# "Numbers" vs."Through-composed" Opera



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I was looking through some old threads and came upon a discussion of Mozart's operas. Someone opined that he found them "undramatic," whereupon someone else pointed out the rape, murder and other mayhem in _Don Giovanni_ as disproving his point. The first poster then indicated the "recitative-aria-recitative-aria" construction in Baroque and Classical opera as problematic for him. I have to admit that this "numbers" approach to setting a stage play to music - as opposed to a continuous vocal/orchestral texture expressing the drama - can, at times, create in me a similar feeling; nearly all my favorite operas are more or less "through-composed," and those that are not (e.g. _Fidelio_ and _Der_ _Freischutz_) utilize spoken dialogue between the arias and through-composed passages. I think I've felt this relative distaste for recitative and "stand and deliver" arias for most of my life, even though I accept the convention as the only way to experience certain great music in the theater. At home, though, I find much recitative utterly dreary (that includes yours, George Frideric and Wolfgang Amadeus!) and prefer to hear Baroque and Classical period works in excerpt form.

Any other recitatiphobes out there? What do you think about the development of "through-composed" opera? Did it make opera more dramatic? More satisfying to you? And how do you see modern productions dealing successfully - or not - with older styles of musical theater?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I'll join the club. 
I pretty much hate them. I can take maybe a minute or less between some numbers.
It's so dry and boring. Especially in Baroque operas where it puts me off to where I don't listen to them much.
The Mozart's as well. I love to listen sans recitative to them.
Rossini too.
Once you know the story who wants to listen to that dry, boring talking. ughh


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I'll join the club.
> I pretty much hate them. I can take maybe a minute or less between some numbers.
> It's so dry and boring. Especially in Baroque operas where it puts me off to where I don't listen to them much.
> The Mozart's as well. I love to listen sans recitative to them.
> ...


A man who doesn't mince words.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

It doesn't bother me a bit, most of the time. The airoso recitatives in Monteverdi, for example, have melodies and word-painting that are superior imo to many later fully orchestrated, through-composed arias. The dramatic coherence (a favorite phrase of mine by now) of Handel's Ariodante, for just one example, flows evenly through the recitatives into the arias, choral numbers and ensembles. With other Baroque composers like Vivaldi and company, recitatives can be a problem, but in the digital era it's easy to skip through them. I find it easier to do that than to wait out the boring passages in through-composed operas. I don't see much difference between some recitatives and, for example, the endless musings about his mother's identity by the eponymous hero of Wagner's Siegfried, which doesn't bother me either. Some discursive stretches in between allow us to digest the music that stands out, if done right.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I seem to recall someone expressing the opinion that recitative reached its expressive zenith with Monteverdi's arioso writing. I might just have to agree. "Arioso" occupies a flexible middle ground in a continuum, with full "aria" at one extreme, and "secco" recitative at the other. It's generally toward the "secco" end that boredom sets in for me, but, as you point out, through-composed opera isn't always gripping either.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

With thru composed at least I have a great voice and some interesting orchestral passages to keep my interest
rather than talking. ugh


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

And there are recitatives in through-composed works that masquerade as an arioso or as the opening of the aria itself, even in verismo. "_Si puo? Si puo? Signore, signori..._" Or Santuzza's "_Voi lo sapete o mamma_." I find the use of recitatives by Monteverdi, Handel and Mozart to be fluid enough to be effective or at least unobtrusive. That, I agree, cannot be said of all; but I prefer it to a lot of atonal music in modern opera, which is sometimes dialogue badly disguised as vocal music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Itullian said:


> With thru composed at least I have a great voice and some interesting orchestral passages to keep my interest
> rather than talking. ugh


How about spoken dialogue, as in operas in the _singspiel_ tradition or _opera comique_? I actually prefer it to that secco ("dry") stuff that's neither speech nor song, and wish Mozart had used it in operas besides _Zauberflote_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> And there are recitatives in through-composed works that masquerade as an arioso or as the opening of the aria itself, even in verismo. "_Si puo? Si puo? Signore, signori..._" Or Santuzza's "_Voi lo sapete o mamma_." I find the use of recitatives by Monteverdi, Handel and Mozart to be fluid enough to be effective or at least unobtrusive. That, I agree, cannot be said of all; but I prefer it to a lot of atonal music in modern opera, which is sometimes dialogue badly disguised as vocal music.


I just watched Britten's _Owen Wingrave_ and found much of the vocal writing rather inane. It was my exact feeling that the work should have been composed as melodrama, with spoken dialogue and orchestral commentary. The plainest recitative in 18th-century opera is preferable to such ugliness.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I just watched Britten's _Owen Wingrave_ and found most of the vocal writing rather inane. It was my exact feeling that the work should have been composed as melodrama, with spoken dialogue and orchestral commentary. The plainest recitative in 18th-century opera is preferable to such ugliness.


A matter of opinion.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I like recitatives - when the singers can act them out.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Itullian said:


> Once you know the story who wants to listen to that dry, boring talking. ughh


I'm with you here, there's no reason why we shouldn't skip through half of _Der Ring_ and thus avoid it.

Through-composed operas being more true and dramatic is the major fallacy of XIXth century composers (and theorists), especially because most of them aren't really devoid of the number aspect. Even with Wagner you can often distinguish numbers and the in-between fragments which are nothing much different than accompanied recitatives. If you say "Isolde's final aria",for example, everybody will know you mean fragment from "mild und leise" onwards.

So, just smash the harpsichord and I won't mind.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

The first operas I ever heard complete were IL BARBIERE DI SIVIGLIA and LA CENERENTOLA, which are of course "numbers" operas with harpsichord (or fortepiano)-accompanied recitatives. Then I heard RIGOLETTO and LA TRAVIATA, with their orchestral recitatives; it wasn't until a bit later that I got to know truly through-composed operas like TOSCA and OTELLO. As a "straight theatre" person I can say without hesitation that it was the _secco_ recitatives that helped make those first two operas seem so accessible to me: they were not unlike spoken dialogue in a play. I personally like all of the different recitative styles, as well as the through-composed style; it would be boring if operas were all composed in the same manner. The only thing I'd add is that in live performance the _secco_ recitatives should not drag (you could say the same thing for dialogue in a play, actually).


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Aramis said:


> I'm with you here, there's no reason why we shouldn't skip through half of _Der Ring_ and thus avoid it.
> 
> Through-composed operas being more true and dramatic is the major fallacy of XIXth century composers (and theorists), especially because most of them aren't really devoid of the number aspect. Even with Wagner you can often distinguish numbers and the in-between fragments which are nothing much different than accompanied recitatives. If you say "Isolde's final aria",for example, everybody will know you mean fragment from "mild und leise" onwards.
> 
> So, just smash the harpsichord and I won't mind.


To this I'd like to add a quote from Stanley Sadie in the book "Verdi and His Operas." About OTELLO he writes: "...for the most part the opera strives for a different, more fluid type of musical drama: one that is closer to prose drama in its willingness to admit a swift succession of emotional attitudes during a series of dramatic confrontations. *Of course, no value judgments should be attached to this greater fluidity...there is nothing intrinsically superior about an opera that approaches the rhythms of the spoken theatre."*

A listener is certainly free to prefer through-composed to "numbers" opera. Yet I'm always suspicious of statements like, "This number just slows down the action, so it should be cut." I once read where a stage director wanted to delete "Caro nome" from RIGOLETTO because it "slows down the action." But wait -- isn't "Caro nome" _a part of the action_?! Like Aramis suggests, cutting the very substance of the opera so that the opera moves faster is not the way to make it more dramatically effective!


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

I never got the idea of cutting parts of the opera to make it "better". Yeah, let's cut "Mild und Leise", because the opera would be over 8 minutes sooner. That makes the drama more effective, right? In fact, why don't we cut the prelude? We have to wait 10 minutes for the action to start. That's boring. And how about we cut most of the love duet- we get it, they're in love. You know, let's just cut the whole thing. That's the most effective drama I've ever seen.

I love both styles. Both of them often result in some less than stellar material in between the hits.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

@ Woodduck



Woodduck said:


> I seem to recall someone expressing the opinion that recitative reached its expressive zenith with Monteverdi's arioso writing.




Yes... And here are the words of Joseph Kerman:



> Monteverdi was not a master of recitative who went to Alessandro Striggio for a libretto to incorporate this special strength. Striggio, let us say, brought him the book; and in setting it Monteverdi discovered recitative -- he did not invent it, but in the deepest sense he certainly discovered it. From then on recitative was his greatest achievement. It forms the basis for _"Orfeo"_, and it completely dominates and determines his masterpiece of 35 years later, _"The Coronation of Poppea"_
> 
> Recitative is one of the fundamental, constant elements of operatic dramaturgy. But actually it already began to decay into convention with Monteverdi's pupils, and in spite of impressive renewals in later centuries, it has never been used again with Monteverdi's *confidence, imagination and conviction*... As a result, it is hard for us today to think of recitative as anything but second best, a necessary link between arias.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xavier said:


> @ Woodduck
> 
> [/font][/size]
> 
> ...


Thank you. I read Kerman about 35 years ago and wouldn't be surprised if I was unconsciously referring to this quote. In any case I'm in basic agreement with it.


----------



## BaronScarpia (Apr 2, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I seem to recall someone expressing the opinion that recitative reached its expressive zenith with Monteverdi's arioso writing. I might just have to agree. "Arioso" occupies a flexible middle ground in a continuum, with full "aria" at one extreme, and "secco" recitative at the other. It's generally toward the "secco" end that boredom sets in for me, but, as you point out, through-composed opera isn't always gripping either.


I think Puccini achieved that same wonderful arioso style. He and Monteverdi wrote very differently, of course, but both wrote evocative and mellifluous lines which were rarely _over_-melodic. I like Rossini but he is just far too predictable!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> How about spoken dialogue, as in operas in the _singspiel_ tradition or _opera comique_? I actually prefer it to that secco ("dry") stuff that's neither speech nor song, and wish Mozart had used it in operas besides _Zauberflote_.


The alternation of talking and singing, whether in a singspiel, opera comique, West-end or Broadway musical just annoys the hell out of me.

It so strips my gears that no matter how non-intrusive or non-disruptive, it completely breaks _my_ flow of being able to stay in the libretto. Personal tic.

Sung is sung, even if it is secco recitative, and I think the secco recitative also has its place in contrasting the dramatic / comic which really wants to be sung and 'the rest of the story,' and better keeps the flow and varies the 'dramatic' tempo of the overall theater piece.

So much of this is truly contextual: composer, libretto, the relative length of any of these elements in ratio to running time, 'pacing,' and how effectively any and all the many elements which are opera are deployed. Better, I think, to discuss on a case-by-case basis -- and there, I am not so opera literate, but advocate that mode vs. a generality.


----------



## JohnGerald (Jul 6, 2014)

I am not much for secco recits, mainly because I dislike the sound of the harpsichord as much as fingernails on the blackboard. But the mid era bel canto composers, using the orchestra, produced some lovely recits. So did Verdi, to the extent that one anticipates an aria. Absent the recits, in general, the drama gets out of synch.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Aramis said:


> Through-composed operas being more true and dramatic is the major fallacy of XIXth century composers (and theorists), especially because most of them aren't really devoid of the number aspect. Even with Wagner you can often distinguish numbers and the in-between fragments which are nothing much different than accompanied recitatives. If you say "Isolde's final aria",for example, everybody will know you mean fragment from "mild und leise" onwards.


I find accompanied recitatives more musically and dramatically interesting than secco recitatives, and the Wagnerian version of "accompanied recitative" more so than most of what came before. One can acknowledge historical indebtedness and continuity while still celebrating significant developments.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

JohnGerald said:


> I am not much for secco recits, mainly because I dislike the sound of the harpsichord as much as fingernails on the blackboard. But the mid era bel canto composers, using the orchestra, produced some lovely recits. So did Verdi, to the extent that one anticipates an aria. Absent the recits, in general, the drama gets out of synch.


I think secco recitatives are so awful that I can´t listen to the operas that contain them at all. It is not only the harpsichord that is boring also the melody that always sounds the same and somehow like the singers are making up the melody as they sing. I consider leaving the secco recitatives as the greatest achievement in opera history.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Sloe said:


> also the melody that always sounds the same and somehow like the singers are making up the melody as they sing.


It's because they're actually speaking... in a supported way, but still speaking.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I like opera from both camps, 95% of my opera enjoyment is purely musical. From the side of through-composed I like Strauss a good deal more than Wagner (sorry, the voices are smoother for me), though I can listen to chunks of Wagner and enjoy it. On the "numbers" side, I have no problem cutting down on excessive recitatives. I usually leave a few that are pleasing to the ear, but trim down on my iPod so I've a more concise yet still musically intact opera. On this side, Mozart, Puccini, etc.


----------

