), and Meyerbeer - plus Mozart and Italian opera seria - are pastiched in _Phantom_. (And _Starlight Express_'s roller skates might be a response to the ice skating ballet in _Le Prophète_.)

Certainly, "popular music and sophisticated modern orchestration, melodies familiar the world over, iconic stage images, and the most cutting-edge theatrical presentation of its time" plus a "truly cosmpolitan, universal language" are a good description of Meyerbeer in his day. BUT Meyerbeer was held in much higher esteem by the critics and intellectuals than Lloyd Webber ever was in ours. He was seen as the heir to Beethoven, compared to Michelangelo and Shakespeare, and Goethe wanted him to set _Faust _to music. (See also admiring pieces by Georges Sand, Balzac, Manzini, etc.) Meyerbeer's operas are also simultaneously popular entertainment AND serious treatments of social/political issues (bigotry, intolerance, religious fanaticism, social injustice, demagoguery, colonialism). The hostile views of Schumann and Wagner were a minority position.

By your definition of opera, yes, I suppose one could call _Phantom _one of the most popular operas of the century (certainly the longest-running Broadway musical). Certainly up there with _Tosca _and _Madama Butterfly_ as a 20th century warhorse. I certainly wouldn't call it the best, though. There are some great numbers (Maskerade and Prima Donna, for instance), but - even limiting our choice to musical theatre - I prefer Sondheim, _Fiddler_, and _Chess_. (I must confess, though, I don't know Lloyd Webber's music terribly well.)

I still see _Phantom _as more musical than opera, but it's a fascinating kettle of worms.

Where do you draw the lines between "opera" and "not-opera"?

Wikipedia, for instance, helpfully defines opera as "distinct from musical theatre", while leaving its distinction vague.

Some people say that opera is a) serious and b) largely through-sung, while musical theatre isn't. Does that mean Singspiel (including two important Mozart operas and _Fidelio_) and opera comique (_Carmen_, _Faust_) aren't actually opera? Musicals (they say) contain dance; so do nearly every French opera since Lully.

Do we know it when we see it? After all, is Monteverdi or Vivaldi's understanding of "opera" really the same as Birtwhistle and Glass's? Or do we judge opera by its closeness to 19th-century weepies about well-bosomed young ladies dying of consumption?

Me, I'll just accept that _The Lion King_ is the quintessence of Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk, combining music, drama, dance, visual art, puppetry, masks, like in Greek tragedy. In fact, it's _Parsifal _- ideas of eternal recurrence and reincarnation / the circle of life; a land blighted by a ruler's sin (the Fisher King motif); an innocent (the chosen king) who learns wisdom through suffering...


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm getting confused with all this discussion of what is and what is not an opera. Is this an opera?


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Merl said:


> I'm getting confused with all this discussion of what is and what is not an opera. Is this an opera?


If Placido Flamingo and Herbert Von Cockatoo are in it, it definitely is opera!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I believe that most listeners would associate the Meyerbeer operas with the idea of a _grand_ _spectacle_... you know, elephants and perhaps legends of troops as part of the cast.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that most listeners would associate the Meyerbeer operas with the idea of a _grand_ _spectacle_... you know, elephants and perhaps legends of troops as part of the cast.


Like in Verdi's Aida.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Is Mamma Mia an opera, too?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that most listeners would associate the Meyerbeer operas with the idea of a _grand_ _spectacle_... you know, elephants and perhaps legends of troops as part of the cast.


Perhaps... However _Les Hugenots_ works as an opera of great pathos even in a more modest staging. It's especially relevant considering the political divisions in the west at present.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Like in Verdi's Aida.


Yes, but for the most part Verdi's opera is actually quite intimate, most of its scenes being private and held behind closed doors. It got a reputation for grandeur after being staged in Verona, where thet introduced loads of extras and elephants into the Triumphal Scene. They are not necessary to the work's success.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Dr. Shatterhand said:


> I still see _Phantom _as more musical than opera, but it's a fascinating kettle of worms.
> 
> Where do you draw the lines between "opera" and "not-opera"?
> 
> ...


Personally, I don't think the distinction is terribly important. it's being used here by a fan of _Phantom_ to try and make it seem better than it is. And "musical" is used as an epithet in many reviews of modern operas, especially those in English.

OP claimed that Andrew Lloyd Webber calls _Phantom_ an opera, but offered no references on that. I can't find any either and find that claim dubious; that being said I do think it is important to have some respect for what a composer chooses to call their work (even if I don't give them the final word). Even so we use "opera" as a general term to cover a broad range of works. You mentioned Opera Comique and Singspiel, but there are certainly more in the 400+ year history. It's difficult to get a clear-cut definition that includes everything and excludes other works.

I personally see a spectrum of tendencies rather than any clear cut lines. And perhaps that means that we should not make any such definition, or that people 200 years from now will not care about the distinction in the way that we do.

I include myself in that "we" because though I listen to, see, and love a lot of Broadway-style musicals (along with opera, of course), I do see a distinction, or at least still feel the categorization.

But perhaps the clearest distinction in my head is about how the works are produced, and by what organizations and performers. Those barriers are breaking down, too. I recently attended a local company's production of Sondheim's _A Little Night Music_, and I recognized several names in the cast from their performances with local opera companies. Modern Broadway singers tend to focus on Broadway, but Renée Fleming was in _Carousel_, and I have a DVD of the Los Angeles Opera performance of _Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny_ with Patti LuPone and Audra McDonald. And within opera there are specialists that focus on early-music, or modern works, or Verdi or Wagner. Opera companies are performing musicals, and not just in the USA: while I was in Berlin I missed out on seeing _Anatevka_ (German-language version of _Fiddler on the Roof_) at Komische Oper Berlin because it was sold out. And even beyond _Porgy & Bess_ (the Houston Grand Opera production moved to Broadway in the 70s) _La bohème_ had a successful and award-winning Broadway run in the 90s. They did triple- and double-casting to accomplish this, but double-casting is not uncommon on Broadway (Christine Daaé, Eva Perón, and many works with major roles for children like _Billy Elliot_ come to mind) and there are other places where it happens for every show, even in professional productions.

Maybe I need to retire this distinction as a mental model.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The Conte said:


> Perhaps... However _Les Hugenots_ works as an opera of great pathos even in a more modest staging. It's especially relevant considering the political divisions in the west at present.
> 
> N.


 That's good to know. I'll have to look into that.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The Conte said:


> Perhaps... However _Les Hugenots_ works as an opera of great pathos even in a more modest staging. It's especially relevant considering the political divisions in the west at present.
> 
> N.


I saw it in Budapest a few weeks ago. I enjoyed it very much. It was a pretty modest staging, relying on an assortment of scenic backdrops. With very little to clutter the stage, the singers were able to stand and deliver rather than spending their energy navigating around props. This opera has some very pretty tunes and the orchestration is often delightful.

Back to what makes something an opera, I'll go for a very simple definition that seems to work from performances in the back room of a pub to the Verona Arena - unamplified voices.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Even if you cast Jonas Kaufmann as the Phantom, Angela Georghiou as Christine and Rene Pape as Raoul and had Thielemann and the Vienna Phil it still wouldn't be an opera! 

A fine bit of musical theatre certainly and I have been to see it, so I know whereof I speak, but by no stretch of the imagination is it the greatest opera of the twentieth century. That honour belongs to Die Frau Ohne Schatten!!


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

This whole thing just smacks of recency bias. Give it another 100 years and no one will even be glancing at Phantom as anything more than the schlock it is, and that's coming from someone who at least to some degree has nothing against pop or rock music.

People like what's popular. So what? You'd have to go back to your great-great-great-great-great-great-great(-maybe one or two more more greats depending on your age) to get to when Mozart was composing Magic Flute. OP can't possibly fathom the reception to Phantom in that time. So many popular works have fallen out of the public eye. Time is the ultimate arbiter elegentiae, not the popular opinion du jour.

If you like it, so what? That's great for you. Some people like McDonald's. Some people might prefer McDonald's to a medium rare tenderloin. De gustibus non est disputandum and all. But to see someone actually say that McDonald's serves better quality meat than the best steakhouses this north of Brazil is just laughable and, somewhat similarly to recency bias, smacks of provincialism as well.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

PS: Fiddler on the Roof runs circles around Phantom.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> Back to what makes something an opera, I'll go for a very simple definition that seems to work from performances in the back room of a pub to the Verona Arena - unamplified voices.


Many older musicals were written to be performed without amplification, as that wasn't really a thing. And even today some musicals are performed without amplification, such as at Glimmerglass Festival.

And of course some operas have been written for amplification. The works of John Adams are a clear example, but see also Kaija Saariaho and others that use electrically-modified vocals. And, of course, operatic works can be performed with amplification, such as is done at Bregenz Festival.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe that most listeners would associate the Meyerbeer operas with the idea of a _grand_ _spectacle_... you know, elephants and perhaps legends of troops as part of the cast.


No, you're thinking of Spontini! The tenor enters riding an elephant in _Olympie_, while _Fernand Cortez_ has 17 horses and riders, an armada set on fire, and Aztec and Spanish armies clashing.

There's a joke that a doctor decided to cure his profoundly deaf patient by taking him to see _Cortez_. The doctor's unorthodox treatment succeeded. At the end of the opera, the man could hear - but the doctor, his eardrums battered by hours of sound, had gone utterly deaf.

The joke, of course, is that it was the noisiest, most bombastic thing ever put on a stage up till then: three hours of military marches, choruses on-stage and off-stage, massed bands, with cavalry charges and exploding ships.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

mountmccabe said:


> Many older musicals were written to be performed without amplification, as that wasn't really a thing. And even today some musicals are performed without amplification, such as at Glimmerglass Festival.
> 
> And of course some operas have been written for amplification. The works of John Adams are a clear example, but see also Kaija Saariaho and others that use electrically-modified vocals. And, of course, operatic works can be performed with amplification, such as is done at Bregenz Festival.


I was waiting for a reply like yours , i.e. the exceptions that prove the rule. Interesting to note about Glimmerglass though.

Given the small size of some theatres, I'm surprised that more musical theatres don't try it. I wrote in another thread my disappointment that operetta theatres I'd been to in Berlin Budapest) were amplifying voices, despite performing works in theatre where it shouldn't be necessary. I conclude this is a financial expediency in that the singers can perform on consecutive evenings because they are not overworking their voices.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

The Conte said:


> Perhaps... However _Les Hugenots_ works as an opera of great pathos even in a more modest staging. It's especially relevant considering the political divisions in the west at present.
> 
> N.


Yes, the opera's central message is the dangers of categorical thinking (political, religious, or racial intolerance), and the need to see humans as individuals - a message Meyerbeer returned to throughout his career, from his Italian operas (Christian/Muslim conflict and love in _Crociato in Egitto_) to his swansong _Vasco de Gama_. Meyerbeer, of course, was a Jew living in a gentile society, at once rich, fêted, and an outsider.

The heart of the opera is a Protestant bigot learning that a Catholic woman (everything he detests) is good. "Se peut-il?" Marcel asks wonderingly in the Act III duet; his certainties are shattered. That's besides the famous Act IV love duet; the nocturnal trio in Act V; or the finale where the Catholic fanatic St Bris learns that one of the "Huguenots" he's killed is his daughter. In the Sydney production, St Bris starts to cross himself, then stops in horror.

The political divisions in the West are the main reason why Halévy's _Juive_, too, has been performed more frequently.

To get back to Meyerbeer and pathos... _Le Prophète _(as the Toulouse production revealed) is electrifying; there's the ice skating ballet and the Cathedral scene, of course, but some of the most powerful scenes are the most intimate: Jean forced to choose between his mother and his fiancée; his mother's benediction; Fidès and Berthe reconciled in Act IV, both believing Jean is dead, and trying to comfort each other; or Fidès's "Ô prêtres de Baal".

_Vasco de Gama_ is best known for the shipwreck in Act III and the Indian march in Act IV, but it's a quiet, intimate opera; it opens with two women onstage, not a chorus, and several of the numbers (the Act II and IV finales) fade away.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

GregMitchell said:


> Yes, but for the most part Verdi's opera is actually quite intimate, most of its scenes being private and held behind closed doors. It got a reputation for grandeur after being staged in Verona, where thet introduced loads of extras and elephants into the Triumphal Scene. They are not necessary to the work's success.


Yes, _Aïda_ is very much modelled on grand opéra, which alternated public and private scenes. (The librettists were French.)


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> I was waiting for a reply like yours , i.e. the exceptions that prove the rule. Interesting to note about Glimmerglass though.


Sure, those exceptions test the rule. And the rule is found wanting, or at least, not as clear cut as we might like.

I think performance practices and composer's intentions with regard to amplification are import factors to consider, just like what the composer considers the work, the vocal style, the relative importance of music and text, and so on. That is, I'm not going to stop thinking of _Nixon In China_ or _L'Amour de Loin_ as operas, since they each have many other elements of what we consider an opera. And Glimmerglass performing _Carousel_ or _Sweeney Todd_ sans amplification does not make them operas.



Don Fatale said:


> Given the small size of some theatres, I'm surprised that more musical theatres don't try it. I wrote in another thread my disappointment that operetta theatres I'd been to in Berlin Budapest) were amplifying voices, despite performing works in theatre where it shouldn't be necessary. I conclude this is a financial expediency in that the singers can perform on consecutive evenings because they are not overworking their voices.


I'm going to see _Evita_ tomorrow night in a very small space. The company - a local one - is alternating casts for some of the main roles. I think it could be really great if they could perform it acoustically... but I'm not expecting it.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

mountmccabe said:


> Sure, those exceptions test the rule. And the rule is found wanting, or at least, not as clear cut as we might like.
> 
> I think performance practices and composer's intentions with regard to amplification are import factors to consider, just like what the composer considers the work, the vocal style, the relative importance of music and text, and so on. That is, I'm not going to stop thinking of _Nixon In China_ or _L'Amour de Loin_ as operas, since they each have many other elements of what we consider an opera. And Glimmerglass performing _Carousel_ or _Sweeney Todd_ sans amplification does not make them operas.
> 
> I'm going to see _Evita_ tomorrow night in a very small space. The company - a local one - is alternating casts for some of the main roles. I think it could be really great if they could perform it acoustically... but I'm not expecting it.


It so happens I'm going to see L'Amour de Loin in Czechia next weekend! I'll report back. I saw Nixon in China a couple of years ago in Stockholm. I wasn't aware of vocal manipulation. With or without effects, I didn't enjoy it.

Hope you have a nice evening at Evita! Do let us know how it was.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> I'll report back. I saw Nixon in China a couple of years ago in Stockholm. I wasn't aware of vocal manipulation. With or without effects, I didn't enjoy it.


It may not always be performed with vocal amplification, but that is how John Adams wrote it and how he insisted it be performed when he conducted it at the Met a number of years back. I don't know enough about the copyright situation and/or if that is encouraged/insisted upon for other performances. I could see it in Stuttgart - I've never seen it live, just on video from the Met - but it conflicts with _Tannhäuser_ in München.

I love _Nixon in China_, and seeing that such an opera existed blew my mind and kept me paying attention to opera, many, many years ago.

Enjoy _L'Amour de Loin_! I'm jealous!

And, to be clear, there are vocal modulations/manipulations that are supposed to go on, but they're not supposed to overwhelm the acoustic sounds. It's more about adding texture. But, again, who knows how it will be realized.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I just wanted to say that you can go one way with the major sevenths like Andrew did, and the opposite way (directionality) with the minor 7th chords, which he did sparingly.

I enjoy playing through the Phantom and his others (JC Superstar etc.). He's a great talent for such songs.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Merl said:


> Is Mamma Mia an opera, too?


Well, compare it objectively with Wozzeck.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Merl said:


> Is Mamma Mia an opera, too?


I assume that is meant as a joke.

But actually *Mamma mia* is what has been come to be known as a "juke box musical", and as such is one of the best of its genre and certainly the most successful. A juke box musical is one that uses hit songs, usually composed by or associated with one artist, that have a story and script attached to them. Sometimes, as in the case of *Beautiful* featuring the songs of Carole King, the script is a biography of the singer, and in others, like "Mamma Mia", an original story, which has nothing to do with the songs, will be concocted. They are in fact about as far away from opera as you could get.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> I assume that is meant as a joke.
> 
> But actually *Mamma mia* is what has been come to be known as a "juke box musical", and as such is one of the best of its genre and certainly the most successful. A juke box musical is one that uses hit songs, usually composed by or associated with one artist, that have a story and script attached to them. Sometimes, as in the case of *Beautiful* featuring the songs of Carole King, the script is a biography of the singer, and in others, like "Mamma Mia", an original story, which has nothing to do with the songs, will be concocted. *They are in fact about as far away from opera as you could get.*


Why? They are just a modern version of Ballad Opera of which _The Beggar's Opera_ is the best-known example. Or is Ballad Opera not Opera?

N.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I guess most people will agree that Lloyd Webber's "The Phantom of the Opera" is a piece of musical theater.

This is also the case for, say, "Madama Butterfly".

One is labelled as 'musical', the other labelled as 'opera'. And, most often, they are performed at different kind of venues. 

But, personally, I wouldn't care a lot if we call "The Phantom of the Opera" an 'opera', or not. What is opera, anyway?. Look at the boundaries of the genre, that are being pushed farther and farther from what it was Romantic or Post-Romantic opera. And not only by new pieces, also by pieces from the past.

Vocal technique?. There is plenty of amplified voice in operas from the last 50 years.

The unusual sounds from the orchestra?. Forget about electric guitars, and listen for instance to an opera by Salvatore Sciarrino.

Dialogues?. This was standard practice for Singspiel, Zarzuela,... hundreds of years ago.

Dance?. This was standard practice too, for instance, in French opera from 17th to 19th century.

In the end, is more of a marketing label, than any other thing. Of course, there are people that love opera and also could like Mr. Lloyd Webber's pieces (I myself like a lot "Jesus Christ Superstar"), or vice versa. But many people don't, and that's the reason of keeping 'opera' and 'musical' (and 'operetta') as different genres of musical theatre.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Why? They are just a modern version of Ballad Opera of which _The Beggar's Opera_ is the best-known example. Or is Ballad Opera not Opera?
> 
> N.


Call them what you like. People in the "biz" call them "juke box musicals". My niece even wrote her BMus thesis on them. She got a distinction by the way. Opera they are not.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

If the songs in a musical production are written in the pop song style (short, repeating form, A-B-A for example) is it an opera? I think Webber spoke about getting a little away from the familiar harmonic conventions of pop songs. He did some interesting explorations while remaining 'accessible'. That's not easy.

Is opera a serious art form? Which 'operas' weren't?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Call them what you like. People in the "biz" call them "juke box musicals". My niece even wrote her BMus thesis on them. She got a distinction by the way. Opera they are not.


I'm not suggesting that any of the juke box musicals should be called operas, but just commenting on the fact that they aren't as far away from the world of opera as they seem. The technique of using already existing songs is part of opera's history and actually I think you can tell when the songs weren't originally written to be performed as part of a narrative work. That applies to Mamma Mia as much as it does to The Beggar's Opera.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I'm not suggesting that any of the juke box musicals should be called operas, but just commenting on the fact that they aren't as far away from the world of opera as they seem. The technique of using already existing songs is part of opera's history and actually I think you can tell when the songs weren't originally written to be performed as part of a narrative work. That applies to Mamma Mia as much as it does to The Beggar's Opera.
> 
> N.


There I'd agree with you. I never think of *The Beggars' Opera* as being a real opera, just as I don't Weil's *Der Dreigroschenopera*. Indeed Weil wrote other works that were far closer to opera, such as *Street Scene*.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Slightly off topic, but going back in the thread to the accusation of Sondhiem being tuneless, I went to the undertsudy run of *Follies* this week at the Royal National Theatre (part of the contract for understudies there stipulates that they should get one full run in costume with orchestra in front of an invited audience). As one great song followed another I was reminded about just how tuneful much of Sondheim's music is.

I saw Barbara Cook in concert more than once when she came to these shores. She used to sing quite a bit of Sondheim, and on one of these occasions, I remember her saying after singing one of his gloriously lyric songs, "And they say Sondheim couldn't write melodies!"


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I bought tickets to see _Merrily We Roll Along_ at NYC Center several years back. This was a surprise gift for my wife; I didn't know the musical. As I had a couple months, I grabbed a recording to get familiar with it and listened to it on my own, so as to not give away the surprise.

I found it infectiously catchy and had to stop listening because I kept wanting to hum/sing bits from it, and I didn't want my wife to catch on. I found this hilarious, especially considering the bit in "Opening Doors" where Joe (played by Jason Alexander) rejects Frank & Charley show pitch for not having any melodies:
"Why can't you throw 'em a crumb?
What's wrong with letting 'em tap their toes a bit?
I'll let you know when Stravinsky has a hit ?
Give me some melody!"


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> Hope you have a nice evening at Evita! Do let us know how it was.


The _Evita_ was fun! The theater only held 72 patrons; they did in fact perform without amplification. The small live band was off-stage, except for the pianist/leader who was barely at the end of the stage. There were a total of 13 singers, so a very small chorus, typically supplemented by most anyone in the cast not otherwise involved. The cast was compelling and their singing was well-informed by the text. There were some missed/sour notes, but it was still enjoyable to hear.

This was a concept production; it was staged as happening in a Tango bar in Buenos Aires in 1972, put on by devoted fans, who wanted Juan Perón reinstated as leader of Argentina. This... didn't really do anything, though, other than inform the decor and explain away some small company/low budget limitations. That is they had one set, it was a bar. The cast was milling around on-stage when the show started, and they ended walking off reverently. There really wasn't anything to reconcile the show with this concept - they didn't use the film version of the script that was nicer to Eva, she was not played to be particularly heroic, there was no explanation for the existence of Che - so whatever.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

mountmccabe said:


> I bought tickets to see _Merrily We Roll Along_ at NYC Center several years back. This was a surprise gift for my wife; I didn't know the musical. As I had a couple months, I grabbed a recording to get familiar with it and listened to it on my own, so as to not give away the surprise.
> 
> I found it infectiously catchy and had to stop listening because I kept wanting to hum/sing bits from it, and I didn't want my wife to catch on. I found this hilarious, especially considering the bit in "Opening Doors" where Joe (played by Jason Alexander) rejects Frank & Charley show pitch for not having any melodies:
> "Why can't you throw 'em a crumb?
> ...


Sondhiem as ever a superb lyricist.

I've always loved this show. Apparently some people find it confusing because it plays backwards, but considering we are told before each scene exactly what year we are in, I've never understood why. When the young friends sing _Our Time_ with such optimism and hope for their future, it's absolutely tragic in the light of what we know about how their futures pan out.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Is opera a serious art form? Which 'operas' weren't?


Every opera that isn't German. They're popular entertainment - like Shakespeare.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Dr. Shatterhand said:


> Every opera that isn't German. They're popular entertainment - like Shakespeare.


It's a big subject, but as a musician I look mostly at the music. How the composer uses the music and then embeds the melodies that are sung into that musical accomplishment (the backdrop). It's interesting to learn how Mozart did it - all the way up to Alban Berg. It's all right there in the scores, all the technical details. Where would a non-singer learn this stuff? A lot of collaborating. I think I've read that Mozart was an ok singer. If you look at the songs of Chopin it's very clear that he was fascinated with the human voice (but he couldn't pay the bills with them).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

LUCHESI:
Is opera a serious art form? Which 'operas' weren't?

DR. SHATTERHAND:
Every opera that isn't German. They're popular entertainment - like Shakespeare.


Finally an explanation of why audiences erupt into laughter at the blinding of Gloucester and the death of Cordelia.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I don't care what ALW calls it. It's not an opera, it's a musical. It's all to do with the singing technique. That's the difference. The only parts of the work where there is operatic singing is in the opera scenes within the musical. Furthermore, Sarah Brightman is not an opera singer. Even if it were an opera, it would not be the greatest of the 20th century. Not by a long shot. How can it be when it's most famous melody is lifted from The Girl of the Golden West, almost note-for-note. 

I also wouldn't consider ALW to be a great composer. He is a good one, but not a great one. His music doesn't challenge us, it doesn't make us think, and it does bring anything new to the table. ALW does what he does to make money. Lot's of it. That's it. There's nothing wrong with that, at all, but it is what it is. I would love to have his talent (and his bank account).

I love The Phantom of the Opera. It was the first theater work, of any genre, I had ever heard. I loved it instantly and still love it today. In fact, I think I'm going to listen to it today. In general, I'm a musical theater fan and an ALW fan. I'm also a Sarah Brightman fan. But, it's not opera.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I think Andrew Lloyd Webber is very pretentious if he calls The Phantom of the opera an opera. It is a musical and not a very inspired one at that . I wouldn't even put it as good as the old film with Claude Rains, which at least had some decent tunes in it. Of course the greatest 20th century music is West side story but the length of the street. But it doesn't purport to be anything else but a musical


I agree. As much as I love _POTO_ (it's a good listen and one of the musicals I listen to most) the plot is very thin and very basic. Not much really even happens from a character development perspective or a plot perspective. I also don't have an emotional connection to any of the characters. None of them are either likable or hate-able. I'm not left with a happy feeling at the end that Raoul and Christine are together - I just don't care.

ALW has never really been good at this. When you look at shows like _Les Miserables_, _Miss Saigon_, _Sweeney Todd_ and _Hamilton_ (three titans of the megamusical genre) the qualities _POTO_ lacks in comparison are glaring. In _Les Miz_, most of audience weeps when Fantine dies. That's pretty remarkable considering how long she's actually in the show. We also feel the deepest empathy for the three love triangle players (Marius, Cosette and Eponine). We don't want Eponine to win or lose, we don't want Cosette to win or lose, we're torn. We love them both. We love Valjean. We feel empathy even for Javert. We love the Thenardier's, even though they are scoundrels of the utmost level. We care about all the characters. In _Miss Saigon_ we feel for both Kim and Ellen. We love the Engineer, even though he's a big scumbag. In _Sweeney_ the audience is in hysterics over murder. It's brilliant, and it's hilarious. We also connect with the characters. In _Hamilton_ we empathize with Alexander even though he cheated on Liza. "It's Quiet Uptown" in _Hamilton_ is better than anything ALW has ever written, for the sheer emotional impact it has on its audience. We care for Burr and understand and empathize with his plight. The inclusion of King George III was absolutely brilliant to inject some humor into the show, even though there were many humorous parts. It's a show with good character development. It sucks us in from the first number and never lets us go. I think it is the greatest stage show I have ever seen, and I'm not a fan of R&B and Rap. And, that's another point. I almost didn't give _Hamilton_ a chance because of it's musical genre. I am so glad I did, because through it I learned that great music and great theater transcends genre. That, to me, is most remarkable.

_Les Miserables_, _Miss Saigon_, _Sweeney Todd_ and _Hamilton_ are examples of great musical theater. Musical theater attained at the highest level. _The Phantom of the Opera_, in comparison, is mediocre musical theater (at best), even though I absolutely love it. I take it for what it is and enjoy it. But if we are talking about "great" _POTO_ doesn't belong in that conversation.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Opera or musical? What matters is not what it's called, but what it is. Is it great theater? Is it great music? If we want to call it an opera, is its music good enough to rank it with the best operas of the 20th century, those of Puccini, Giordano, Cilea, Alfano, Dvorak, Janacek, Charpentier, Debussy, Ravel, Bartok, Szymanowski, Enescu, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Strauss, Berg, Korngold, Stravinsky, Britten? The OP claims not only that it belongs in that company, but surpasses them all: surpasses Madama Butterfly, Turandot, Rusalka, Jenufa, Louise, Pelleas et Melisande, Bluebeard's Castle, King Roger, Oedipe, War and Peace, Katya Kabanova, Elektra, Rosenkavalier, Wozzeck, The Rake's Progress, Peter Grimes, etc., etc.
> 
> Is _The Phantom of the Opera_ a profound work by a great composer, capable, like some of the operas listed, of opening up new pathways in our minds? Or is it a cleverly concocted commercial product, glitzy, sentimental, and essentially shallow?


This sums this topic up for me. Call it what you like, but if you claim it is an opera then I don't think the claim that it ranks higher than the above operas in Woodduck's list stands up. I wouldn't even claim it as the greatest _musical_ of the 20th century (that would be _Les Miserables_). That said, I think _Phantom_ is a great musical. Why is Christine so fascinated by the Phantom? Does she see him as a father figure and is that why he provides something that Raoul can't give her. Then there are the clever musical pastiches of Mozart and Meyerbeer. It's an excellent piece of musical theatre and doesn't have to be the "greatest" anything.

N.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I wouldn't even claim it as the greatest _musical_ of the 20th century (that would be _Les Miserables_.


Even though _Les Miserables_ is my favorite 20th century musical, _Sweeney Todd_ is the greatest musical of the 20th Century, hands down.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

gellio said:


> Even though _Les Miserables_ is my favorite 20th century musical, _Sweeney Todd_ is the greatest musical of the 20th Century, hands down.


I have only seen Sweeney Todd once and it struck me as being as a friend described West Side Story, full of some good numbers combined with dull ballads. Ironically I disagree with my friend's appraisal of Bernstein's classic, if anything it is noteworthy because the standard of the ballads is so high. Perhaps I need to listen to Sweeney Todd again.

Now I mention it, perhaps West Side Story trumps Les Mis!

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> I have only seen Sweeney Todd once and it struck me as being as a friend described West Side Story, full of some good numbers combined with dull ballads. Ironically I disagree with my friend's appraisal of Bernstein's classic, if anything it is noteworthy because the standard of the ballads is so high. Perhaps I need to listen to Sweeney Todd again.
> 
> Now I mention it, perhaps West Side Story trumps Les Mis!
> 
> N.


Both West Side Story and Sweeney Todd trump Les Mis for me. I know I'm in a minority but I find Les Mis turgid and over-sentimental. I do not want to ever see it again.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I would put Mary Poppins far above Phantom of the Opera


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I would put Mary Poppins far above Phantom of the Opera


Well, she had a flying umbrella and he lived in the sewers.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Well, she had a flying umbrella and he lived in the sewers.


Although, to be fair, she didn't have a pension plan, whereas with an opera house and an underground lake who needs an organised retirement?

N.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Well, she had a flying umbrella and he lived in the sewers.


I'd rather be up than down. Of course a guy I really like, *Ed Norton*, loved being in sewers.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

gellio said:


> Even though _Les Miserables_ is my favorite 20th century musical, _Sweeney Todd_ is the greatest musical of the 20th Century, hands down.


If the test is the integration of music, lyrics, dance and book my choice for greatest musical would be Gypsy.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Good thread - glad you started this.

I love great musicals almost as much as I love great operas. My first great musical experience was Joseph - when I was 12 y/o. To say that it blew me away was an understatement. 

So yes Lloyd-Webber is quite a talent in this genre. 

Let's draw a line though. No it's not opera - as others have highlighted - Michael Crawford is an amazing performer - but he is no opera singer - and his part requires a mic. Any indoor vocal piece that requires amplification is not opera.

That said - there is some really stirring music in the work - but comparing the music with the likes of Puccini, Turandot for example - an opera that really does scale artistic heights - is foolish talk.

Not sure what else to say so i will go and read some more comments on this thread


----------

