# Was Opera Ever A Truly Popular Art Form?



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

A review of the new book *A History of Opera, The Last 400 Years* by Roger Parker and Carolyn Abbate:

_"One of the book's main aims beyond the history is to get to the bottom of why opera commands such fanatical devotion in spite of the fact that so much of it is, according to the authors, formulaic, patently unrealistic, often poorly versified, frequently convoluted in plot and, in parts, undeniably boring"_

[.....]

_"There are few major revisions to the pantheon. The list of unassailables is familiar: Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, Wagner and Strauss. One exception is a fascinating reassessment of bel canto, particularly of Bellini, who is recast as a revolutionary figure"_

[.....]

_"There is also some mischievous revisionism of revisionism. Cold water is poured on the idea that opera was ever a truly popular art form"_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...y-Carolyn-Abbate-and-Roger-Parker-review.html


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

Before giving any answer, you would have to define what a "Popular Art Form" is.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Dongiovanni said:


> Before giving any answer, you would have to define what a "Popular Art Form" is.


karaoke?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Most grandmas would like going to see Carmen. They probably wouldn't like Parsifal. 

If most grandma's would enjoy it, it's popular. If not, etc. That's my yardstick--not that everything popular is therefore bad.

The typical opera was written by a hack who knew how to construct a sensual plot to appeal to the greatest number, and composed by a tuneful fellow who knew what women would find easy to hum on their way out of the theater; it was a money making operation. We could all do without those operas, but it's mostly harmless.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Two more reviews by Ivan Hewitt (Daily Telegraph) and Stuart Kelly (The Scotsman):

_"The message of the book, by the end, is a gloomy one: opera's glory days are over; all that's left to us is an ever-more sophisticated recycling of the great operas of the past. Thus the book's title: A History of Opera: the Last Four Hundred Years"_

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...he-seductive-power-of-song.html#disqus_thread

_"I hope others realise the extent to which the operatic has been a touchstone for our griefs, our needs, our joys and our aspirations. Devotees might want to stroke their beards over how their precious-isation of opera has cut it off from its natural audience: that is, anyone with ears and eyes and a gasping mouth and a soul"_

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/b...history-of-opera-the-last-400-years-1-2589477


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Popular as in 'populist?' Popular as in The Beatles, or name your pop group or pop singer popular?

No, Never.

If you think about it one moment, what it is, the venue, the conventions, the costs of producing one (even way back when), the question 'was it ever popular' would not even cross your mind.

It is quite similar, question and answer, about 'classical music.'


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2012)

*Was Opera Ever A Truly Popular Art Form?*

Apparently not, if, by popular, we mean, appealing to a mass audience. What else could 'popular' mean, given its derivation?

*Origin:*

late Middle English (in the sense 'prevalent among the general public'): from Latin _popularis_, from _populus_ 'people'.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/popular?q=popular


*1 *liked or admired by many people or by a particular person or group:_she was one of the most popular girls in the school__these cheeses are very popular in Europe_

*2*_ [attributive]_ (of cultural activities or products) intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists or intellectuals:

If we take the first of Oxford's meanings, it could be regarded as 'popular' - but in having to define the group within which it is popular (say, those who appreciate classical music) this is likely to make it too specialist.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Popular as in 'populist?' Popular as in The Beatles, or name your pop group or pop singer popular?
> 
> No, Never.
> 
> ...


My omnivorous and non-specialized reading has left me with the impression that in Italy a premier of a well-received Romantic opera was followed by the dissemination of its arias throughout the city and then the region, on the lips of the populace. Popular, I'd say.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

I think the essential question here implied by the word 'popular' is whether operas ever pandered to the lowest common denominator for commercial gain; and the answer is certainly yes, they did.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> My omnivorous and non-specialized reading has left me with the impression that in Italy a premier of a well-received Romantic opera was followed by the dissemination of its arias throughout the city and then the region, on the lips of the populace. Popular, I'd say.


But that's not opera. Those arias are *songs*. Five minute songs. Everybody loves five minute songs.

The real test is whether or not the populace eventually comes to *venerate* _Pelleas et Melisande, Falstaff, Elektra, Moses and Aron_ and all of the mature works of Wagner.

And this is just the start.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Xavier said:


> The real test is whether or not the populace eventually comes to *venerate* _Pelleas et Melisande, Falstaff, Elektra, Moses and Aron_ and all of the mature works of Wagner.


Veneration would be difficult to quantify, I would think.

If you want to know whether opera was ever 'popular', I guess your best bet would be to find some data regarding what proportion of people who had the money and leisure time to do so regularly went to operas throughout the ages. Do any such data exist?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Any kind of city or town based entertainment would necessarily exclude the great majority of people who were still rural. The average man in the 17th to late 19th Century was a manual laborer without access to such things.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Logos said:


> Any kind of city or town based entertainment would necessarily exclude the great majority of people who were still rural. The average man in the 17th to late 19th Century was a manual laborer without access to such things.


You will be surprised, when you get in touch with the real people who comprise 'the average man', how much they knew about opera. Take for example the parents of Giuseppe Verdi, or the parents of Bedřich Smetana... They were certainly not rich and did not live in a city with an operahouse. But young Giuseppe and young Bedřich got their taste for opera at a young age. Perhaps it was the local organist or the local priest who learned children singing in the church choir. Often such people were able to open the minds of 'the average man' for true beauty.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Oh I don't doubt they knew of it, I just find it hard to believe that many rural people enjoyed full performances first-hand, in which case they would have familiarity only with the songs.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Xavier said:


> But that's not opera. Those arias are *songs*. Five minute songs. Everybody loves five minute songs.
> 
> The real test is whether or not the populace eventually comes to *venerate* _Pelleas et Melisande, Falstaff, Elektra, Moses and Aron_ and all of the mature works of Wagner.
> 
> And this is just the start.


What?!?! The populace will NEVER come to venerate Pelleas et Melisande or the mature works of Wagner! Who are we kidding?

I personally love Proust, yet realize I will always be in the minority. Why are we establishing such a high standard for the populace that they will venerate serious opera? It won't happen.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> But that's not opera. Those arias are songs. Five minute songs. Everybody loves five minute songs.
> 
> The real test is whether or not the populace eventually comes to venerate Pelleas et Melisande, Falstaff, Elektra, Moses and Aron and all of the mature works of Wagner.
> 
> And this is just the start.





tyroneslothrop said:


> What?!?! The populace will NEVER come to venerate Pelleas et Melisande or the mature works of Wagner! Who are we kidding?
> 
> I personally love Proust, yet realize I will always be in the minority. Why are we establishing such a high standard for the populace that they will venerate serious opera? It won't happen.


You're so refined. I admire you, flowers of humanity.


----------



## obwan (Oct 24, 2011)

One story about I remember hearing about how Opera did very quickly infact rise to be a very highly popular art-form, if not the italian/european pass time of its day (akin to Football etc):

You all know the story about the whats-it-called of florence who invented opera. At the very end of the renasaince, a group of intellectuals with too much time on their hands got together and fantacized about what greek drama was like back in the glory days of ancient greece. Some1 some where found a transcript of a long lost greek drama, and it contained a reference to a song or to or a lute, or lyre or something of that nature, and these people got carried away and started assuming (based on this very flimsy evidence) that early greek drama was entirely sung. Being at the end of the renasaince they had to do something about this new discovery. so they set out to recreate greek drama, and opera was born. This is one major reason why Orfeo & eurodice have, along with many other greek legends and histories been set countless times by composers. 

In the early days Opera was very high-brow. But these early composers knew they had a hit on their hands, combining 2 of the most popular art forms of the day music & drama. But they needed something to draw in a bigger crowd. So they started producing operas in public parks, at picknics, offering both free food and tickets. This led to both the sherbert aria and, I wouldn't be surprised the pop cultural legend of throwing rotten tomatoes at bad performances in lieu of booing. In a relatively very short period of time, opera went from being an idea, to the most popular art form in italy.


edit.S. Oh I get the double entendre of the title... lol. Yes, this probably is going to be the LAST 400 years of opera  Though i don't agree with the premise of the book that opera was never truly popular.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Aramis said:


> You're so refined. I admire you, flowers of humanity.


There you go, shooting the messenger. Opera will never be a popular entertainment in the 21st century. But this was not the question--as I understood it, the question was, was opera ever a popular entertainment? I'm not sure I would agree with Abbate & Parker on that score. At one time, I think it certainly was popular enough for those who could afford to go.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Aramis said:


> You're so refined. I admire you, flowers of humanity.


I hate to depress fellow opera-fans, but let's look at the numbers. Courtesy of operabase.com, we see that the country with the highest per capita number of operas is Austria with 171 opera performances per 1,000,000 per year. If we make the mad assumptions that each performance has 500 attendees and that these attendees are unique and not the same people who attend different performances, that is 85.5k people out of 1m or 8.55% of the populace sees an opera in any given year. Now if we consider that the reality is that real opera fans see many performances per year (for example, I expect to see around 25 live opera performances this year), then this 8.55% number is probably way higher than it is in reality.

Worse, consider the US. 6 performances per 1m, or 0.3% of the populace sees an opera every year.

I'd say even in Austria, these are steep odds to overcome in making opera a "popular" entertainment. In America, the 0.3% has to make opera one of the least popular of entertainments.

Again, I don't speak of the worth of opera as a cultural entertainment, only about its appeal to the "populace".


----------



## obwan (Oct 24, 2011)

Read my above post. Opera was free. Yes it was hugely popular. It was even popular for those WHO couldn't affort it.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

obwan said:


> Read my above post. Opera was free. Yes it was hugely popular. It was even popular for those WHO couldn't affort it.


Then you disagree with Abbate & Parker, as do I. But, I'd like to see a reference to opera being free. Opera performances have been free, but my understanding is that La Scala (as an example), was never free.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

It's too misleading to use the same word "opera" to describe both the trashy nonsense and Wagner's music dramas, or other works on a different artistic plane. These are not really of the same species.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Logos said:


> It's too misleading to use the same word "opera" to describe both the trashy nonsense and Wagner's music dramas, or other works on a different artistic plane. These are not really of the same species.


Grove defines opera as, "a drama in which the actors and actresses sing some or all of their parts." If you want to classify works on another plane, then you'll have to come up with your own term as the word "opera" is already taken.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

tyroneslothrop said:


> Grove defines opera as, "a drama in which the actors and actresses sing some or all of their parts." If you want to classify works on another plane, then you'll have to come up with your own term as the word "opera" is already taken.


Wagner already did--music dramas.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

tyroneslothrop said:


> I hate to depress fellow opera-fans, but let's look at the numbers. Courtesy of operabase.com, we see that the country with the highest per capita number of operas is Austria with 171 opera performances per 1,000,000 per year. If we make the mad assumptions that each performance has 500 attendees and that these attendees are unique and not the same people who attend different performances, that is 85.5k people out of 1m or 8.55% of the populace sees an opera in any given year. Now if we consider that the reality is that real opera fans see many performances per year (for example, I expect to see around 25 live opera performances this year), then this 8.55% number is probably way higher than it is in reality.
> 
> Worse, consider the US. 6 performances per 1m, or 0.3% of the populace sees an opera every year.
> 
> ...


200 years ago there were no opera houses in America.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

tyroneslothrop said:


> I hate to depress fellow opera-fans, but let's look at the numbers. Courtesy of operabase.com, we see that the country with the highest per capita number of operas is Austria with 171 opera performances per 1,000,000 per year. If we make the mad assumptions that each performance has 500 attendees and that these attendees are unique and not the same people who attend different performances, that is 85.5k people out of 1m or 8.55% of the populace sees an opera in any given year. Now if we consider that the reality is that real opera fans see many performances per year (for example, I expect to see around 25 live opera performances this year), then this 8.55% number is probably way higher than it is in reality.
> 
> Worse, consider the US. 6 performances per 1m, or 0.3% of the populace sees an opera every year.
> 
> ...


I don't think that in itself proves much. Al Jolson is listened to by an even smaller portion of the population at present, but his music is still popular entertainment. The simple fact that certain popular entertainment goes out of fashion simply makes it forgotten or ignored popular entertainment.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Logos said:


> I don't think that in itself proves much. Al Jolson is listened to by an even smaller portion of the population at present, but his music is still popular entertainment. The simple fact that certain popular entertainment goes out of fashion simply makes it forgotten or unregarded popular entertainment.


That's my point. Is opera a forgotten popular entertainment? Or as Abbate & Parker claim, has it never been a popular entertainment at all?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

It was popular enough for the likes of Verdi, Puccini, R. Strauss, Meyerbeer and Rossini to live comfortably off writing them. Wagner could have been in that group too, but he was always saddled with debt. Opera back then also connected with broader issues. Eg. Verdi's links with the risorgimento movment to unify & give independence to Italy. Similar things can be said about Wagner, at least to some extent.

Today, opera is now more or less a museum piece, and new operas have to be funded by some government grant. The money making areas are musicals, and of course this is not new. Gershwin, Rodgers & Hammerstein, Lerner & Loewe, Bernstein and so on did great examples of that earlier. But I think even the 'golden days' of Broadway are over, maybe Lloyd Webber was the peak of the 'golden age' of musicals (well, long running ones anyway). Dunno what the future holds.

So opera went from being for aristocracy and private performances in the courts to opera houses where (if you had the money & connections) you could just pay to go. The 19th century and early 20th century was the peak of opera. Bernstein's _West Side Story,_ which can be done as a musical or an opera, is for me the work which kind of defines many trends in the 20th century. From incorporating Latin rhythms, to jazz, to 12-tone in the 'Cool Fugue,' to modernising the _Romeo and Juliet_ story to modern times - taking in things like the migrant experience, juvenile delinquency, urban ghettos and so on. So its an important work of its time and popular. Much like the operas before it.

Of 20th century composers, only R. Strauss and PUccini have three operas in the repertoire (regularly performed world wide). I also see them as the peak of opera which was for a broader audience than it is today (& I'm being fairly objective, I don't like R. Strauss' music that much honestly). Boulez (I think?) also called Berg's _Wozzeck_ of that same early 20th century period to be the last great (or 'romantic?') opera. My memory is hazy about which. But the fact is that with Boulez's call to burn the opera houses after 1945, you see how people saw it as a symbol of the last remnants of the old order. I don't agree with doing that, and in any case old Pierre has gone into conducting opera decades ago, so reversing that extreme ideology. & I say that's good (he premiered the completion of Berg's _Lulu_ in the 1970's, which was one of the few operas premiered after 1945 to make people excited).

Still, opera has a place in the classical music world overall, but most people like instrumental over vocal music. Which is the reverse of pop, rock, and maybe jazz, where most people prefer music with vocals. Some opera composers have made an impact though (eg. Philip Glass, and also Australian Brett Dean with _Bliss_) but they write in many other genres. To my knowledge, there isn't an 'opera only' (or mainly) composer like Wagner, or Verdi, or Puccini around any more. Even the popular composers like Glass have to work in a variety of genres to make money. John Adams has compared himself to R.Strauss though. ADams said his main passion is opera, anything else he composes is basically just to fill in time between opera projects.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

"Wagner could have been in that group too, but he was always saddled with debt."

Wagner's operas were considered too impractical and "lofty in tone", especially from Lohengrin on. It was practically impossible for him to find adequately sized orchestras willing to perform even the earlier works according to his standards. Not to mention that outside of the biggest opera houses, composers got no royalties for repeated performances. Wagner could have been in that group if he had some frilly French nonsense for housewives. His debt mainly came from being under performed and vastly underpaid, rather than his overspending. Certain singers were paid _3 or 4 times more for a single performance_ than Wagner was paid for the right of performing the opera at all. On top of which, he was cast into exile for 10 years because of his revolutionary activities and had to conduct his business largely from abroad.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Xavier said:


> But that's not opera. Those arias are *songs*. Five minute songs. Everybody loves five minute songs.
> 
> The real test is whether or not the populace eventually comes to *venerate* _Pelleas et Melisande, Falstaff, Elektra, Moses and Aron_ and all of the mature works of Wagner.
> 
> And this is just the start.


Well,there are certainly no songs in these operas,when does an aria become a song by the way ?
"Nessun Dorma" became pretty popular with the masses,is that an aria or a song?
Let us not forget that "Falstaff" was written by that hack by the name of Shakespeare!
As for the other three,have you attended performance? "Pelleas" is always well attended but "Elektra" and "Moses and Aaron " have never been venerated by anybody much ---are you surprised?
In the case of Wagner you will also not find many songs,a few but not many. But he has been and still is venerated,the Wagner fan club is both vociferous,loyal and widespread.Hitler and his followers were mostly from the masses you will remember.
But no ,he is not enjoyed particularly by the people in the streets. It was always Italian opera that had this type of following and particularly in the case of Rossini and Verdi.
The expense of attending performances at the great houses is a deterrant to "normal" people,but let me assure you that young people scrimp and save so that they may afford tickets even if they are way up in the "gods".
That's how I got to see the famous Giulini "Don Carlos" in 1958 at Covent Garden
But there are other ways,Germany has always had many provincial houses spread throughout the country and I saw many operas when based there.
In Britain we have the impressario Raymond Gubay who presents over 600 performances a year across a wide range of concerts ,opera and ballet at major venues ar reasonable prices.
The great stars of opera such as Caruso and Gigli were very definitely from the masses and appealed to them and sang to them, often in the street after the performance.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

moody said:


> Well,there are certainly no songs in these operas,when does an aria become a song by the way ?
> "Nessun Dorma" became pretty popular with the masses,is that an aria or a song?
> Let us not forget that "Falstaff" was written by that hack by the name of Shakespeare!
> As for the other three,have you attended performance? "Pelleas" is always well attended but "Elektra" and "Moses and Aaron " have never been venerated by anybody much ---are you surprised?
> ...


You confused Elektra and Pelleas; the former is much more popular than the latter.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> My omnivorous and non-specialized reading has left me with the impression that in Italy a premier of a well-received Romantic opera was followed by the dissemination of its arias throughout the city and then the region, on the lips of the populace. Popular, I'd say.


Yes, I recall that is correct. Which month, exactly, was that out of the 600 years in which opera has been primarily not a populist entertainment?

But 'Struth, The Magic Flute was commissioned and composed for a very populist theater, and I'm sure Puccini was written for and consumed by, if not the masses, folk aplenty.

I think the envelope for music being available to and consumed by a large public is relatively brief, from late Beethoven through the late 1900's - when there was an exponentially increased bourgeois population who consumed entertainment and attended concerts and opera, and - importantly - in the era prior unions, the cost of personnel to perform those same pieces was far far less than it later came to be.

That is about one hundred and fifty years of widespread public access 'for everyone' out of a much much longer history.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

It is not easy to define "popular art", and this also depends on the context, such as country, and of course, when.

I watched this recently:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sll44/episodes/guide

I'm not sure if this based on scientific research, but it is very nice to watch as Antonio Pappano passionately talks about opera (he also sings...). The topic of "popular art" is mentioned here throughout the series.

Short conclusion based on the docu: yes, opera was a popular art form. First it was only for the very rich and noble to provide entertainment. Later the genre changed and it became increasingly popular and many opera houses were built. In the time of Verdi it was big business. First rehearsals of a new opera by Verdi were scrictly managed, so that no one would hear the hit aria's before the premiere. The next day everyone was singing those aria's in the streets.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> You confused Elektra and Pelleas; the former is much more popular than the latter.


Yes,I'm sure you are right--I mean it is fairly easy to confuse Debussy sung in French with Richard Strauss sung in German !
I don't know where you get your statistics from but perhaps you would like to share them.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

moody said:


> Yes,I'm sure you are right--I mean it is fairly easy to confuse Debussy sung in French with Richard Strauss sung in German !
> I don't know where you get your statistics from but perhaps you would like to share them.


http://opera.stanford.edu/misc/Dornic_survey.html

http://www.rohcollections.org.uk/SearchResults.aspx?searchtype=workprodperf&title=elektra 62

http://www.rohcollections.org.uk/SearchResults.aspx?searchtype=workprodperf&title=pelleas 15

http://operabase.com/top.cgi?lang=en&show=opera&no=100&nat= Elektra at 53, Pelleas at 75.

Our very own house list has Elektra at 27 and Pelleas at 53. http://www.talkclassical.com/11676-talk-classical-top-272-a.html


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Moody,



moody said:


> Yes,I'm sure you are right--I mean it is fairly easy to confuse Debussy sung in French with Richard Strauss sung in German! I don't know where you get your statistics from but perhaps you would like to share them.


_Elektra_ is a barnburner. And I know many Strauss fans who consider it to be his most perfect opera.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> http://opera.stanford.edu/misc/Dornic_survey.html
> 
> http://www.rohcollections.org.uk/SearchResults.aspx?searchtype=workprodperf&title=elektra 62
> 
> ...


You were talking about confusion but it appears to be on your side. "Pelleas" is like no other opera and has always been popular in certain circles but is not venerated ,"Elektra" and "Moses and Aaron" are certainly not.I cannot think when I last heard delivery boys whistling airs from these works,how about you?
My comments were in answer to Xavier who asked whether or not the populace would eventually come to venerate these works.are you suggesting they have?
I then went on to say that it was in Italy that the veneration of Rossini and Verdi and in particular the star singers appeared and as far as i know this veneration of opera was seen there only.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Xavier said:


> Moody,
> 
> _Elektra_ is a barnburner. And I know many Strauss fans who consider it to be his most perfect opera.


I have found the number of recordings available for Elektra=29,Salome=32,Rosenkavalier=44.
I have also always considered that the opinion in opera circles was that Rosenkavalier was the most perfect work.
But this has nothing to do with the actual thread here---see above.It is your thread and the question was not whether or not Elektra was a barnburner .
Barnburner is new to me,but you learn something new every day??


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

moody said:


> You were talking about confusion but it appears to be on your side. "Pelleas" is like no other opera


Elektra is like no other opera.



> and has always been popular in certain circles but is not venerated ,"Elektra" and "Moses and Aaron" are certainly not.


I just provided you with data that shows that Elektra is more popular. You can use other proxies; amazon reviews, google search, etc. Elektra is way more popular. That's why there's no Elektra guy who obsessively promotes Elektra on various internet forums under different nicknames.



> I cannot think when I last heard delivery boys whistling airs from these works,how about you?


They don't whistle Beethoven's Late Quartets either.



> My comments were in answer to Xavier who asked whether or not the populace would eventually come to venerate these works.are you suggesting they have?


Elektra is a standard repertoire piece.



> I then went on to say that it was in Italy that the veneration of Rossini and Verdi and in particular the star singers appeared and as far as i know this veneration of opera was seen there only.


You said that Pelleas as somehow _more_ popular/_more_ venerated than Elektra, which is patently false.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Elektra is like no other opera.
> 
> I just provided you with data that shows that Elektra is more popular. You can use other proxies; amazon reviews, google search, etc. Elektra is way more popular. That's why there's no Elektra guy who obsessively promotes Elektra on various internet forums under different nicknames.
> 
> ...


"as for the other three "Pelleas" IS ALWAYS WELL ATTENDED,but "Elektra" and "Moses and Aaron" have never been VENERATED by anybody much.That's what I said. VENERATED =TO REGARD WITH REVERENCE.
It would be a good idea if you just glance at Xavier's original posts ===I don't care whether Elektra is the more popular or not,that was not the point.
What on earth have delivery boys whistling Beethoven chamber music got to do with anything? But it is well known that they whistled and sung Rossini and Verdi tunes.
You say that "Elektra" is a standard repertoire piece---is it VENERATED or is it not?
I did not say that "Pelleas" was more popular than "Elektra" because I have no idea.
I was answering the question that asked WHETHER THE POPULACE WILL COME TO VENERATE;PELLEAS, ELEKTRA, MOSES AND AARON,FALSTAFF AND ALL THE MATURE WORKS OF WAGNER?
As the Italians would say "Basta" --"Enough".


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

moody said:


> You were talking about confusion but it appears to be on your side. "Pelleas" is like no other opera and has always been popular in certain circles but is not venerated ,"Elektra" and "Moses and Aaron" are certainly not.I cannot think when I last heard delivery boys whistling airs from these works,how about you?


When did someone last whistle tunes from Pelleas?

And I most certainly venerate Elektra. And also think it's one of Strauss' most perfect pieces.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dongiovanni said:


> ...
> Short conclusion based on the docu: yes, opera was a popular art form. First it was only for the very rich and noble to provide entertainment. Later the genre changed and it became increasingly popular and many opera houses were built. In the time of Verdi it was big business. First rehearsals of a new opera by Verdi were scrictly managed, so that no one would hear the hit aria's before the premiere. The next day everyone was singing those aria's in the streets.


That's what I was saying. I'd add that Wagner was really the death knell for opera as a popular art form. But it lingered on with Puccini and R. Strauss, but that was it. As I said, after 1945 you had guys like Bernstein take the reigns, and steer it towards musical theatre (the golden days of which have also passed, I'd say, or its dying too).

The reason I put Wagner is that he's more interested in things other than melody, the length of his operas, the mega profound aspect, all that. Italian and French opera had the balance right between melody and other things, but what Wagner did steered it in other directions entirely (eg. very complex counterpoint, harmonic daring, tonal innovations, etc.). So what you get is opera becoming very highbrow, moving away from being popular to highbrow.

Of course, as a person who does like Berg and Schoenberg's operas (and also musicals like Bernstein's and Lloyd Webber's which incorporate aspects of Wagner's leitmotif technique), I am not complaining about Wagner, I'm just saying that what he did was move opera beyond popular to highbrow. So we got what we got today: opera as museum piece. Nobody or not much people want or like the results of Wagner's innovations (eg. atonal opera, post-1945 opera, contemporary opera). In any case, its less popular than the old stuff, esp. the stuff with tunes (eg. Carmen, Aida, La Boheme, etc.). So Wagner added but also sucked a lot out of opera, destroying its popular roots that had taken hold in the 19th century. The aristocratic highbrows where replaced by intellectual highbrows (eg. most composers of Wagner's time went on the pilgramage to Bayreuth, even ones that where far from being Wagnerite, it was almost an obligation). So there you go. Music as religion. Now we can do its funeral, maybe?

But as I said, we've still got new operas being done. Its just that its a small niche, and not as popular, and therefore financially rewarding/profitable as it was in its heyday.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> It was popular enough for the likes of Verdi, Puccini, R. Strauss, Meyerbeer and Rossini to live comfortably off writing them....


I've read that operas in Europe (before union scale) exceeded their estimated length by a wide margin, since conductors and performers were more-than-willing to repeat* popular* tunes. This tact could help ward off tomato tossing, too.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

[got rid of entire post - not necessary, already said this in earlier post above]...


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Vaneyes said:


> I've read that operas in Europe (before union scale) exceeded their estimated length by a wide margin, since conductors and performers were more-than-willing to repeat* popular* tunes. This tact could help ward off tomato tossing, too.


I believe that historically, in performances, there was a lot of flexibility. For example, Farinelli always wanted to ride in on a white horse no matter what the subject matter of the opera and had his favorite arias he sang on his entrance.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

moody said:


> "as for the other three "Pelleas" IS ALWAYS WELL ATTENDED,but "Elektra" and "Moses and Aaron" have never been VENERATED by anybody much.That's what I said. VENERATED =TO REGARD WITH REVERENCE.
> It would be a good idea if you just glance at Xavier's original posts ===I don't care whether Elektra is the more popular or not,that was not the point.
> What on earth have delivery boys whistling Beethoven chamber music got to do with anything? But it is well known that they whistled and sung Rossini and Verdi tunes.
> You say that "Elektra" is a standard repertoire piece---is it VENERATED or is it not?
> ...


I wrote merely with regard to the confused disparity between Pelleas and Elektra which implied that the former was more popular and venerated than the latter.



> *"Pelleas" is always well attended* *but **"Elektra" *and "Moses and Aaron "* have never **been venerated by anybody much *---are you surprised?


The bold is false; I'm not discussing anything with Xavier.


----------

