# The Perfect Opera: What is it, and can it exist at all?



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The current thread, "Meistersinger: Wagner's Most Perfect Opera?" has provoked several people to nominate some of their favorite works as "perfect operas." This raises some questions: What is a perfect opera? Are there any? How do we know? What does perfection mean as applied to such an art form? Is "perfection" equivalent to "greatness"? Is a perfect opera necessarily interesting or enjoyable? Do we have to love it in order to consider it perfect, or recognize that it is? Is your perfect opera my perfect opera, whether or not we both enjoy it?

Give us your nominations for the perfect opera - or the imperfect opera, or the opera that would be perfect except for A, B, or C - and say why you think and feel the way you do.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

It's the one I'm going to write in a few years.

(I haven't started it yet, by the way.)

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> It's the one I'm going to write in a few years.
> 
> *(I haven't started it yet, by the way.)*
> 
> N.


That may be the first step toward making it perfect.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I guess I'd take "perfect" with regards to opera (or any musical work) to mean that there isn't a wasted note ("it isn't a second longer than it has to be"), and everything in the opera seems inevitable, as though it couldn't be any other way.

Using that criteria, I think I can throw out some examples of perfect operas: RIGOLETTO, TOSCA, FALSTAFF, ELEKTRA. I'd hesitate to say LA TRAVIATA (great as it is), just because I keep thinking there should have been something else in it: a scene showing what happened between Violetta and Alfredo before they moved in together, or maybe a scene showing Violetta's further decline in health after their breakup. But if you say TRAVIATA isn't perfect, do you then have to say the equally episodic LA BOHEME isn't perfect either? That's an opera I've always heard described as perfect.

And no, I don't think something has to be "perfect" (however you define it) to be "great."


----------



## Roland (Mar 13, 2013)

I would think that "the perfect opera" would be an opera that fulfills some psychological need. There is something in the work that speaks to some part of your soul in ways that may be difficult to articulate. But the music, coupled with the words, touches you in ways that the music alone or the words alone could not reach.

Therefore, I believe there indeed are "perfect operas" but they only remain perfect for those to whom the operas speak in ways that nothing else does. I also think that perfect operas may cease to be perfect operas when you move on to new concerns or mature in new ways.

This also implies that the measure of perfection is highly subjective. You only know that an opera is perfect when it speaks to you. The opera may be a trial for others, or perhaps your enthusiasm can ignite new insights for others. I would guess that many perfect operas are also great operas because they deal with topics that are universal to the human condition. However, I am open to the idea that an obscure opera not considered great could very well be perfect for an individual.

You ask an interesting question when you pose the query "Do we have to love it in order to consider it perfect, or recognize that it is?" We may not love a messenger that alerts us to ideas we do not initially like, but one might eventually recognize an opera as perfect because it becomes an insistent source for thought, for solace or perhaps just for entertainment.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I guess I'd take "perfect" with regards to opera (or any musical work) to mean that there isn't a wasted note ("it isn't a second longer than it has to be"), and everything in the opera seems inevitable, as though it couldn't be any other way.
> 
> Using that criteria, I think I can throw out some examples of perfect operas: RIGOLETTO, TOSCA, FALSTAFF, ELEKTRA. I'd hesitate to say LA TRAVIATA (great as it is), just because I keep thinking there should have been something else in it: a scene showing what happened between Violetta and Alfredo before they moved in together, or maybe a scene showing Violetta's further decline in health after their breakup. But if you say TRAVIATA isn't perfect, do you then have to say the equally episodic LA BOHEME isn't perfect either? That's an opera I've always heard described as perfect.
> 
> And no, I don't think something has to be "perfect" (however you define it) to be "great."


Interesting observation about _Traviata_ and _Boheme._ There are plenty of operas in which action important to the story isn't presented on stage, but happens between the acts, or as backstory to the whole thing. The composer then has to fill us in by having characters tell us what we haven't seen, which can either be done a little at a time as the characters converse, or in a scene or an aria known as somebody's "narrative" or whatever. It must be a challenge for a composer to make these passages musically rewarding and to keep them from bogging things down. Sometimes we never do hear about behind the scenes happenings, and its just assumed that we know the story or can guess what's happened. _Traviata_ and _Boheme_ seem to fit into that category. In _Boheme_ so little is made of Mimi's health that if you don't know the story ahead of time it comes as a shock to learn in Act 4 that's she's on the point of death. I'd say the opera is more a series of tableaux than an actual narrative, which we may or may not consider a fault.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

As per woodduck's request, here's my take.

_Otello_ seems to be out of favour with forumites recently (certainly in the poll), but this along with Falstaff is pretty much the closest I see to perfect. However, the final aria and fugue (respectively) are nowhere near Verdi's greatest achievements.

Much as I adore Wagner, I can't see any of his works as perfect. He's simply not concise enough. He'll have to settle for 'incredibly great works of genius'.

Perhaps the most perfect works might have come from Schubert, Bizet or Bellini had they not died at such a tragically early age.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2015)

Opera is first and foremost about the MUSIC! A bad libretto can damage a perfectly good opera but if the music is great, it might survive the test of time. Many of Verdi's operas have convoluted libretti, but sometime it was a marriage made in heaven: otello, falstaff, etc. Same for the Mozart/Da Ponze Operas, etc.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DoReFaMi said:


> Opera is first and foremost about the MUSIC! A bad libretto can damage a perfectly good opera but if the music is great, it might survive the test of time. Many of Verdi's operas have convoluted libretti, but sometime it was a marriage made in heaven: otello, falstaff, etc. Same for the Mozart/Da Ponze Operas, etc.


Now, this is an argument I've never understood, because to my mind the libretto -- or "the story" -- and the music are so intimately connected that I find it very hard to think of them separately. So for me the libretto, or story, is just as good as the music is -- because the story is being told through the music; you're experiencing the two of them together, as a unit to speak, and not as two separate things (i.e. "convoluted plot vs. great music"). It seems it's always been popular to say that OTELLO and FALSTAFF have superior stories (because they're based on Shakespeare?), but if you think about it, OTELLO's plot, hinges on a series of coincidences as unlikely as those in ERNANI; I think the reason OTELLO is perceived as having the sounder plot is probably because OTELLO is through-composed whereas ERNANI (or IL TROVATORE, etc.) is not, and maybe we tend to perceive operas where the music never stops as dramatically stronger than operas that are divided into "numbers."

The same goes, IMO, for such Mozart/Da Ponte operas as LE NOZZE DI FIGARO -- now _there's_ an intricate plot. But Mozart's music has a greater sense of unity than, say Handel's before him (Mozart's extended act-finales, for example), so that I think most people perceive Mozart's operas as dramatically stronger than Handel's.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

DoReFaMi said:


> Opera is first and foremost about the MUSIC!


Yes! When I listen to operas, if the music is the only hook. Opera is a highly compromised way to tell a story and when I think about great melding of music and drama (is this what makes an opera perfect?) I can think of a number of outstanding moments but few whole operas that really deliver. Silly old Magic Flute, Carmen, Tristan, Tosca, Salome and especially Wozzeck are some of the big names


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Does perfect suggest there is only one of a kind, only one perfect opera? Can there be more than one perfect opera? There is the perfectness on the level of the libretto, but also the music. Then there is the perfect production of that opera. For example, if the first DVD I had watched of Der fliegende Hollander had been the one conducted by Segerstam, then my son and I both felt we would not have liked the Hollander opera very much and may not have pursued it further. Thankfully I watched what I feel is the perfect production of the Hollander, and so it became one of my (and my son's) absolute favorites. Really, based on the synopsis alone, I am not sure I would like it that much. I had read the synopsis a year before and thought it might be okay, then left it alone. But after watching the Sawallisch DVD I was totally hooked and ranked it right up there with Fidelio as one of the most perfect operas to me.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Berlioz's Les Troyens is close enough


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

This one is tough.
Tough because even though I would probably prefer _Don Carlo _or _Otello_ as my top favorites (with Mefistofele being my closet fave), I think for the sake of the average opera goer, _Madama Butterfly_ or even _Tosca_ might be closer to the perfect opera with _La Boheme_ and _La Traviata_ in 3rd & 4th place because these operas all seem to have the ability to reach the most people who are not normally involved in opera.

I say _Madama Butterfly_ is #1. First of all the staging in the right hands can be absolutely exquisite eye candy with the Asian influence of silks and shoji doors that slide, and clean colors like whites that signify purity. 
Secondly, the charm of a sweet, innocent and gullible young girl ready for the plucking vs. a self centered, unthinking, take-the-money-and-run character who uses her and drops her. This premise has to be extremely appealing to most audiences. Viewing her anguish is a punch to the stomach.
Top it all off with a score and arias that are gorgeously written with Asian sounds throughout and executed by superb voices to bring it all together into a sad, poignant, gut-wrenching story that sticks with you long after you have left the theater.

In the case of _Tosca_, I think a murder mystery seems like the perfect story to attract a non operagoer. We have an escapee right at the very start encouraging the audience to wonder what is going to happen to him while at the same time there is a romance between an artist and champion of the escapee, and a famous opera singer who expresses jealousy over what she suspects is her lover's unfaithfulness to her.
We have a frightening sociopathic chief of police who attempts to barter for the actress's body in trade for her lover's freedom, and the stunning fact that the woman shows such strength and courage and actually murders her assailant -- a shocking, daring and appealing circumstance to almost any viewer.
We have a torture chamber with screams coming from within, and a planned mock execution which turns out to be an actual execution, all of which makes for a meaty story topped off by the protagonist jumping to her death from the parapet of a church. 
The orchestration is beyond stunning. The music and many arias are among some of the most appealing and beautiful in all of opera. It is a plethora of excitement mixed with intrigue and beautiful music -- an enviable ticket guaranteed to please almost any opera lover or as an introduction to the world of opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I guess I'd take "perfect" with regards to opera (or any musical work) to mean that there isn't a wasted note ("it isn't a second longer than it has to be"), and everything in the opera seems inevitable, as though it couldn't be any other way.
> 
> Using that criteria, I think I can throw out some examples of perfect operas: RIGOLETTO, TOSCA, FALSTAFF, ELEKTRA.


The question of what we mean by a perfect opera probably first arose for me while thinking about Mozart, a few of whose operas - _Figaro, Cosi,_ and _Don Giovanni _- are often called "perfect" by those who love them. Mozart's music is, of course, commonly praised for its perfection, and although people mean a few different things by that, they almost always mean that it is perfectly made - that all its notes succeed each other and flow in just the way that they ought to, that the whole has a satisfying and meaningful shape, and that there's nothing lacking and nothing extraneous or arbitrary. We can imagine applying this criterion to an opera: as you put it, 'there isn't a wasted note ("it isn't a second longer than it has to be"), and everything in the opera seems inevitable, as though it couldn't be any other way.' But if musical form is the issue, I wonder whether the standard of "perfect form" we apply to, say, a sonata can really be met in a long dramatic work, or whether we should expect it to.

We know that in operas of the Baroque era it was common for composers to reuse arias and instrumental bits from earlier works, and even to "borrow" from works of other composers. Classical composers may have done this less, and composers such as Gluck and Mozart who had a strong feeling for the character of the story they were setting were unlikely to allow such "foreign" elements into an opera. But then we find Rossini cutting and pasting freely, inserting into one opera material from another which might be quite different in its overall character. It would seem that composers did not always have a concept of "perfection" in mind, and were content to view an opera more as a series of discrete pieces of music which only had to be _individually_ perfect, relying on the plot narrative to give them a coherent context. If this is a correct view, isn't it beside the point to expect anything we'd call perfection of operas composed in this manner? It's one of the marks of greatness in both Gluck and Mozart that they could appreciate the need for a more continuous dramatic flow than had been usual up to their time, and that they had the musical genius to create a sense of this flow through more dramatic pacing and more continuous music in place of the stop-start manner of Baroque opera. But are their works really "perfect" in this respect? Or is that a dimension of perfection that had to wait for further developments in "through-composed" opera (which of course brought compositional challenges of its own?). I note, regarding this question, that the four examples you choose of "perfect" operas all date from the mid-19th century and after, and that the "perfect" operas of Mozart are not among them. Is this an accident of personal taste, or was it simply not yet possible, in the style of the Classical period, to create a perfectly shaped piece of musical theater?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> This one is tough.
> Tough because even though I would probably prefer _Don Carlo _or _Otello_ as my top favorites (with Mefistofele being my closet fave), I think for the sake of the average opera goer, _Madama Butterfly_ or even _Tosca_ might be closer to the perfect opera with _La Boheme_ and _La Traviata_ in 3rd & 4th place because these operas all seem to have the ability to reach the most people who are not normally involved in opera.
> 
> I say _Madama Butterfly_ is #1. First of all the staging in the right hands can be absolutely exquisite eye candy with the Asian influence of silks and shoji doors that slide, and clean colors like whites that signify purity.
> ...


And yet there are plenty of people who, odd as it may seem, don't care for Puccini! I, for example, admire _Tosca_ as a nicely made piece of melodrama, but would never pay money to see it, unless Callas were brought back to life to sing it - and film acts one and three. But if she were brought back to life, I'd save my money and see her Norma and Medea instead.

I can't disagree with you about Puccini's audience appeal, or the ingredients in his works that ensure it. It's obvious from frequency of performance and box office receipts. But surely that isn't a meaningful criterion for perfection.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Stockhausen's Saturday https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjsBpZ6tqqtFAHWA9dRp_Eou1PgMYTKUv



I'm totally serious. This is like the summit of greatness.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Stockhausen's Saturday https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjsBpZ6tqqtFAHWA9dRp_Eou1PgMYTKUv
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally serious. This is like the summit of greatness.


It's, like, totally avant-garde to, like, frame the, like, serious summit of, like, greatness between a raspberry and a wink.

Like, thanks. Totally.

Next.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck:* In answer to your question above, it was accidental that the operas I chose are all from the 19th century, because other ones I could have mentioned were THE MAGIC FLUTE and DON GIOVANNI, and maybe GIULIO CESARE as well. The first two strike me as works with not an unnecessary note of music in them, while the last one strikes me as the perfect Baroque opera (I don't know enough about Baroque opera in general to be able to elaborate further; it just seems to me like CESARE probably contains all of the ingredients an opera of that period should have had). DON GIOVANNI is episodic, but I don't see how the story could have been presented any other way; I can't think of anything Mozart could have added in order to make it better. Of course, it goes without saying that this is all just my opinion.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> And yet there are plenty of people who, odd as it may seem, don't care for Puccini! I, for example, admire _Tosca_ as a nicely made piece of melodrama, but would never pay money to see it, unless Callas were brought back to life to sing it - and film acts one and three. But if she were brought back to life, I'd save my money and see her Norma and Medea instead.
> 
> I can't disagree with you about Puccini's audience appeal, or the ingredients in his works that ensure it. It's obvious from frequency of performance and box office receipts. But surely that isn't a meaningful criterion for perfection.


By your very words "And yet there are plenty of people who, odd as it may seem, don't care for Puccini", I can see I did not get my point across. 
I started out by first stating certain operas that I, myself, would perhaps consider closer to being "perfect" operas (if in fact, there really is such a thing, which I'm not actually convinced there is).
However, I then tried to make the point that the "average joe" who knows little to nothing about opera would be more likely to be influenced by and recognize the appeal of opera whether they happen to be by Puccini or not. Traviata isn't by Puccini (and either is Carmen which is another that would probably appeal to the masses even if we might be tiring of it by now.)
Whether these particular operas qualify as being closer to the perfect opera -- meaning one that appeals to the majority of people and not by our small contingent of knowledgeable opera lovers whose interests go beyond the average -- I really don't know. Probably not. 
I only believe that the majority of answers here will probably be much closer to more sophisticated reasons why an opera is a perfect one than the ones I posited.
I was simply stating my reasons from the other side of the coin.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> By your very words "And yet there are plenty of people who, odd as it may seem, don't care for Puccini", I can see I did not get my point across.
> I started out by first stating certain operas that I, myself, would perhaps consider closer to being "perfect" operas (if in fact, there really is such a thing, which I'm not actually convinced there is).
> However, I then tried to make the point that the "average joe" who knows little to nothing about opera would be more likely to be influenced by and recognize the appeal of opera whether they happen to be by Puccini or not. Traviata isn't by Puccini (and either is Carmen which is another that would probably appeal to the masses even if we might be tiring of it by now.)
> Whether these particular operas qualify as being closer to the perfect opera -- meaning one that appeals to the majority of people and not by our small contingent of knowledgeable opera lovers whose interests go beyond the average -- I really don't know. Probably not.
> ...


Ah... I t_hink_ you're saying that to the "average Joe" the question of whether there can be a "perfect" opera is not meaningful except in terms of its entertainment value, and that to him what makes an opera good is its specific content - music, story, characters, scenery - and whether it gives him a good time. I would have to agree with that, and go even farther and say that it's ultimately these things which are important to more sophisticated listeners like many of us as well. I've raised the issue because we often hear people referring to the "perfect" this or that, and I think it's interesting to discover what qualities in an opera make people think that or say it. Joe might say that the perfect opera is the one he enjoys the most, and I wouldn't dream of arguing with him! It's the perfect opera for him.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Ah... I t_hink_ you're saying that to the "average Joe" the question of whether there can be a "perfect" opera is not meaningful except in terms of its entertainment value, and that to him what makes an opera good is its specific content - music, story, characters, scenery - and whether it gives him a good time. I would have to agree with that, and go even farther and say that it's ultimately these things which are important to more sophisticated listeners like many of us as well. I've raised the issue because we often hear people referring to the "perfect" this or that, and I think it's interesting to discover what qualities in an opera make people think that or say it. Joe might say that the perfect opera is the one he enjoys the most, and I wouldn't dream of arguing with him! It's the perfect opera for him.


Glory be! I wish I had the talent you have for expressing myself so perfectly.
You translated my words exactly and for that I am grateful and thank you.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2015)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Stockhausen's Saturday https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjsBpZ6tqqtFAHWA9dRp_Eou1PgMYTKUv
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally serious. This is like the summit of greatness.


I won't dismiss you without reason, Mr. Tritone  One of the best, without a doubt.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Glory be! I wish I had the talent you have for expressing myself so perfectly.
> You translated my words exactly and for that I am grateful and thank you.


I am greatly relieved. I want you to like me.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I am greatly relieved. I want you to like me.


Hahahahaha!! Too late, I already do.
To me you are the shining light on this forum. I have learned more from you than I can ever say.

Happy New Year!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Hahahahaha!! Too late, I already do.
> To me you are the shining light on this forum. I have learned more from you than I can ever say.
> 
> Happy New Year!


Thank you. The happiest of New Years to you as well.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

If I had to pick one it would be _Figaro_. To my ears sustained genius for three hours. And actually funny.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The most perfect opera? Probably Cosi fan Tutte or Figaro where two great geniuses came together. The Don is less 'perfect' as a libretto but may be even greater as an opera.
The other perfect opera that comes to mind is Carmen - not a note out of place.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

A perfect opera should have a flow. It can have some weaker moments but overall it should be able to draw you in for two or more hours regardless of what is happening.
Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg that was mentioned here is a good example not a superdramatic plot but the music is good enough to keep your attention for over four hours.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> And yet there are *plenty of people who, odd as it may seem, don't care for Puccini! *I, for example, admire _Tosca_ as a nicely made piece of melodrama, but would never pay money to see it, unless Callas were brought back to life to sing it - and film acts one and three. But if she were brought back to life, I'd save my money and see her Norma and Medea instead.
> 
> *I can't disagree with you about Puccini's audience appeal,* or the ingredients in his works that ensure it. It's obvious from frequency of performance and box office receipts. But surely that isn't a meaningful criterion for perfection.


I think from your own statement that you will agree that there are plenty of people who DO care for Puccini - far more than do not else he would not be so popular. I would add Boheme to my list of 'perfect' operas - perfectly proportioned. So is Tosca.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

What are my personal clues for calling an opera "perfect"?. Well, I'd say at the very least pieces that were born in the mind of the composer/librettist just as they are. Nothing more, nothing less. Not different versions, not new music,... always the same thing.

And when I look at them, I need to share that same feeling of a round, complete, self-contained work. That is taking me to a different world, from the first bar to the last one, and never gets me wondering if it would be better to return... This is very difficult, as I have a penchant for cutting. 

Also, opera being music *and* theater, I would ask for the drama to be as compelling as the music.

Maybe the opera that, with these criteria in mind, strikes me as very close to being "perfect", is Berg's _Wozzeck_.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2015)

Opera evolved over time, so it was not possible for Mozart to conceive of an opera with non-stop music and no recitative. His best operas are quite perfect in the style of the time —*and as a work of art, notwithstanding the time at which they were written. 

A perfect opera for me is Monteverdi's Orfeo. Rarely has a composer written more compelling recitatives. 

Agreed about Carmen!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course, we must mention Verdi's two collaborations with Boito - Otello and Falstaff. Falstaff is as near perfect as anything! Greatest opera after Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

schigolch said:


> What are my personal clues for calling an opera "perfect"?. Well, I'd say at the very least pieces that were born in the mind of the composer/librettist just as they are. Nothing more, nothing less. Not different versions, not new music,... always the same thing.
> 
> *And when I look at them, I need to share that same feeling of a round, complete, self-contained work. That is taking me to a different world, from the first bar to the last one, and never gets me wondering if it would be better to return*... This is very difficult, as I have a penchant for cutting.
> 
> ...


Both of these things are important to me too. Opera being a hybrid or compound art form, all its parts - music, words, action, scenery - should work together in harmony, and when they do we'll be inducted into an alternative universe where we can happily dwell for a few hours without a care for "real life." We also want to come back to the everyday world feeling we've been someplace really interesting, but I think that's largely a matter of our personal taste in entertainment; an opera could be "perfect" without taking us on a journey we find interesting. Examples of this for me - operas often called "perfect" for one reason or another - are Puccini's _La Boheme_ and _Tosca_, Mozart's _Don Giovanni_ and _Cosi fan tutte_, Verdi's _Aida_, and Bizet's _Carmen_. These are all beautifully composed, musically inspired operas I can't find serious fault with, but their "perfection" isn't enough to make them interesting enough "alternative universes" for me to want to dwell in them often; the characters, situations, dramatic shape, musical style, overall "message," or some combination of those, just don't add up to something compelling to my imagination, at least not in the absence of great performers who are worth hearing and seeing for their own qualities. I would rather experience such perhaps less-perfect operas as _Fidelio, Tannhauser, Boris Godunov, Don __Carlo, Doktor Faust, Oedipe, King Roger_ - or, for heaven's sake, _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ - because they say things about life, or merely express emotional states, that I personally find more interesting. I'd bet anything that we all have personal preferences which have nothing to do with whether we perceive an opera as "perfect."

Perfection is admirable, but perhaps not very lovable for its own sake.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Indeed.

In fact, a Vivaldi's pasticcio is probably not a good example of "perfection" in opera, but I enjoy a lot _Bajazet_ anyway.

And even if I think that _Wozzeck_ is "more perfect" than _Lulu_, I do love the second, while I only admire (very much) the first.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There is a difference between perfection and greatness. Fidelio is not perfect but it is great as is Don Giovanni - possibly the greatest opera ever. However, Carmen, Cosi, Figaro and Falstaff all have the marks of perfection and greatness.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I can't call any opera perfect that uses secco recitatives or plain talk.
I find it very tedious and a flaw in the musical flow. On cd it keeps me close to the skip button.
mho


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Itullian said:


> I can't call any opera perfect that uses secco recitatives or plain talk.
> I find it very tedious and a flaw in the musical flow. On cd it keeps me close to the skip button.
> mho


Plain talk is fine but secco recitatives that is just why did they use it? The fact that it disappeared is enough proof that operas are better without them.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> But if you say TRAVIATA isn't perfect, do you then have to say the equally episodic LA BOHEME isn't perfect either? That's an opera I've always heard described as perfect.
> "


I think La Traviata is perfect it has a good flow through the whole opera. La Boheme is not perfect it has too many jolly passages and Puccini was not good at making jolly parts of operas. The same with Madama Butterfly all of the opera is fine except for the flower duet.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Plain talk is fine but secco recitatives that is just why did they use it? The fact that it disappeared is enough proof that operas are better without them.


Because recitative is heightened dramatic speech, combining fitting harmony with a flexible melodic line that expresses the character's state of mind. In the right hands, such as those of Monteverdi, Bach, or Mozart, it can be as thrilling as aria or arioso.

It disappeared because it was subsumed into the musical fabric in other ways, just as aria was. Is the fact that separate arias are no longer used proof that operas are better off without them? The same logic applies.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Plain talk is fine but secco recitatives that is just why did they use it? The fact that it disappeared is enough proof that operas are better without them.


So that makes Picasso better than Leonardo or Michelangelo?

You're confusing development of form over time with being superior. Is Liszt's sonata in B minor better than Beethoven's sonatas? Or Berg's sonata superior to Liszt's?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Sloe said:


> *Plain talk is fine *but secco recitatives that is just why did they use it? The fact that it disappeared is enough proof that operas are better without them.


How so?...............


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sloe said:


> Plain talk is fine but secco recitatives that is just why did they use it? The fact that it disappeared is enough proof that operas are better without them.


I wonder why secco recitative was ever considered enjoyable. It barely qualifies as music, it's rhythmically monotonous, it relies on formulaic chord progressions, and it allows for very limited vocal expression on the part of the singer. Spoken dialogue is far more expressive and allows the performer to act naturally. I almost think secco chatter was invented as a crutch for opera singers who can sing but not act "straight", i.e. speak persuasively. _Singspiel_ is a perfectly respectable form of opera, and I'm grateful that Mozart in _Die Zauberflote,_ Beethoven in _Fidelio,_ and Weber in _Der Freischutz_ use spoken dialogue (even if _Zauberflote_'s silliness gets a bit tiresome with repeated hearing).


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> So that makes Picasso better than Leonardo or Michelangelo?
> 
> You're confusing development of form over time with being superior. Is Liszt's sonata in B minor better than Beethoven's sonatas? Or Berg's sonata superior to Liszt's?


non sequitur. recitatives are booooooooring.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Itullian said:


> How so?...............


I think so because *I* am not disturbed by it. To dislike secco recitatives seems like one of the worst things anyone can do on this forum. I can also say that I have nothing against recitatives it is the secco recitatives I dislike and what I think about them is what Wodduck wrote just recently.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Because recitative is heightened dramatic speech, combining fitting harmony with a flexible melodic line that expresses the character's state of mind. In the right hands, such as those of Monteverdi, Bach, or Mozart, it can be as thrilling as aria or arioso.


Hmm. I think that might be overstating the case just a tad.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Because recitative is heightened dramatic speech, combining fitting harmony with a flexible melodic line that expresses the character's state of mind. In the right hands, such as those of Monteverdi, Bach, or Mozart, it can be as thrilling as aria or arioso.
> 
> It disappeared because it was subsumed into the musical fabric in other ways, just as aria was. Is the fact that separate arias are no longer used proof that operas are better off without them? The same logic applies.


This misses the point. The issue isn't recitative as such, but _secco_ recitative - that rapid chatter intended just to spit out words and move the action along, punctuated by a chord here and there. Accompanied recitative, with more musical values in play, can indeed be much more expressive.

Same logic? I don't know of anyone who finds arias boring, but secco recitative was, I believe, recognized as potentially tedious even when it was still in use.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> This misses the point. The issue isn't recitative as such, but _secco_ recitative - that rapid chatter intended just to spit out words and move the action along, punctuated by a chord here and there. *Accompanied recitative, with more musical values in play, can indeed be much more expressive.
> *
> Same logic? I don't know of anyone who finds arias boring, but secco recitative was, I believe, recognized as potentially tedious even when it was still in use.


Fortunately newer baroque performances of Vivaldi (Naïve Label) and Italian Handel operas by Curtis, Jacobs etc all now use an expanded instrument recitativo section to add variety and color and words are quasi sung in dramatic fashion......the days of just continuo backed plain recitativo are in the past, a welcome development for fans of this music......


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DarkAngel said:


> Fortunately newer baroque performances of Vivaldi (Naïve Label) and Italian Handel operas by Curtis, Jacobs etc all now use an expanded instrument recitativo section to add variety and color and words are quasi sung in dramatic fashion......the days of just continuo backed plain recitativo are in the past, a welcome development for fans of this music......


The elaboration of the continuo and the freer delivery of recitative has indeed made performances of Baroque opera more interesting. They used to be stodgier, which must be one reason why Baroque opera was neglected for so long. Of course we'll never know exactly how they did it back then - maybe we take certain liberties they didn't - but we should certainly do what seems most interesting and enjoyable to us. There's too much beautiful music there to waste.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I'll give a vote to Das Rheingold as a perfect opera.


----------



## DarkAngel (Aug 11, 2010)

Itullian said:


> I'll give a vote to Das Rheingold as a perfect opera.


I have to admit Tully the opening orchestral prelude of Rheingold is one of wagner's finest works, the slow primordial beginings gathering momentum to an organic swirling mass of sounds (like the flowing waters of the Rhine) and then we have the glinting of sunlight catching the gold as the music sparkles.......and it just seamlessly morphs into the opening act with Rheinmaidens voices flowing in and out like the natural flowing water currents, what a brilliant musical tonal painting to set the opening scence!


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

There are only two perfect operas _Le nozze di Figaro_ and _Don Giovanni_. Ok, add _Cosi fan tutte_ and make it three.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I can't call any opera perfect that uses secco recitatives or plain talk.
> I find it very tedious and a flaw in the musical flow. On cd it keeps me close to the skip button.
> mho


Why not just program out the recitative? I don't even include it when I load those operas onto my iPhone. I know the stories plenty and relish the music.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I don't think any works by Puccini or Verdi can qualify as perfect. Seriously, Mozart's were the only perfect operas...but I'm not really qualified to back that statement up, LOL. It's just my lowbrow opinion


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> non sequitur. recitatives are booooooooring.


Not at all. The analogy stands. And the recitatives are only boring in your opinion. When they are written with he skill and genius of a Mozart they carry the action forward.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Faustian said:


> Hmm. I think that might be overstating the case just a tad.


Not at all. ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Not at all. The analogy stands. And the recitatives are only boring in your opinion. When they are written with he skill and genius of Mozart they carry the action forward.


Secco recitative is not boring in someone's "opinion." This is not a matter of opinion, but of taste. Boredom is an expression of taste, not of opinion. There is no arguing with taste, so when someone expresses a taste or distaste for something it is ungracious to try to make an argument out of it. All you can legitimately do is say that it doesn't bore you, and say what you like about it.

Some people enjoy secco recitatives, some do not. As it happens, Itullian's distaste for continuo-accompanied chatter is shared by others. I too find them an uninteresting sort of quasi-music which may function effectively in the theater but which feels like a waste of my listening time at home. Undoubtedly they carry the action forward. They can hardly carry it backward, can they? Carrying the action forward is all they are for. That doesn't mean that they need be interesting to anyone as music, or that one has to enjoy listening to them.

I will add that Mozart's use of recitative is quite varied, from plain secco to fully accompanied, and that he is less reliant on secco than his less gifted contemporaries. He and Gluck both moved operatic music forward in the direction of through-composition, for which some of us are grateful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> I don't think any works by Puccini or Verdi can qualify as perfect. Seriously, Mozart's were the only perfect operas...but I'm not really qualified to back that statement up, LOL. It's just my lowbrow opinion


I myself don't find Mozart's operas more perfect than _Rigoletto_, _La Traviata,_ _Otello_ or _Falstaff _ - or, for that matter, _Parsifal._ Why do you? What ideal of perfection do _Figaro_, _Giovanni_ and _Cosi_ fulfill that some other operas don't? Even a lowbrow opinion must have something behind it.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Secco recitative is not boring in someone's "opinion." This is not a matter of opinion, but of taste. Boredom is an expression of taste, not of opinion. There is no arguing with taste, so when someone expresses a taste or distaste for something it is ungracious to try to make an argument out of it. All you can legitimately do is say that it doesn't bore you, and say what you like about it.
> 
> Some people enjoy secco recitatives, some do not. As it happens, Itullian's distaste for continuo-accompanied chatter is shared by others. I too find them an uninteresting sort of quasi-music which may function effectively in the theater but which feels like a waste of my listening time at home. Undoubtedly they carry the action forward. They can hardly carry it backward, can they? Carrying the action forward is all they are for. That doesn't mean that they need be interesting to anyone as music, or that one has to enjoy listening to them.
> 
> I will add that Mozart's use of recitative is quite varied, from plain secco to fully accompanied, and that he is less reliant on secco than his less gifted contemporaries. He and Gluck both moved operatic music forward in the direction of through-composition, for which some of us are grateful.


Does the language of the text play a part here? I enjoy recitativo secco in Italian operas because I understand Italian and I enjoy following the words and listening to the composer's setting of them. Does it make a difference if you understand the words as you listen?

N.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2015)

I will often skip the secco recitative when I just want to listen to the music, but not when I sit down and listen to the full opera while reading the libretto. The most beautiful recitatives are in Monteverdi, because arias hadn't been invented so that's all there was.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I myself don't find Mozart's operas more perfect than _Rigoletto_, _La Traviata,_ _Otello_ or _Falstaff _ - or, for that matter, _Parsifal._ Why do you? What ideal of perfection do _Figaro_, _Giovanni_ and _Cosi_ fulfill that some other operas don't? Even a lowbrow opinion must have something behind it.


Haha. True. For me it's that with Mozart it is one amazing idea after another, it's a fusion of word and music that no other composer has achieved, it's taking one note out and the phrase would be diminished, it's adding one note in and the phrase would be diminished, it's the complete and utter awe of what I'm listening it, it's hearing new things everytime I listen to his works even though I've heard them hundreds of times (maybe thousands in the case of _Figaro_), it's listening to what's beneath the main melody and discovering a world of wonder there, but most of all it's the feeling that I'm listening to something truly devine. I struggle with my faith all the time. When I listen to Mozart, I know there's a God.

That all may sound corny, but that sums up my feelings.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Does the language of the text play a part here? I enjoy recitativo secco in Italian operas because I understand Italian and I enjoy following the words and listening to the composer's setting of them. Does it make a difference if you understand the words as you listen?
> 
> N.


Fair point. If I actually spoke Italian I'd conceivably be more patient with the secco dialogue. Of course if we know an opera reasonably well we know what the characters are talking about, and may or may not care to hear it again. There remains a sharp musical difference between the recitatives and the numbers, and listeners are bound to differ in how much of the plot information they want to bother rehashing when they're interested in hearing actual music (of course this is more pertinent to listening at home; in the theater there has to be enough dialogue to hold the plot together). The same listening issue exists with spoken dialogue, except that speech is a different and, I think, potentially more eloquent art form than secco recitative can ever be. In either case, listeners like me are grateful for recordings of "highlights" of Baroque and Classical period operas (though we may disagree about the choice of highlights!).

The problem for a composer is that not all dialogue is well-suited to musical setting; a comedy like _Figaro_ or _Cosi_, with its plotting and scheming, is filled with chatter which is really not made for music, and that stuff has to be gotten across somehow, preferably as quickly as possible. Secco recitative is the fastest way to get it out, short of going to spoken dialogue. Later composers had the problem of conveying a plot through continuous music, in which everything said was going to take more time to say. Librettists couldn't engage in as much witty banter, or else operas had to become longer (a potential difficulty solved by the elimination of musically repetitious arias and ensembles). I'd say Verdi and Boito solved the dialogue problem better than anyone and succeeded in making an amazingly fast-paced comedy out of _Falstaff_ with through-composed music. Wagner wrote his own libretto and music to accommodate each other in _Meistersinger_, but did end end up with what is probably opera's longest comedy, albeit one with more serious themes to justify its length.

Comic subjects, in general, require more intricate plotting and witty banter, and correspondingly more dialogue, than serious ones, and even after the abandonment of secco recitative, comic opera, in the form of operetta, avoided the problem of setting "business" to music by using spoken dialogue to keep things moving briskly along. As with secco recitative, we may or may not want to listen to all that talk when we're in the mood for music.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that opera using secco recitative is "flawed" by virtue of it. It was a conventional way of dealing with dialogue which wasn't strictly necessary - plain speech can do the same job, and in most cases better, I think - but which was standard for a time, and which we must accept. Composers can handle it more or less well (by minimizing it, for one thing!), and good singers can make it more or less lively and expressive. But the challenge of keeping real music going throughout an opera was one which the greatest composers seemed to welcome, and in the works of Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, and others we are given magnificently proportioned musical landscapes the like of which eighteenth-century composers could only have envisioned (and quite possibly did envision) in their dreams. No one I'm aware of wanted to return to secco recitative until Stravinsky cultivated its deliberate archaism in _The Rake's Progress_.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

Don Giovanni is not a perect opera to me, it has some weak(er) parts. There are several versions... not something you would expect, had it been perfect. The Vienna version had to have some more comic parts, to please the audience. The added part was a duet with Zerlina and Leporello, which does not quite stand up to the other parts. Also, Da Ponte spent significantly less time on its libretto that on Figaro, and was involved in several other commissions at that time. Finally, the sheer extreme subjects in this opera (rape, murder, supernatural elements) make it very hard to put on a stage and also, to have it pass as a comic opera. No wonder so many directors choose to cut the final sextet, the contrasts are just so extreme. It is however a very bold attempt mostly by Mozart to make it work, and musically it showed new territory left to explore. 

It seems to me that da Ponte and Mozart hit it of very well with Figaro, but than slowly drifted apart. Cosi is even more flawed than Don Giovanni. The music and and the actions are sometimes not a unity, far from it. The plot is quite nasty, and it was specifically da Ponte who liked it. The scene where the two couples say goodbye is a good example - we hear the most sincere music, while Alfonso is laughing his pants of. It just doesn't add up, it's like Mozart was already feeling sorry for them, telling us this joke will not end well. The aria's are not as strong and expressive as in Don Giovanni or Figaro. 

Figaro would come closest to perfection. The crazy day, all those actions make sense to me as they unfold, the great climax of the second act, all underlining that craziness. The music matches all the time to what's happening on stage, for example the part where Susanna and Figaro make up when Figaro explains he recognized Susanna's in the Contessa's dress by her voice is one of the highlights. I can't find any weak points. The count ask for forgiveness with music so profound, we are almost led to believe he is sincere, almost....


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Secco recitative is not boring in someone's "opinion." *This is not a matter of opinion, but of taste. *Boredom is an expression of taste, not of opinion. There is no arguing with taste, so when someone expresses a taste or distaste for something it is ungracious to try to make an argument out of it. All you can legitimately do is say that it doesn't bore you, and say what you like about it.
> 
> Some people enjoy secco recitatives, some do not. As it happens, Itullian's distaste for continuo-accompanied chatter is shared by others. I too find them an uninteresting sort of quasi-music which may function effectively in the theater but which feels like a waste of my listening time at home. Undoubtedly they carry the action forward. They can hardly carry it backward, can they? Carrying the action forward is all they are for. That doesn't mean that they need be interesting to anyone as music, or that one has to enjoy listening to them.
> 
> I will add that Mozart's use of recitative is quite varied, from plain secco to fully accompanied, and that he is less reliant on secco than his less gifted contemporaries. He and Gluck both moved operatic music forward in the direction of through-composition, for which some of us are grateful.


I think you'll find that opinion is is dictated by taste. I do not like coffee - it tastes horrible to me. That is my opinion. It is dictated by my taste. Interesting that you say it is ungracious to make an argument out of it then proceed to make one yourself in the opposite direction. Come on! I find some of the discourses in Wagner interminably boring whereas others are enraptured by them. I skip these bits as others skip the 'chatter' of the recits. As you say, this is a matter of taste, so there is no arguing with it!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dongiovanni said:


> Don Giovanni is not a perect opera to me, it has some weak(er) parts. There are several versions... not something you would expect, had it been perfect. The Vienna version had to have some more comic parts, to please the audience. The added part was a duet with Zerlina and Leporello, which does not quite stand up to the other parts. Also, Da Ponte spent significantly less time on its libretto that on Figaro, and was involved in several other commissions at that time. Finally, the sheer extreme subjects in this opera (rape, murder, supernatural elements) make it very hard to put on a stage and also, *to have it pass as a comic opera. *No wonder so many directors choose to cut the final sextet, the contrasts are just so extreme. It is however a very bold attempt mostly by Mozart to make it work, and musically it showed new territory left to explore.
> 
> It seems to me that da Ponte and Mozart hit it of very well with Figaro, but than slowly drifted apart. Cosi is even more flawed than Don Giovanni. The music and and the actions are sometimes not a unity, far from it. The plot is quite nasty, and it was specifically da Ponte who liked it. *The scene where the two couples say goodbye is a good example - we hear the most sincere music, while Alfonso is laughing his pants of. It just doesn't add up,* it's like Mozart was already feeling sorry for them, telling us this joke will not end well. The aria's are not as strong and expressive as in Don Giovanni or Figaro.
> 
> Figaro would come closest to perfection. The crazy day, all those actions make sense to me as they unfold, the great climax of the second act, all underlining that craziness. The music matches all the time to what's happening on stage, for example the part where Susanna and Figaro make up when Figaro explains he recognized Susanna's in the Contessa's dress by her voice is one of the highlights. I can't find any weak points. The count ask for forgiveness with music so profound, we are almost led to believe he is sincere, almost....


It does add up if you treat Cosi as an Enlightenment satire that da Ponte / Mozart intended. You say it's nasty? Well it's intended to be! It is operatic perfection - of a somewhat nasty kind. No-one expects a happy ending after the curtain goes down! I cannot see your point at all about the arias. They are some of Mozart's sublime at music.

Don Giovanni is not a 'comic opera'. Da Ponte's libretto was billed, like many of its time, as dramma giocoso, a term that denotes a mixing of serious and comic action. It is not as 'perfect' as the other two operas but possibly contains the greatest music. It is not actually about the Don but the characters round him and their emotions. The final sextet is a final out working of these characters.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

DavidA said:


> It does add up if you treat Cosi as an Enlightenment satire that da Ponte / Mozart intended.


Maybe, but in that scene I would expect more hints of satire in the music, specifically by Guglielmo and Ferrando.

My other point was not that the nasty plot makes it less perfect, I somehow suspect (I should check my books if there's any proof) that Mozart just didn't like the subject as much as da Ponte did resulting in those little mismatches.

Don't get me wrong, I love Cosi !


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dongiovanni said:


> Maybe, but in that scene I would expect more hints of satire in the music, specifically by Guglielmo and Ferrando.
> 
> My other point was not that the nasty plot makes it less perfect, I somehow suspect (I should check my books if there's any proof) that Mozart just didn't like the subject as much as da Ponte did resulting in those little mismatches.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love Cosi !


Don't forget Mozart was the man who put a very nasty little commentary in the score of one of his horn concertos for his horn playing friend to see as he was playing! I think Wolfie lves the subject of Cosi. 
To get an idea of da Ponte, have you read 'The Man who wrote Mozart' ? Well worth a look at.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I cannot see your point at all about the arias. They are some of Mozart's sublime at music.


It all boils down to taste, if I compare to Don Giovanni, Donna Anna's aria's are more powerfull and expressive to me than Fiordiligi's, even Zerlina has better pieces than Despina.



DavidA said:


> ... but possibly contains the greatest music.


Yes, no question about that.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think you'll find that opinion is is dictated by taste. I do not like coffee - it tastes horrible to me. That is my opinion. It is dictated by my taste. Interesting that you say it is ungracious to make an argument out of it then proceed to make one yourself in the opposite direction. Come on! I find some of the discourses in Wagner interminably boring whereas others are enraptured by them. I skip these bits as others skip the 'chatter' of the recits. As you say, this is a matter of taste, so there is no arguing with it!


Opinion: Coffee is bad for us and people would do well to avoid it.

Taste: I don't like coffee.

Opinion: An opera with secco recitative is a poor opera.

Taste: I don't like operas with secco recitative.

I would never try to convince you that Wagner should not bore you. That's a matter of taste. But I will happily argue with you if you say that his operas are too long and that he needed a better librettist. Your boredom is a taste (in this case, a distaste); your opinion of his lengths and his librettos is just that - an opinion.

I hope that helps clarify the distinction between taste and opinion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dongiovanni said:


> Don Giovanni is not a perect opera to me, it has some weak(er) parts. There are several versions... not something you would expect, had it been perfect. The Vienna version had to have some more comic parts, to please the audience. The added part was a duet with Zerlina and Leporello, which does not quite stand up to the other parts. Also, Da Ponte spent significantly less time on its libretto that on Figaro, and was involved in several other commissions at that time. Finally, the sheer extreme subjects in this opera (rape, murder, supernatural elements) make it very hard to put on a stage and also, to have it pass as a comic opera. No wonder so many directors choose to cut the final sextet, the contrasts are just so extreme. It is however a very bold attempt mostly by Mozart to make it work, and musically it showed new territory left to explore.
> 
> It seems to me that da Ponte and Mozart hit it of very well with Figaro, but than slowly drifted apart. Cosi is even more flawed than Don Giovanni. The music and and the actions are sometimes not a unity, far from it. The plot is quite nasty, and it was specifically da Ponte who liked it. The scene where the two couples say goodbye is a good example - we hear the most sincere music, while Alfonso is laughing his pants of. It just doesn't add up, it's like Mozart was already feeling sorry for them, telling us this joke will not end well. The aria's are not as strong and expressive as in Don Giovanni or Figaro.
> 
> Figaro would come closest to perfection. The crazy day, all those actions make sense to me as they unfold, the great climax of the second act, all underlining that craziness. The music matches all the time to what's happening on stage, for example the part where Susanna and Figaro make up when Figaro explains he recognized Susanna's in the Contessa's dress by her voice is one of the highlights. I can't find any weak points. The count ask for forgiveness with music so profound, we are almost led to believe he is sincere, almost....


Your remarks are thoughtful and thought-provoking. Or maybe I'm just saying that because I basically agree with them! :lol:

In terms of how nearly his operas approach that nearly impossible goal of perfection, I would probably rank Mozart's "big three" in the order you have. But I may find _Cosi fan tutte_ even less satisfactory than you do. The truth is that many people, from Beethoven and Wagner on down, have found it troubling. The moralistic 19th century found it offensive against propriety; nowadays we're more likely to call it cynical, misogynist, or merely shallow and silly. Possibly it's all of these things. And although our age is less likely than earlier times to feel that these problems compromise its status as a "great" work of art, I think that the point is still debatable. It's impossible for many not to think that Mozart's musical genius was lavished on a subject unworthy of it - that music and drama are fundamentally out of harmony with each other, and that the final product is therefore unsatisfactory.

I find I can enjoy greatly much of the music of this opera purely as music, but that as a total musico-dramatic experience it leaves much to be desired and is in fact quite irritating to me. Basically, "we are not amused."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Having listened to Falstaff again today, I think it should definitely be right up there with the most perfect of all operas. Not a note wasted. Incredibly vital music for a man of 80. And the libretto is a masterpiece.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Having listened to Falstaff again today, I think it should definitely be right up there with the most perfect of all operas. Not a note wasted. Incredibly vital music for a man of 80. And the libretto is a masterpiece.


Maybe I need to revisit Falstaff. I saw it at the SF Opera a few years ago, and have never been so bored in my life. It was so boring and dull. Maybe it was just the performance.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

gellio said:


> Maybe I need to revisit Falstaff. I saw it at the SF Opera a few years ago, and have never been so bored in my life. It was so boring and dull. Maybe it was just the performance.


I don´t like Falstaff too. The most perfect Verdi opera in my opinion is Don Carlo.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

gellio said:


> Maybe I need to revisit Falstaff. I saw it at the SF Opera a few years ago, and have never been so bored in my life. It was so boring and dull. Maybe it was just the performance.


I can only think that it was the performance. I would describe it as a perfect opera as is Otello.

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

gellio said:


> Maybe I need to revisit Falstaff. I saw it at the SF Opera a few years ago, and have never been so bored in my life. It was so boring and dull. Maybe it was just the performance.


I do think _Falstaff_ is a masterpiece, but I feel it's a bit cold - lacking in warmth or passion, which is surprising for Verdi. Obviously he wanted to do something very different, and his musical resourcefulness is quite amazing. I love the little romantic bits for Nan and Fenton, and the fairy music in the final act, because they are beautiful and because they inject a bit of sweetness into the absurdity. The final fugue is a tour de force but strikes me as more cynical than good-natured.

I saw Falstaff years ago in Boston. The production was delightful and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Of recordings, the old Gobbi/Karajan probably remains unbeatable.


----------



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm just not a Verdi fan. I like Traviata a lot, but that is really it. Puccini, I like Turandot, and that is really it. I'm more Mozart, Wagner and the Russians.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

gellio said:


> I'm just not a Verdi fan. I like Traviata a lot, but that is really it. Puccini, I like Turandot, and that is really it. I'm more Mozart, Wagner and the Russians.


That's not surprising, seeing the mount of time you have to spend listing to your Wagner recordings


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Dongiovanni said:


> Figaro would come closest to perfection. The crazy day, all those actions make sense to me as they unfold, the great climax of the second act, all underlining that craziness. The music matches all the time to what's happening on stage, for example the part where Susanna and Figaro make up when Figaro explains he recognized Susanna's in the Contessa's dress by her voice is one of the highlights. I can't find any weak points. The count ask for forgiveness with music so profound, we are almost led to believe he is sincere, almost....


As a 'play' it's a little odd. It starts out as the story of two young lovers in a strange world. Figaro is youthful, playful and not afraid of anything. By the end its the story of Old love and the Figaro is not the same person at all. He's had little effect on developments.

For all its faults, of Mozart's Opera's, I find Don Giovanni the most 'perfect'. It holds a mirror upto the dark side of our character and reveals most clearly the greatest truths.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Opinion: Coffee is bad for us and people would do well to avoid it.
> 
> Taste: I don't like coffee.
> 
> ...


No you are wrong n your assertion that tries to split the two into neat categories.. It is taste that often determines opinion in the arts. Of course other things determine opinion too. in science it is facts (and an interpretation of them) that usually determines opinion. Opinion is determined by Something. It does not arise on its own.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say that opera using secco recitative is "flawed" by virtue of it. It was a conventional way of dealing with dialogue which wasn't strictly necessary - plain speech can do the same job, and in most cases better, I think - but which was standard for a time, and which we must accept. Composers can handle it more or less well (by minimizing it, for one thing!), and good singers can make it more or less lively and expressive. But the challenge of keeping real music going throughout an opera was one which the greatest composers seemed to welcome, and in the works of Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, and others we are given magnificently proportioned musical landscapes the like of which eighteenth-century composers could only have envisioned (and quite possibly did envision) in their dreams. No one I'm aware of wanted to return to secco recitative until Stravinsky cultivated its deliberate archaism in _The Rake's Progress_.


I can say if operas had continued to be made with secco recitatives I would never have listened to or seen an opera completely. Not all changes are to the better but dropping the secco recitatives was a huge improvement. A thing with Rake´s Progress is that the secco recitatives are much shorter and more lively than in the operas from the 18-th century.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> No you are wrong n your assertion that tries to split the two into neat categories.. It is taste that often determines opinion in the arts. Of course other things determine opinion too. in science it is facts (and an interpretation of them) that usually determines opinion. Opinion is determined by Something. It does not arise on its own.


If taste and opinion were not different things, we couldn't say that taste often determines opinion. One thing can only "determine" another thing which is not the same thing.

A. _Taste:_ Wagner's operas are too long for me. They don't hold my attention throughout, and I get bored.

B. _Opinion:_ Wagner's operas are too long. Some parts are uninspired and should be cut.

B is not a necessary conclusion from A. Taste may well determine opinion, but only if we can't see the difference or are careless in our statements. If we're careful, we'll report our feelings as just that - feelings - and not as knowledge.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> If taste and opinion were not different things, we couldn't say that taste often determines opinion. One thing can only "determine" another thing which is not the same thing.
> 
> A. _Taste:_ Wagner's operas are too long for me. They don't hold my attention throughout, and I get bored.
> 
> ...


As I said and as you have just shown, opinion is sometimes determined by taste. You have again misquoted me. I have never said that Wagner's operas (as they stand) should be cut. What I have said is that Wagner himself should have edited his libretti or (better still) employed someone to edit them. Every writer needs an editor - it is one of the rules of journalism or writing. The fact that Wagner apparently didn't led to passages which (in the opinion of some lovers of music) can seem over lengthy. Off course, Wagner is not the only composer suffered from this problem. Verdi himself edited some of his operas (including Don Carlo) later in life to tighten them up.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> As I said and as you have just shown, opinion is sometimes determined by taste. You have again misquoted me. I have never said that Wagner's operas (as they stand) should be cut. What I have said is that Wagner himself should have edited his libretti or (better still) employed someone to edit them. Every writer needs an editor - it is one of the rules of journalism or writing. The fact that Wagner apparently didn't led to passages which (in the opinion of some lovers of music) can seem over lengthy. Off course, Wagner is not the only composer suffered from this problem. Verdi himself edited some of his operas (including Don Carlo) later in life to tighten them up.


Don't change the subject. The subject is the difference between taste and opinion. My example was not an attempt to quote you. Let's use a different example.

A. Taste: I don't like Mahler. I find his music sentimental and hysterical. He seems to wallow in his own personal crises, and I prefer a more objective art. I prefer Bruckner.

B. Opinion: Mahler's symphonies are inferior to Bruckner's.

How many more examples of the difference between taste and opinion do I have to come up with before you say "Aha!, Yes, opinion and taste are not the same"? An infinite number of examples? Saying that "opinion is sometimes determined by taste" is not a correct rebuttal of the assertion that the two are different. Try to focus now: _opinion and taste are not the same._ That is my point, and the only point I have tried to make. If you think you can show that they are the same, have at it, but don't keep repeating that taste may _determine_ opinion. That only shows that they _are_ different.

Why is this so difficult to get across?

Not every writer needs, or employs, an editor, by the way. Who edited Shakespeare, Donne, Austen, Dostoevsky, or Nietzsche? Why would you want to? You've told us innumerable times what you think of Wagner's libretti. I even agree with you about a few bits here and there. I also agree that there are things in other people's operas that could be trimmed or tightened up. What matters in the end is whether we enjoy the operas, and the fact that this or that passage may bore us is not very interesting.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Don't change the subject. The subject is the difference between taste and opinion. My example was not an attempt to quote you. Let's use a different example.
> 
> A. Taste: I don't like Mahler. I find his music sentimental and hysterical. He seems to wallow in his own personal crises, and I prefer a more objective art. I prefer Bruckner.
> 
> ...


Sorry Woodduck but you have again misunderstood what I have been saying. There is no need for you to try and get things across to me. I understand the semantics! It is your misunderstanding that is the problem not my understanding. So leave it there!
As to editors, there is evidence that many of the great writers did indeed have editors. You mention Jane Austen - Professor Kathryn Sutherland of Oxford has postulated editing of Austen's originals:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11610489

Whether or not Sutherland is right, it is quite obvious from the manuscripts that they underwent considerable editing. As one Austen website puts it:
"As for using an editor, as far as I know any writer worth their salt turns their work over to an editor and proofer before their work is published. During the writing process, Jane was known to bounce ideas off her sister Cassandra. Her family expressed their opinions about her characters and stories, and she would certainly be influenced by those she trusted."

As for Shakespeare, the very fact he was head of a company of players who he wrote for would have brought its own editing. We mustn't think of these great writers as writing in a vacuum of just themselves. It just doesn't happen like this. It is Victorian romanticism that seeks to turn dear old Bill S into some sort of god. One interesting article:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jul/12/who-edited-shakespeare-john-florio

We could go on. Writers generally (if they have any sense) submit their manuscripts as a first draft to trusted people for their opinions before the thing goers to print. Often a publisher will demand an edit before publication. That is just the way of the publishing world I have been involved with. "Everyone needs an editor!" an editor once told me. "Even the editor!"

However as we're now well off the subject of the perfect opera, let's leave it there!


----------



## PolyphonicPlatypus (Dec 31, 2015)

Unfortunately I only have a few months wrth of opera experience however I think Mozart's Le Nozze Di Figaro would be perfect were the recitative to have more melody, or an opera akin to this description (any suggestions?).
The blend of wonderful melody, far fetched plot and comedy make this the best opera I have seen, there is an overwhelming charm about a well done marriage of Figaro.


----------



## PolyphonicPlatypus (Dec 31, 2015)

I would disagree, I think that though Don Giovanni is good it cannot possibly match the charm of Figaro. I find the music in Don Giovanni less appealing.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Of the 3 Mozart works, I think that Figaro is superb (I will not use the 'g' word!), I enjoy Cosi but have never warmed to Don Giovanni.

As to the more general question about a 'perfect' opera, I could certainly list quite a few which come close but none where I have no quibbles about some aspects of the work and, for me, that's probably how it ought to be, i.e. there is no perfection and never can be, but many which strive towards it. Also the perfect would be the enemy of not-quite-perfect.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> Now, this is an argument I've never understood, because to my mind the libretto -- or "the story" -- and the music are so intimately connected that I find it very hard to think of them separately. So for me the libretto, or story, is just as good as the music is -- because the story is being told through the music; you're experiencing the two of them together, as a unit to speak, and not as two separate things (i.e. "convoluted plot vs. great music"). It seems it's always been popular to say that OTELLO and FALSTAFF have superior stories (because they're based on Shakespeare?), but if you think about it, OTELLO's plot, hinges on a series of coincidences as unlikely as those in ERNANI; I think the reason OTELLO is perceived as having the sounder plot is probably because OTELLO is through-composed whereas ERNANI (or IL TROVATORE, etc.) is not, and maybe we tend to perceive operas where the music never stops as dramatically stronger than operas that are divided into "numbers."
> 
> The same goes, IMO, for such Mozart/Da Ponte operas as LE NOZZE DI FIGARO -- now _there's_ an intricate plot. But Mozart's music has a greater sense of unity than, say Handel's before him (Mozart's extended act-finales, for example), so that I think most people perceive Mozart's operas as dramatically stronger than Handel's.


I think great music can redeem a poor libretto, but a great libretto cannot redeem poor music.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> I think great music can redeem a poor libretto, but a great libretto cannot redeem poor music.


Just to clarify: When you refer to the "libretto," are you referring to the plot, or to the poetry (what we in English would call "the lyrics") -- or both?


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

There are all sorts of possible characteristics of the perfect opera. 
An ideal candidate, in my view, as a fusion of text and libretto, appropriate and often beautiful music, wit, drama, colour and much more is Der Rosenkavalier. I admire and even love this opera, but it wouldn't be in the top 10 of those I listen to most.
I have opined before and still maintain that the finest opera ever written is the Marriage of Figaro. I can - and have - provided reasons for this claim, but I don't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree. I am highly gratified to find that this opinion is quite widely shared on this forum. 
Gotterdammerung is very long, but to my mind it is near-perfect. It is (currently) my favourite Wagner opera. It is the least supernatural of the Ring operas and highlights Wagner's genius (like Mozart) for conveying the breadth of human emotion, fragility etc. 
I think Falstaff the most perfect of Verdi's operas, followed by Otello, but my favourite is Don Carlos. 
Britten hasn't featured in the discussion yet, but Peter Grimes and A Midsummer Night's Dream are quite brilliant. My favourite Puccini is Tosca - how anyone could dismiss this "shabby little shocker" is beyond me. Nobody could create mood in two or three notes like Puccini.
Note that I have spoken chiefly of my favourites. Where I have spoken of perfect, I do mean to move beyond purely personal taste.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> Just to clarify: When you refer to the "libretto," are you referring to the plot, or to the poetry (what we in English would call "the lyrics") -- or both?


I'm referring to the written text employed by the singers. It will, of course, embody or contain plot, momentum, focus, dramatic interest and - ideally but not necessarily - poetry. Lady Macbeth of Mstensk is not poetic at all but, my goodness, it is powerful.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Steatopygous said:


> I'm referring to the written text employed by the singers. It will, of course, embody or contain plot, momentum, focus, dramatic interest and - ideally but not necessarily - poetry. Lady Macbeth of Mstensk is not poetic at all but, my goodness, it is powerful.


Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not fluent in any of the big European "operatic languages," and because of this I always think I might be missing something with regard to the "poetry" of opera librettos. For example, when people refer to OTELLO and FALSTAFF as having greater librettos than Verdi's earlier operas, I always wonder if part of what they're saying is that the _poetry_ of their libretti is superior to the _poetry_ of Verdi's earlier libretti (in other words, I wonder if they're saying that Boito had a better "way with words" than Piave). If so, then as an English speaker I'm not really in a position to appreciate it -- just like an Italian who only speaks a little English would not appreciate the lyrics of, say, Oscar Hammerstein on the same level that a native English speaker would.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beauty of language - poetic language - in an opera libretto is apt to be obscured to a great extent by the music. Poetry has its own rhythm and cadence based on spoken language, and when set to actual music must give up that intrinsic beauty to the demands of musical expression. Music rules almost any partnership with other arts, and great poetry is more apt to be compromised than helped by musical setting unless the music is carefully contrived to coincide with the rhythms of speech, which most operatic music is not. And even if it is, the music's expressive qualities will dominate and largely supersede the poetry's intrinsic effect. Poetic excellence just isn't a defining characteristic of a good libretto, although its presence is not necessarily a drawback if the composer can set words in a way that allows their beauty to be heard and felt.

I'd say that the main requirements of an effective libretto are that it tell a good, clearly plotted story in a concise way - without unnecessary verbiage - and that it maximize the opportunity for expressive music and minimize emotionally neutral chatter. The proof of success lies mainly in the final result: was the composer able to work with it and produce an opera that has a clear dramatic profile and consistently meaningful music? A libretto that works well for one composer might not be suitable for another, and the great opera composers had a strong sense of what would work for their own musical purposes - which is why Verdi constantly harassed his librettists and altered their work, and why Wagner wrote his own libretti.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I haven't read every post in this thread, but with respect to Mozart and Da Ponte's recitative, I would say a fair assessment can only be made after seeing a well-acted performance (arguably a rarity). Opera is musical theatre. Mozart and Da Ponte did not write for home stereo. They wrote for the stage. And during recitative, the text (and its delivery) takes on a much more prominent role.

In a perfect world, it would also be in a language I understood - subtitles are an imperfect alternative.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

jegreenwood said:


> I haven't read every post in this thread, but with respect to Mozart and Da Ponte's recitative, I would say a fair assessment can only be made after seeing a well-acted performance (arguably a rarity). Opera is musical theatre. Mozart and Da Ponte did not write for home stereo. They wrote for the stage. And during recitative, the text (and its delivery) takes on a much more prominent role.
> 
> In a perfect world, it would also be in a language I understood - subtitles are an imperfect alternative.


I have seen Mozart´s Don Giovanni on TV in English I was as bored as always.
Why is it always Mozart´s operas that get to be defended as in a personal dislike for their operas would be offensive? Rossini´s operas with secco recitatives are nearly equally boring.
Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Strauss etc wrote for the stage too I prefer their operas.
There are also actual radio operas.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Bellinilover said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not fluent in any of the big European "operatic languages," and because of this I always think I might be missing something with regard to the "poetry" of opera librettos. *For example, when people refer to OTELLO and FALSTAFF as having greater librettos than Verdi's earlier operas, I always wonder if part of what they're saying is that the poetry of their libretti is superior to the poetry of Verdi's earlier libretti (in other words, I wonder if they're saying that Boito had a better "way with words" than Piave).* If so, then as an English speaker I'm not really in a position to appreciate it -- just like an Italian who only speaks a little English would not appreciate the lyrics of, say, Oscar Hammerstein on the same level that a native English speaker would.


Being an Italian speaker I can confirm that the part I have put in bold is indeed the case.

N.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2016)

Not just better poetry but better construction. You can appreciate this without speaking Italian.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2016)

Nominating La Boheme as a perfect opera. 

I was listening to it again (twice) and had to appreciate why it's the one of the most beloved operas, if not THE most performed of all. 

It's concise, there's no unnecessary scene, there's a tremendous sense of "real life," the music speaks DIRECTLY to the listener, the melodies are gorgeous but also relate to the characters and the story. It's through-composed and even the "arias" have a sense of belonging to the action. Is there a more memorable moment in all of opera than Marcello erupting in the middle of the chaos of "Quando men vó soletta" singing "Giuoventu mia..."? It's a memorable aria but it captures LIFE. The whole scene is amazing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

If you are looking for a 'perfect' opera (or operetta) you might take the one act collaboration between Gilbert and Sullivan "Trial by Jury". OK the music isn't first rate but it matches the words of Gilbert's skilled libretto perfectly.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> So that makes Picasso better than Leonardo or Michelangelo?
> 
> *You're confusing development of form over time with being superior.* Is Liszt's sonata in B minor better than Beethoven's sonatas? Or Berg's sonata superior to Liszt's?


I believe G.K. Chesterton called this line of reasoning "chronological snobbery."


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I believe G.K. Chesterton called this line of reasoning "chronological snobbery."


Sometimes development is for the better. To stop using secco recitatives was an improvement because they made the operas better.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> I *have seen Mozart´s Don Giovanni on TV in English I was as bored as always.*
> Why is it always Mozart´s operas that get to be defended as in a personal dislike for their operas would be offensive? Rossini´s operas with secco recitatives are nearly equally boring.
> Verdi, Wagner, Puccini, Strauss etc wrote for the stage too I prefer their operas.
> There are also actual radio operas.


My friend it is your perogative to be bored, piqued or annoyed by Mozart's genius, while others of us get on with enjoying it!


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Sloe said:


> Sometimes development is for the better. To stop using secco recitatives was an improvement because they made the operas better.


But what do you mean by "better"?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> But what do you mean by "better"?


They have more flow.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Sloe said:


> They have more flow.


I see. Well, anyone is perfectly free to _prefer_ an opera that's through composed or uses orchestral recitatives, but that doesn't mean that such an opera is objectively "better" than an opera with _secco_ recitatives. It's not as though the entire point of opera is to eliminate individual "musical numbers" or to be as much like natural speech as possible. Maybe some composers, like Wagner, saw it that way, but I'm not aware of any universal law that says such a thing. Like so much in the arts, it's subjective or a matter of individual taste.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Sloe said:


> Sometimes development is for the better. To stop using secco recitatives was an improvement because they made the operas better.


Not that secco recitatives were necessarily an impediment to the drama, at least not in the hands of masters like Purcell and Handel. Wagner, whose mature operas are mostly "recitative" from start to finish, is for me the greatest composer of opera/music-drama, with Handel second.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I see. Well, anyone is perfectly free to _prefer_ an opera that's through composed or uses orchestral recitatives, but that doesn't mean that such an opera is objectively "better" than an opera with _secco_ recitatives. It's not as though the entire point of opera is to eliminate individual "musical numbers" or to be as much like natural speech as possible. Maybe some composers, like Wagner, saw it that way, but I'm not aware of any universal law that says such a thing. Like so much in the arts, it's subjective or a matter of individual taste.


I think people here different things. Since some people nearly don´t even notice the difference between secco recitatives and other recitatives or parts of operas that are not numbers. For me I hear dull speech-sing prrryyyymm dull speech-sing again and it goes on for several minutes. I give everyone the right to like that but I don´t.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

To me to say one style of opera is 'better' than another because it developed later is wrong headed. Like saying romantic music is better than classical music. It is just a question of different styles. Obviously we all have our preferences but why say one style is better than the other? We don't do that with other periods of music.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> To me to say one style of opera is 'better' than another because it developed later is wrong headed. Like saying romantic music is better than classical music. It is just a question of different styles. Obviously we all have our preferences but why say one style is better than the other? We don't do that with other periods of music.


Hear hear :cheers:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DavidA said:


> To me to say one style of opera is 'better' than another because it developed later is wrong headed. Like saying romantic music is better than classical music. It is just a question of different styles. Obviously we all have our preferences but why say one style is better than the other? We don't do that with other periods of music.


Except sometimes to say that contemporary music is worse than all of the others...which is just as wrongheaded.


----------

