# Verdi Is "Mawkish and Shallow"



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Professor Mark Berry writes:

"The esteem in which La Traviata and Verdi's œuvre in general are held continues to baffle me. Puccini can be mawkish, Rossini can be shallow, but there is a degree of craftsmanship to be heard and admired there. Verdi seems to combine the worst aspects of both, standing perhaps slightly above Donizetti, but that is all."

"I have tried more than once with Otello and Falstaff, at the urgings of people whose opinions I respect. However, I am sorry to say that I really find them no more interesting: more convoluted perhaps, but that is all. Someone once described 'Falstaff' to me as being close to Debussy, which sounded promising. Alas, the comparison failed to register"

RTWT here:

http://boulezian.blogspot.com/2010/07/la-traviata-royal-opera-8-july-2010.html

--------

Oh dear....


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

[sigh]. Using 'mawkish' in the sense of "sad or romantic in a foolish or exaggerated way" (Merriam Webster), "Mawkish and shallow" can describe a _lot_ of Romantic operas. Opera was an 'of the people, for the people' genre, perhaps especially in Italy. People sang the arias while walking in the street, not just in the bath. The plots were required to contain plenty of bathos, or simple humor, or both. The complaint, whatever its narcissistic intent, reveals a damnable ignorance.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Xavier said:


> Professor Mark Berry writes:
> 
> "The esteem in which La Traviata and Verdi's œuvre in general are held continues to baffle me. Puccini can be mawkish, Rossini can be shallow, but there is a degree of craftsmanship to be heard and admired there. Verdi seems to combine the worst aspects of both, standing perhaps slightly above Donizetti, but that is all."
> 
> ...


I daren't read the whole article for fear of apoplexy.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

OMG. Man (Dr, not Prof.) expresses personal opinion about Verdi. 4 years ago. In response to criticism,



> far better to say nothing than to pen a prejudiced, superficial critique of his work which merely reveals your own insensitivity.


he writes...



> With respect to prejudice, doubtless I have some, as we all do; none of us is a blank slate, thank goodness. Insensitivity: I should like to think not. I can be moved to and beyond tears by music from Machaut to Boulez, and operatically from Monteverdi to Birtwistle.
> 
> As for superficiality, I am sure you are right. I was not setting out to pen a critique, only briefly to relate my reactions upon returning to something I generally avoid, my return having been motived in part by an attempt to determine whether I had missed something hitherto.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Were do you dig up this pretentious non-important kind of article, and...*

Were do you dig up this pretentious non-important kind of article, and... who ever heard of this professor... and, do you really want to further this professor's reputation in any way by disseminating yet another blog-worthless sort of post?

Methinks you have a sort of sick obsession with those detractors of deceased great composers who are found on zInternetz.

*SOME PEOPLE HAVE A MORBID FEAR OF TALENT, 
and their is no stopping their detracting whining, for which the internet is the perfect venue.*


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Some people will never get Italian music. The German tradition prizes complexity, harmony, and the predominance of intellectual ideas over beauty. The Italian tradition emphasizes simplicity and clarity, melody, and the predominance of beauty over abstract ideas.They are (and these are generalizations, of course) diametrically opposed. People like Mark Berry, whose ignorant reviews of Italian opera have annoyed my to no end in the past, is only showing his incredibly myopic intellectual prejudices in full force in the above quote. he has the right to not like Verdi; he has the right to say it's not interesting to him; he has the right to say that he doesn't care about Italian music at all, and that it has no value for him; but the words he chooses routinely impugn the "objective" value of composers like Puccini and Verdi in a way that is not only misinformed and closed minded, but simply rude. The casual dismissal of a master opera composer like Donizetti is a further sin. A musicologist, unless he or she has some particular affinity for drama or training in theatre/literature, really has no business doing criticism of opera. It is _not_ pure music, it is music in the service of drama, always.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I personally agree with the fellow, but will keep relatively quiet. One could wish for many more specificications, though, and it shouldn´t be difficult to provide them.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Some people will never get Italian music. The German tradition prizes complexity, harmony, and the predominance of intellectual ideas over beauty. The Italian tradition emphasizes simplicity and clarity, melody, and the predominance of beauty over abstract ideas.They are (and these are generalizations, of course) diametrically opposed. People like Mark Berry, whose ignorant reviews of Italian opera have annoyed my to no end in the past, is only showing his incredibly myopic intellectual prejudices in full force in the above quote. he has the right to not like Verdi; he has the right to say it's not interesting to him; he has the right to say that he doesn't care about Italian music at all, and that it has no value for him; but the words he chooses routinely impugn the "objective" value of composers like Puccini and Verdi in a way that is not only misinformed and closed minded, but simply rude. The casual dismissal of a master opera composer like Donizetti is a further sin. A musicologist, unless he or she has some particular affinity for drama or training in theatre/literature, really has no business doing criticism of opera. It is _not_ pure music,* it is music in the service of drama, always.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Isn't that Wagners whole point?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Itullian said:


> HumphreyAppleby said:
> 
> 
> > Some people will never get Italian music. The German tradition prizes complexity, harmony, and the predominance of intellectual ideas over beauty. The Italian tradition emphasizes simplicity and clarity, melody, and the predominance of beauty over abstract ideas.They are (and these are generalizations, of course) diametrically opposed. People like Mark Berry, whose ignorant reviews of Italian opera have annoyed my to no end in the past, is only showing his incredibly myopic intellectual prejudices in full force in the above quote. he has the right to not like Verdi; he has the right to say it's not interesting to him; he has the right to say that he doesn't care about Italian music at all, and that it has no value for him; but the words he chooses routinely impugn the "objective" value of composers like Puccini and Verdi in a way that is not only misinformed and closed minded, but simply rude. The casual dismissal of a master opera composer like Donizetti is a further sin. A musicologist, unless he or she has some particular affinity for drama or training in theatre/literature, really has no business doing criticism of opera. It is _not_ pure music,* it is music in the service of drama, always.[/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*I Hate Verdi*

I hate Verdi and I would never post such rubbish. :scold:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Professor Mark Berry writes:
> 
> "The esteem in which La Traviata and Verdi's œuvre in general are held continues to baffle me. Puccini can be mawkish, Rossini can be shallow, but there is a degree of craftsmanship to be heard and admired there. Verdi seems to combine the worst aspects of both, standing perhaps slightly above Donizetti, but that is all."
> 
> ...


Don't be confused. He is a Boulezian. That says it all!

Just ignore such rankings!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I hate Verdi and I would never post such rubbish. :scold:


Why do you hate him?


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Isn't that Wagners whole point?


I'm not blaming Wagner for the opinions of Mr. Berry. I'm a Wagner fan (mostly)! Despite his ridiculous ego, which led him to dismiss poor Donizetti as well, he knew whereof he spoke with respect to opera theory. Mr. Berry says later on in the comments section that it is "complexity" which endows music with emotion. Perhaps. But in opera it is the drama which is expressed through music that endows it with emotion and meaning. (When I'm talking about drama and music, I'm not commenting on the distinctions between form and organicism in music. Una furitva lagrima may have traditional form, but it serves the drama through the melody and the way it is harmonized.)


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Itullian said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but it is generally thought that Wagner would be more than likely _the_ guy to be at the head of that group who deny there is more than one way to skin a cat
> ...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*I do not know.*



Itullian said:


> Why do you hate him?


I don't know why. When the Verdi train left the station, I was not on it.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I don't know why. When the Verdi train left the station, I was not on it.


come on, don't be shy


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I'm not blaming Wagner for the opinions of Mr. Berry. I'm a Wagner fan (mostly)! Despite his ridiculous ego, which led him to dismiss poor Donizetti as well, he knew whereof he spoke with respect to opera theory*. Mr. Berry says later on in the comments section that it is "complexity" which endows music with emotion*. Perhaps. But in opera it is the drama which is expressed through music that endows it with emotion and meaning. (When I'm talking about drama and music, I'm not commenting on the distinctions between form and organicism in music. Una furitva lagrima may have traditional form, but it serves the drama through the melody and the way it is harmonized.)


I think simple can be emotional as well. Some pop songs are vey emotional, arias as well.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Were do you dig up this pretentious non-important kind of article.
> 
> And who ever heard of this professor. And, do you really want to further this professor's reputation in any way by disseminating yet another blog-worthless sort of post?


Just for the record: it's one of the most widely read opera/classical blogs out there... And I've also seen Alex Ross praise his work a couple times.

And his latest book:

http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Bonds-And-Laughing-Fire/dp/0754653560


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I think simple can be emotional as well. Some pop songs are vey emotional, arias as well.


Precisely. I certainly didn't mean to say I agreed with him about that!


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Another surprise -- The Guardian newspaper says:

_"Mark Berry, the brains behind the popular and authoritative Boulezian blog"_

http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/aug/04/proms-2011-week-two


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Precisely. I certainly didn't mean to say I agreed with him about that!


It seems like in Italian opera the drama almost always comes from the singing.
In Wagnerian opera the orchestra or voice can provide the drama.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Itullian said:


> It seems like in Italian opera the drama almost always comes from the singing.
> In Wagnerian opera the orchestra or voice can provide the drama.


Typically that is the case, although there are some remarkable orchestral pieces from Italian opera- some of Verdi's preludes and orchestral passages, and in Puccini there is a radically more prominent role for orchestra in the later works. But in general, Italian opera is about the human voice and it's expressive capacities.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Thanks for the blog recommendation! I too have no time for Verdi and am interested in Boulez so I'll probably enjoy it greatly


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Another surprise -- The Guardian newspaper says:
> 
> _"Mark Berry, the brains behind the popular and authoritative Boulezian blog"_
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/aug/04/proms-2011-week-two


Well, it's The Guardian. That says it all!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

dgee said:


> Thanks for the blog recommendation! I too have no time for Verdi and am interested in Boulez so I'll probably enjoy it greatly




Sure. The public side of Boulez is opera anyway. Even French opera; Don Quichotte without the humor.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I heard some Boulez the other night. The musical equivalent of walking barefoot on broken glass!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Just for the record: it's one of the most widely read opera/classical blogs out there... And I've also seen Alex Ross praise his work a couple times.
> 
> And his latest book:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Bonds-And-Laughing-Fire/dp/0754653560


I mean, c'mon, Verdi it a sort of Italian Beethoven -- I doubt if anything can much damage his repute, or stop his works from being produced.

Do you really think that this sort of academic / critical writing and the self-indulgent exercise of it -- which is so far away from the actuality of the music -- is going to have one iota of influence on who likes Verdi, or opera companies deciding they should not program it?

Pity the poor academic, they have to sell books of this sort of 'controversial' palaver in order to make a living. LOL.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

PetrB said:


> ]
> 
> Pity the poor academic, they have to sell books of this sort of 'controversial' palaver in order to make a living. LOL.


People who can read music but can't hear it!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Xavier said:


> "I have tried more than once with Otello and Falstaff, at the urgings of people whose opinions I respect. However, I am sorry to say that I really find them no more interesting: more convoluted perhaps, but that is all.


If he finds Otello and Falstaff convoluted, someone might want to warn him to stay away from the Shakespearean originals--total chaos by comparison!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> If he finds Otello and Falstaff convoluted, someone might want to warn him to stay away from the Shakespearean originals--total chaos by comparison!


I think he meant more convoluted than his other operas.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Berry is mawkish and shallow.

Signed: Verdi.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I think he meant more convoluted than his other operas.


That's true, of course. On a more serious note, Verdi could probably assume at least basic familiarity with the originals for Otello and Falstaff on the part of his audience, giving him more leeway for "convolution." I personally think his reworkings of Shakespeare are fun and I think they work on their own terms.

Anyways, if this is mawkish and shallow, I don't care!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> I personally agree with the fellow, but will keep relatively quiet. One could wish for many more specificications, though, and it shouldn´t be difficult to provide them.


It would then follow that you despise Puccini


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> If he finds Otello and Falstaff convoluted, someone might want to warn him to stay away from the Shakespearean originals--total chaos by comparison!


The gentleman concerned doesn't seem to have the intelligence to recognise two of the greatest opera librettos ever.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Xavier said:


> Just for the record: it's one of the most widely read opera/classical blogs out there... And I've also seen Alex Ross praise his work a couple times.
> 
> And his latest book:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Bonds-And-Laughing-Fire/dp/0754653560


Well, not many appear to praise him here! We shouldn't take these sort of people too seriously. Norman Lebrecht is another - an entertaining writer but not to be taken seriously!


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> the words he chooses routinely impugn the "objective" value of composers like Puccini and Verdi in a way that is not only misinformed and closed minded, but simply rude.


In what way 'rude'? I don't see it. I can see that there is plenty to disagree with - but if "A musicologist, [...] really has no business doing criticism of opera" why would it irk you so much that a non-entity who isn't entitled to criticise opera has written what you concede he is entitled to have: an opinion?


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

PetrB said:


> It would then follow that you despise Puccini


From roughly that period, Respighi, Martucci and Malipiero are more to my taste, than Puccini, who just leaves me cold..


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> In what way 'rude'? I don't see it. I can see that there is plenty to disagree with - but if "A musicologist, [...] really has no business doing criticism of opera" why would it irk you so much that a non-entity who isn't entitled to criticise opera has written what you concede he is entitled to have: an opinion?


It's political correctness gone mad!!!! LOLZ

But seriously - the critic/academic can't do anything right. These poor people who devote their life to the study of music (a) know nothing, (b) don't understand music the way "pure of heart" amateur enthusiasts do, (c) have no valid opinions and can't be taken seriously, (d) must be polite and deferential to popular taste at all times, (e) can do so much damage to classical music with the stroke of a pen, (f) are in cahoots with the destructive agenda of modernists, Satan himself etc

Most of the musicologists I know are mild cardigan-wearing types. But its always the quiet ones isn't it

PetrB and joen - admit me to the sinister club of those who consider Verdi music's mind-numbingly awful but like Puccini. If you're gonna do Italian cheese, do it times x1,000! It helps that one of them could orchestrate beyond a default setting of "oompah band" ;-)


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> PetrB... - admit me to the sinister club of those who consider Verdi music's mind-numbingly awful but like Puccini ;-)


Sorry, I'm the founder of _Verdi is the Italian Beethoven Club_, or more to the point, _Verdi is Verdi_, just like Beethoven ain't a German someone other than Beethoven [[ *;-)* back atcha. ]]

And we all know that unless someone has grabbed _one of the many numerous paid posts as concert reviewer and music critic for a major newspaper,_ the rest of these folk with those airily intellectual cognoscenti degrees who did not get the university post teaching the same classes they took for their degree (a de facto pyramid scheme if there ever was one) will have to make a living somehow, and that more likely will be a push to construct one writing about music one way or t'other vs. accepting a job sweeping up somewhere, which is all their qualification is worth outside of their field


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> In what way 'rude'? I don't see it. I can see that there is plenty to disagree with - but if "A musicologist, [...] really has no business doing criticism of opera" why would it irk you so much that a non-entity who isn't entitled to criticise opera has written what you concede he is entitled to have: an opinion?


I find that comment to be a bit silly because: I said that a musicologist doesn't have the necessary background to study opera as a genre of art. It's like a mathematician writing books about physics with no lab training. Sure, he knows the language, but he has no grasp of the phenomena. He can write an opinion, and certainly express himself with flair and vigor, and I'm fine with that. But if he went around criticizing anybody who has an idea outside the mainstream, and belittling them, that would irk me.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I would be very offended if somebody called me shallow. It's like telling somebody, "You don't matter."



> But seriously - the critic/academic can't do anything right. These poor people who devote their life to the study of music (a) know nothing, (b) don't understand music the way "pure of heart" amateur enthusiasts do, (c) have no valid opinions and can't be taken seriously, (d) must be polite and deferential to popular taste at all times, (e) can do so much damage to classical music with the stroke of a pen, (f) are in cahoots with the destructive agenda of modernists, Satan himself etc


Art is not like biology. A biologist is objectively better qualified to render an opinion on whether two populations have diverged and become separate species altogether, or whether they are part of one species that varies locally. And a musicologist is better qualified than I am to talk about harmonic analysis. But if he thinks that harmonic analysis or whatever other Mesopotamian words he talks about are commensurate with the living, experienced nature of art as process in the artist and the beholder, he's kidding himself. Anybody can go to a Shakespeare play and "Get it" completely, be moved, be transformed, whether or not they've dedicated their life to doing textual analyses and tearing the poetry into pieces.

Oh, and I'm glad you like Puccini!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Keep it civil, even in jest, please. Some posts have been removed, some edited.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mamascarlatti has understood my meaning: if I said about MacLeod what Berry said about Verdi, he would assuredly find it rude. (I was correct. Oops.) That's all I meant, but I can see how my post could have been misinterpreted, despite the fact that I later stated that I didn't mean it. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough about that, and I will tell instead of show next time. I don't know what the internet version of shaking hands is, but I'm up for it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dgee said:


> But seriously - the critic/academic can't do anything right. These poor people who devote their life to the study of music (a) know nothing, (b) don't understand music the way "pure of heart" amateur enthusiasts do, (c) have no valid opinions and can't be taken seriously, (d) must be polite and deferential to popular taste at all times, (e) can do so much damage to classical music with the stroke of a pen, (f) are in cahoots with the destructive agenda of modernists, Satan himself etc
> ;-)


Yes! Quite right!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dgee said:


> PetrB and joen - admit me to the sinister club of those who consider Verdi music's mind-numbingly awful but like Puccini. If you're gonna do Italian cheese, do it times x1,000! It helps that one of them could orchestrate beyond a default setting of "oompah band" ;-)


Well, dear friend, if you find Falstaff mind-numbingly awful, then I weep for you. You poor guy!


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

He has insulted Verdi, Donizetti, Rossini, and Puccini all in the same article! I can't imagine that he would care for Romantic music at all (except maybe Wagner ). If we took what he said as the Truth, how many composers are there left to enjoy? I know... there are probably quite a few, but still, his taste seems awfully finicky.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

marinasabina said:


> He has insulted Verdi, Donizetti, Rossini, and Puccini all in the same article! I can't imagine that he would care for Romantic music at all (except maybe Wagner ). If we took what he said as the Truth, how many composers are there left to enjoy? I know... there are probably quite a few, but still, his taste seems awfully finicky.


Don't let it get to you. After all, who ever built a monument to a critic?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

There's Verdi and there's Verdi and there's Verdi. I'm not a fan in general, don't like his dark and bitter sense of life, can't tell half his hapless characters apart, tire of his trite vocal cadenzas, can't get into the rum-ti-tum early operas or the bleak middle period ones or that silly Trovatore or that elephantine monstrosity Aida - but I love a great performance of Traviata, enjoy Macbeth if Callas sings it, enjoy Rigoletto if Gobbi acts it, admire the brilliance of Falstaff's score without actually loving it, and find Otello one of the most moving and beautifully wrought of all operas.

None of which is of any importance to anyone, except to make the point that any so-called authority so dead from the neck down as to utter such silly generalizations about a great composer who evolved remarkably over a life-span of nine decades ought to resign and go into accounting.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I find that comment to be a bit silly because: I said that a musicologist doesn't have the necessary background to study opera as a genre of art. It's like a mathematician writing books about physics with no lab training. Sure, he knows the language, but he has no grasp of the phenomena. He can write an opinion, and certainly express himself with flair and vigor, and I'm fine with that. But if he went around criticizing anybody who has an idea outside the mainstream, and belittling them, that would irk me.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I would be very offended if somebody called me shallow. It's like telling somebody, "You don't matter."


Dr Berry was not being rude about Verdi, personally, but was being critical (not rude) of his work. If you disagree with his opinion, why not explain why it is not 'mawkish and shallow'?


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Don't let it get to you. After all, who ever built a monument to a critic?


That makes a very good mantra.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Mamascarlatti has understood my meaning: if I said about MacLeod what Berry said about Verdi, he would assuredly find it rude. (I was correct. Oops.) That's all I meant, but I can see how my post could have been misinterpreted, despite the fact that I later stated that I didn't mean it. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough about that, and I will tell instead of show next time. I don't know what the internet version of shaking hands is, but I'm up for it.


That's fine. For me, the internet version of shaking hands is getting on with the debate about whether what Berry said about Verdi's music is in any way valid.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

This thread (and others similar) is quite depressing for me. I know a bunch of musicologists and critics - they're passionate people who live for music and are deeply knowledgeable about it. The idea that a bunch of "music enthusiasts" perceive them as worthless bitter nobodies who shouldn't be allowed to form and express opinions about that which they devote their professional and personal life to is extremely disappointing. Especially when it's abundantly clear you have no idea of what musicologists do and know - "a musicologist doesn't have the necessary background to study opera as a genre of art" is a mind-blowing statement

The hang ups on this forum about "academics" and "critics" are just extraordinary. While you love to play tough and dismiss them there's also a raucous outcry if anything gets said that might disagree with the received popular wisdom of how wonderful the "greats" are and a great rush to condemn their soullessness and hidden agendas. And then everyone gets on their high horse about how it's OK to express opinions and like some things and not others ("especially that modern racket") 

As for Verdi, it's not my cup of tea (as I've stated elsewhere) and he does have the distinction of being quite unpopular amongst musicians, but if you enjoy it all the best to you


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

dgee said:


> The idea that a bunch of "music enthusiasts" perceive them as worthless bitter nobodies who shouldn't be allowed to form and express opinions about that which they devote their professional and personal life to is extremely disappointing. Especially when it's abundantly clear you have no idea of what musicologists do and know - "a musicologist doesn't have the necessary background to study opera as a genre of art" is a mind-blowing statement


Indeed. Complaining about someone's opinion simply because they are a musicologist is no more valid than complaining about opinions here because they are held by plumbers, teachers, hi-fi salesmen...

As I've already observed, if his opinion is of no value, why get so worked up about it?

[add] Why not find out more about the reviled Dr Berry?

http://www.markberry.org/


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

dgee said:


> As for Verdi, it's not my cup of tea (as I've stated elsewhere) and he does have the distinction of being quite unpopular amongst musicians, but if you enjoy it all the best to you


Rather a sweeping generalisation. Verdi also has the distinction of being quite popular with rather a lot of musicians too - the musicologist Julian Budden, for one, then there are a bunch of conductors as famous in the concert hall as they are in the opera house - Toscanini, Karajan, Giulini, Sinopoli, Ricardo Chailly, Victor De Sabata, both Kleibers, Muti etc or do people who actually practice music not count as musicians? Popular with lots of singers too, of course, though I realise that most musicologists don't think of singers as musicians, even when faced with the likes of Callas, Fischer-Dieskau, Schwarzkopf or Domingo.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

dgee said:


> This thread (and others similar) is quite depressing for me. I know a bunch of musicologists and critics - they're passionate people who live for music and are deeply knowledgeable about it. The idea that a bunch of "music enthusiasts" perceive them as worthless bitter nobodies who shouldn't be allowed to form and express opinions about that which they devote their professional and personal life to is extremely disappointing. Especially when it's abundantly clear you have no idea of what musicologists do and know - "a musicologist doesn't have the necessary background to study opera as a genre of art" is a mind-blowing statement
> 
> The hang ups on this forum about "academics" and "critics" are just extraordinary. While you love to play tough and dismiss them there's also a raucous outcry if anything gets said that might disagree with the received popular wisdom of how wonderful the "greats" are and a great rush to condemn their soullessness and hidden agendas. And then everyone gets on their high horse about how it's OK to express opinions and like some things and not others ("especially that modern racket")
> 
> As for Verdi, it's not my cup of tea (as I've stated elsewhere) and he does have the distinction of being quite unpopular amongst musicians, but if you enjoy it all the best to you


You have a good point, but...

If the criticism had been insightful and complex, most of us would be more receptive. When a musicologist makes criticisms that are flat, unfair, and insinuate to Verdi lovers that they might as well be fans of an over-produced pop singer, it makes people defensive.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

marinasabina said:


> You have a good point, but...
> 
> If the criticism had been insightful and complex, most of us would be more receptive. When a musicologist makes criticisms that are flat, unfair, and insinuate to Verdi lovers that they might as well be fans of an over-produced pop singer, it makes people defensive.


To be completely fair to Dr. Berry though, the blog post that this thread is based upon was never meant to be a full, detailed critical evaluation of Verdi. As he himself says in response to someone who calls his critique of Verdi superficial:



> As for superficiality, I am sure you are right. I was not setting out to pen a critique, only briefly to relate my reactions upon returning to something I generally avoid, my return having been motived in part by an attempt to determine whether I had missed something hitherto. I am not sure that it would be worth my taking a great deal of time to write something more probing, though perhaps at some point I might try to do so. In general, however, I should much prefer to write positively about something else than to continue in negative vein here.


So there you go. He himself admits this particular critique is superficial, making this whole thread a lot of fuss over nothing, really. His main objective was reviewing a particular performance of _La Traviata_, and at the end gives a general summary of his response to the works of Verdi. Which is fair. Now do *I* happen to agree with Dr. Berry's impressions of Verdi? No, because they are so askew with my own personal experience of those operas. To me Verdi's music has a reckless vitality to it, and his genius lies in his ability to cut through to the dramatic essence of a scene with direct, honest, and intense melody. His music is full of tension and ambiguity (think of the opening chord of _Otello_!). And at his best he was able to elevate the operatic art form out of the realm of tuneful entertainment and into something altogether more ambitious and profound.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

marinasabina said:


> He has insulted Verdi, Donizetti, Rossini, and Puccini all in the same article! I can't imagine that he would care for Romantic music at all (except maybe Wagner ). If we took what he said as the Truth, how many composers are there left to enjoy? I know... there are probably quite a few, but still, his taste seems awfully finicky.


Those views, joined with that of those who feel that the Flight of the Valkyries is risible, would leave no one at all. Only Bellini is left as a possibility.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Dr Berry was not being rude about Verdi, personally, but was being critical (not rude) of his work. If you disagree with his opinion, why not explain why it is not 'mawkish and shallow'?


That would best be assayed after Dr. Berry explains why it is mawkish and shallow, in the first place. Name calling is not a critique.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Revenant said:


> That would best be assayed after Dr. Berry explains why it is mawkish and shallow, in the first place. Name calling is not a critique.


Ah, a chance to quibble. Berry won't be able to explain _why_ it is m&s. If it is, only Verdi could explain. That leaves Berry with explaining _in what ways_ it is m&s. In so doing, he might have to mark the line dividing 'sentimental' from 'mawkish', and the point on the depth gauge above which 'shallow' resides. I'm betting he doesn't have precision equipment, and it all turns out to be "a matter of opinion". In all cases where my personal reactions to a Verdi opera differ from Berry's, I'll go with mine.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

dgee said:


> As for Verdi, it's not my cup of tea (as I've stated elsewhere) and he does have the distinction of being quite unpopular amongst musicians, but if you enjoy it all the best to you


First I've heard of this. I suppose all the great conductors, from Toscanini onwards, who championed Verdi's operas, are not musicians?
And singers like Callas, Gobbi, Tebaldi, Bergonzi, Vickers, et al, are not musicians?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Playing in the Pit*



dgee said:


> As for Verdi, it's not my cup of tea (as I've stated elsewhere) and he does have the distinction of being quite unpopular amongst musicians, but if you enjoy it all the best to you


In a sense dgee is correct.

I have had the fortunate experience of performing in a chorus of a college production of a Verdi opera and performing few times in a pit orchestra. On stage singing Verdi is an exhilarating experience. Playing in a pit orchestra can be a real drag. This may be the reason that my favorite Verdi is the _Requiem_, which I have performed in the orchestra twice.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

Revenant said:


> That would best be assayed after Dr. Berry explains why it is mawkish and shallow, in the first place. Name calling is not a critique.


Let's be clear - he doesn't have to explain why "it is" mawkish and shallow, only why he finds it so (and in fact, he doesn't _have _to do that either: both terms could stand on their own two feet). As for its being 'name-calling' (whether it is a critique or not) - that is only in the ear/eye of the beholder.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> To be completely fair to Dr. Berry though, the blog post that this thread is based upon was never meant to be a full, detailed critical evaluation of Verdi. As he himself says in response to someone who calls his critique of Verdi superficial...


Duly noted. But it seems to me if your profession is the study of music, and you go into a public space and give a strong criticism of a well known and loved musical figure, you better be able to back it up. So far the only real argument I've seen him make is, "It's not complicated enough."

As for proving Verdi to not be mawkish and shallow, that's like proving that apples don't taste bad. I love 'em, but you taste what you taste. Beyond that, however, I would say that it is widely acknowledged that Verdi was a very good musician who grew exponentially better over the course of his career. His operas, music as drama, are spectacular. His virtues are those of the best Italian composers, obviously not the one's that Mr. Berry favors. A large part of academia seems to have this idea that German stuff is better than Italian stuff. Whatever. I suppose what I found most offensive in his comments is the implicit attack on all of the great Italian composers. He thinks their mostly worthless. Oh yay, they're "craftsmen". What a euphemism. C'est la vie.



SilenceIsGolden said:


> a lot of fuss over nothing


No, that's by Berlioz. (Beatrice et Benedict)


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> His virtues are those of the best Italian composers, obviously not the one's that Mr. Berry favors. A large part of academia seems to have this idea that German stuff is better than Italian stuff. Whatever. I suppose what I found most offensive in his comments is the implicit attack on all of the great Italian composers. He thinks their mostly worthless. Oh yay, they're "craftsmen". What a euphemism. C'est la vie.


I really can't speak for Dr. Berry since I haven't read any of his criticism outside of this one article. I still think his comments, taken out of context, have been blown out of proportion a little here. And I don't see how him calling Italian composers "craftsmen" implies that he thinks they're mainly worthless. But we seem to be in agreement that he just doesn't "get" Verdi. Not the first person, academic or not, that can be said of. No big deal. I've seen far more disparaging and trivial criticisms of great composers all over the internet by journalists, critics, etc.

In any case, there seem to be larger issues and resentments factoring in to all this which I'm going to stay out of. Except to say that if German composers are put up on some kind of pedestal by academics, you certainly wouldn't know it by reading a lot of published writings on a composer like Richard Strauss. He is constantly taking a beating for being a master cosmetician and his music being sugar coated and kitschy.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Let's be clear - he doesn't have to explain why "it is" mawkish and shallow, only why he finds it so (and in fact, he doesn't _have _to do that either: both terms could stand on their own two feet). As for its being 'name-calling' (whether it is a critique or not) - that is only in the ear/eye of the beholder.


I disagree. Those epithets, mawkish and shallow, are generalizations that are only valid if they are extracted from specific instances of Verdi's music (whether many or few) and they beg for examples, instances, further clarification. That is, if they are to be taken seriously. If he leaves it at that, Dr. Berry may not be called mawkish, but he certainly runs the risk of being considered shallow. Unless of course, he's just going for what he thinks is shock value. And then he runs the risk of not being taken seriously and being horselaughed out of the room.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> He is constantly taking a beating for being a master cosmetician and his music being sugar coated and kitschy.


Yes. Elektra is so meretricious it makes me gag:lol:.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

Revenant said:


> I disagree. Those epithets, mawkish and shallow, are generalizations that are only valid if they are extracted from specific instances of Verdi's music (whether many or few) and they beg for examples, instances, further clarification. That is, if they are to be taken seriously. If he leaves it at that, Dr. Berry may not be called mawkish, but he certainly runs the risk of being considered shallow. Unless of course, he's just going for what he thinks is shock value. And then he runs the risk of not being taken seriously and being horselaughed out of the room.


You did read his whole blog, and the answers to questions posed to him, did you? I thought he did a reasonable job of justifying his opinions.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

As a VERDI listener for many years I must say, I think there's truth in both sides here.
Verdi can be crude, mundane and craftsman like, especially in his earlier and some later middle period operas. There only true Verdi fans will 
He does use the oom pah pah type orchestrations periodically, 1st acts of Rig, Trav, Trova.
And the "big guitar" type accompaniment as well.
But he also has times of great inspiration.
Rigoleto, Falstaff are genuine masterpieces. maybe Otello too even tho I've never really warmed to it.

Just like with Wagner. If you don't love his music he can sound overly long and over the top in places.
They were both geniuses.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Yes. Elektra is so meretricious it makes me gag:lol:.


Ouch. Kicking poor Richard when he's down! :lol:

Actually I can understand your objection to it. But count me as a fan of _Elektra_. I find the music to be brazen and brilliant, and the drama to be cathartic.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Ouch. Kicking poor Richard when he's down! :lol:
> 
> Actually I can understand your objection to it. But count me as a fan of _Elecktra_. I find the music to be brazen and brilliant, and the drama to be cathartic.


I was joking. I can link of lots of ways to describe Elektra but meretrious, sugar coated etc are not among them. I like Salome a lot better though.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Itullian said:


> Rigoleto, Falstaff are genuine masterpieces. maybe Otello too even tho I've never really warmed to it.


Let's not forget Don Carlos. Such a strong opera musically and dramatically.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Let's not forget Don Carlos. Such a strong opera musically and dramatically.


OK, maybe that too.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Let's not forget Don Carlos. Such a strong opera musically and dramatically.


Indeed--in my opinion it's Verdi's most Shakespearean opera.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

SilenceIsGolden said:


> I really can't speak for Dr. Berry since I haven't read any of his criticism outside of this one article. I still think his comments, taken out of context, have been blown out of proportion a little here.


That's fair. I think I've certainly pinned a lot of frustration with many academics on him in this one particular instance. I also have fresh in mind a terrible review that he wrote about _Turandot_ that I read recently. It wasn't that he didn't like it that got to me, it's the way he expresses his opinion. It grates my parmeggiano. All intellectual snobbery bugs the heck out of me.



> In any case, there seem to be larger issues and resentments factoring in to all this which I'm going to stay out of. Except to say that if German composers are put up on some kind of pedestal by academics, you certainly wouldn't know it by reading a lot of published writings on a composer like Richard Strauss. He is constantly taking a beating for being a master cosmetician and his music being sugar coated and kitschy.


Strauss may take his fair share of hits, but compared with what I've read about poor Donizetti he's practically a favorite son. Stereo-typically speaking, Germans are introverted and Italians are extroverted; their cultures make a great match. But in the Anglo-American-German world of academia after Wagner, there is a tendency to be dismissive of Italian culture in the way that Wagner was (and in a Nietzsche-like show of inconsistency, he died in his favorite city of Venice). As with any kind of chauvinism or snobbery, it boils my carrots. So fans of Rossini, Donizetti, Verdi, and Puccini (dare we mention the verismo composers?) are often fed up with it! I love German opera. I love French opera. I love Russian opera. I _love_ Italian opera. Why don't these people either stick to expressing their opinions reasonably and thoroughly and concentrating on the places where they are able to unearth value, or write their own operas and show Verdi how it's done? I would love something new and unique to watch.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Personally I feel rather sorry for all those critics and musicologists, who cannot respond to the genius of Verdi. I am just now at the end of a listening pilgrimage that started back in January with Verdi's early Donizetti-inspired *Un Giorno di Regno*. (I don't have a recording of *Oberto* though I have heard bits of it. I have listened to every other one of his operas up to *Otello* with only *Falstaff* to come, and it has been an enriching and rewarding experience. Verdi's humanism, his understanding of the human condition, is second only to Shakespeare's in my opinion. No wonder he revered the playwright so much.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Rather a sweeping generalisation. Verdi also has the distinction of being quite popular with rather a lot of musicians too - the musicologist Julian Budden, for one, then there are a bunch of conductors as famous in the concert hall as they are in the opera house - Toscanini, Karajan, Giulini, Sinopoli, Ricardo Chailly, Victor De Sabata, both Kleibers, Muti etc or do people who actually practice music not count as musicians? Popular with lots of singers too, of course, though I realise that most musicologists don't think of singers as musicians, even when faced with the likes of Callas, Fischer-Dieskau, Schwarzkopf or Domingo.


I was only thinking of performing musicians - although there are certainly those that do like Verdi. In general, and in my experience he doesn't excite orchestral players and many singers (shock, horror). But then it's big rep so you get used to it and having played Falstaff and Otello I'll admit they have their moments. I'm sure there are plenty of Italian opera musicologists who would fundamentally disagree and tell you Verdi and Bellini are wonderful

One possible explanation is that musicians tend to come at opera very much as music first and with limited interest in the drama - you can imagine why. For many the music alone of Verdi and the bel canto/grand opera tradition is not very persuasive


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

dgee said:


> I was only thinking of performing musicians - although there are certainly those that do like Verdi. In general, and in my experience he doesn't excite orchestral players and many singers (shock, horror). But then it's big rep so you get used to it and having played Falstaff and Otello I'll admit they have their moments. I'm sure there are plenty of Italian opera musicologists who would fundamentally disagree and tell you Verdi and Bellini are wonderful


You mean instrumentalists? Well I used to work for the LSO (only in admin admittedly), and I can tell you there was a whole swathe of great composers that certain instrumentalists found less than interesting, because that particular composer didn't write particularly demanding parts for their instrument, and we're not just talking about Italian music. I remember some of them moaning about all the Berlioz the orchestra were performing (including the operas). It was hard for them to make sense of it sitting where they were sitting in the orchestra, and playing what they had to play. They couldn't hear how magnificent it sounded out front.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

I imagine _playing_ music is one thing, and_ listening to it _is quite another.

I can think of a lot of music that may be interesting and challenging to _play_, but nonetheless tortuous to _listen to_.

I myself never subscribed to the labor theory of value in economics. . . or music.

One can spend weeks employing the best craftsmanship as a painter- and still not come off with the arresting effect of a more hastily-done Vermeer or Botticelli.

_Mutatis mutandis_ for a Boulez tone-coloring exercise versus a centerpiece Verdi aria.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> You did read his whole blog, and the answers to questions posed to him, did you? I thought he did a reasonable job of justifying his opinions.


Yes I did. No he didn't.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> You mean instrumentalists? Well I used to work for the LSO (only in admin admittedly), and I can tell you there was a whole swathe of great composers that certain instrumentalists found less than interesting, because that particular composer didn't write particularly demanding parts for their instrument, and we're not just talking about Italian music. I remember some of them moaning about all the Berlioz the orchestra were performing (including the operas). It was hard for them to make sense of it sitting where they were sitting in the orchestra, and playing what they had to play. They couldn't hear how magnificent it sounded out front.


There's a difference between complaining about your day at the office and whether you like or are moved by the music. And I think you're doing a pretty flash orchestra a dis-service by suggesting players can't "make sense of it" because they're busy playing. Mind you - I also know there are plenty of pros with fairly unsophisticated music taste!

I'll stand by my statement that Verdi is not in general a "musicians' composer". Since I went down the pit for my first Verdi in my late teens (quite possibly Trav but I can't really remember) it's never grabbed me and never found much enthusiasm from my colleagues. Take from that what you will - but of course he's doing fine without it

And I'd like to "get" Verdi and the other Italians that preceeded - it's a large body of work recorded by amazing artists with a vital and rich stage tradition. Maybe one day....


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

dgee said:


> I'll stand by my statement that Verdi is not in general a "musicians' composer". Since I went down the pit for my first Verdi in my late teens (quite possibly Trav but I can't really remember) it's never grabbed me and never found much enthusiasm from my colleagues. Take from that what you will - but of course he's doing fine without it
> 
> ....


Yes, but your definition of musicians is still faulty. It still suggests that you think singers and conductors are not musicians.


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2014)

Revenant said:


> Yes I did. No he didn't.


Then we should agree to differ.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> Yes, but your definition of musicians is still faulty. It still suggests that you think singers and conductors are not musicians.


Most conductors are musicians.
Deep down, I don't think musicians see singers as true musicians.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Then we should agree to differ.


Good. Already there myself.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Deep down, I don't think musicians see singers as true musicians.


I think you are probably right, but many of them are extremely capable musicians. Callas was an able pianist (and admired greatly as a musician by many of the conductors she worked with); Domingo and Fischer-Dieskau, both conductors. Schwarzkopf, Vickers, Gedda - these are singers who were also superb musicians.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> I think you are probably right, but many of them are extremely capable musicians. Callas was an able pianist (and admired greatly as a musician by many of the conductors she worked with); Domingo and Fischer-Dieskau, both conductors. Schwarzkopf, Vickers, Gedda - these are singers who were also superb musicians.


hmmmmm, maybe a handful.
many are not though.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Itullian said:


> hmmmmm, maybe a handful.
> many are not though.


According to Scotto, Pavarotti couldn't even read music.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> According to Scotto, Pavarotti couldn't even read music.


Not surprising.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> According to Scotto, Pavarotti couldn't even read music.


This is true. It is mentioned in the docu Pavarotti and the Italian Tenor.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> That's fair. I think I've certainly pinned a lot of frustration with many academics on him in this one particular instance. I also have fresh in mind a terrible review that he wrote about _Turandot_ that I read recently. It wasn't that he didn't like it that got to me, it's the way he expresses his opinion. It grates my parmeggiano. All intellectual snobbery bugs the heck out of me.
> 
> .


Bugs me too. Let's face it, opera is primarily entertainment. If you want great philosophical musings don't go there. To me great music that reflects the characters and the action is the thing. Verdi did that pretty well. Mozart was the best but Verdi is right up there.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> According to Scotto, Pavarotti couldn't even read music.


Well some of the great jazz players couldn't either. Does that mean they weren't musicians?

Irvin Berlin couldn't either. But that didn't stop him writing great songs.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Itullian said:


> Deep down, I don't think musicians see singers as true musicians.


hair splitting...


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Well some of the great jazz players couldn't either. Does that mean they weren't musicians?
> 
> Irvin Berlin couldn't either. But that didn't stop him writing great songs.


Fair point, though Irving Berlin's _oevre_ has nothing of the complexity of Cole Porter or Gershwin, both of whom could read music.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Well some of the great jazz players couldn't either. Does that mean they weren't musicians?
> 
> Irvin Berlin couldn't either. But that didn't stop him writing great songs.


Not in a classical sense, complete musicians, no.
But they did play an instrument.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Bugs me too. Let's face it, opera is primarily entertainment. If you want great philosophical musings don't go there. To me great music that reflects the characters and the action is the thing. Verdi did that pretty well. Mozart was the best but Verdi is right up there.


Who says philosophy can't be entertaining?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Performing in the pit and on the stage.*



GregMitchell said:


> Yes, but your definition of musicians is still faulty. It still suggests that you think singers and conductors are not musicians.


I think your response is very unfair.

I know exactly where dgee was coming from and it was not meant to be a criticism of conductors or singers. They just have a different perspective of the music, not inferior. Singing on stage in an opera or musical, and when I was a student I did both, is a different experience than playing in the pit.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Who says philosophy can't be entertaining?


Not only can it be entertaining--it can be downright hilarious:


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

You left out bombastic. But, he could write a catchy tune. To be fair to Mr. Green, he only wrote the music, the story and characters were from the librettist. But he doesn't seem to have complained much.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Not in a classical sense, complete musicians, no.
> But they did play an instrument.


You are therefore defining 'musician' to a narrow group of your own defining. You have also left out one of the greatest lyric tenors of the century!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Fair point, though Irving Berlin's _oevre_ has nothing of the complexity of Cole Porter or Gershwin, both of whom could read music.


But he did make a fortune! Andre Previn says that he regions Berlin wrote the best songs.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

arpeggio said:


> I think your response is very unfair.
> 
> I know exactly where dgee was coming from and it was not meant to be a criticism of conductors or singers. They just have a different perspective of the music, not inferior. Singing on stage in an opera or musical, and when I was a student I did both, is a different experience than playing in the pit.


How is it unfair? I am just objecting to a definition of musicians that does not include musicians who play an instrument.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I should never have said it!!!!!

But actually I know conductors and singers who aren't into Verdi either. I can see how it's a great ride for singers and conductors - but it's not for everyone (and of course not every voice is suited to Verdi roles). 

What I should have said is I know a lot of musicians and have seen little enthusiasm for Verdi (or the other guys Dr Berry does not like). Then it's nicely in context. Apologies all. Go figure!

But please, leave it that and don't cast aspersions on my many, lovely musician friends!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mamascarlatti said:


> Yes. Elektra is so meretricious it makes me gag:lol:.


Well, here's my hand, Mamascarlatti! And I was feeling so alone!

Elektra may be the greatest piece of trash in the whole history of opera. ***NOTICE, FOLKS: I DID SAY GREATEST!*** I put on the classic Nilsson/Solti recording and the hysteria that emanates from the loudspeakers is finally drowned out by the hysteria that rocks my easy chair. Those Greeks knew how to have a good time, didn't they?


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

The original post can be summed up as "I don't like Verdi".

Well, I don't particularly like Richard Strauss's operas. That doesn't mean they are bad, just that I don't like them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well, here's my hand, Mamascarlatti! And I was feeling so alone!
> 
> Elektra may be the greatest piece of trash in the whole history of opera. ***NOTICE, FOLKS: I DID SAY GREATEST!*** I put on the classic Nilsson/Solti recording and the hysteria that emanates from the loudspeakers is finally drowned out by the hysteria that rocks my easy chair. Those Greeks knew how to have a good time, didn't they?


I do confess that although I have the Solti Elektra on my shelves, I have not yet found the will to sit through it all!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

DavidA said:


> I do confess that although I have the Solti Elektra on my shelves, I have not yet found the will to sit through it all!


Salome, I tell you. I usually have to steel myself to listen to Strauss except for this one.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I love Verdi and always have, from the moment I heard my first Verdi opera, _Rigoletto_. I've always been attracted to rhythm in music, and I think Verdi's music so appeals to me because it's the perfect balance of rhythm and melody, with an underlying tension even in the slower numbers (think of "Caro nome," "Un di felice," "Dio ti giocondi, O sposo," etc). I also find the storylines of his operas to be some of the most moving of all.

Anyone is free to like or not to like Verdi's music, but I object to any line of reason that says 'people who like Verdi have no taste,' or something of that kind. That's just snobbery, and I have no time for it.

I found recently that I can't bear to listen to Alban Berg. But I'll refrain from making a comment like 'Berg's music is for people who can't recognize a good tune," because a.) I have next to no experience with twelve-tone music, and b.) I trust that Berg was in fact a great composer of his type -- that his music has an appeal that I simply can't relate to, at least not at this point.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Some people will never get Italian music. The German tradition prizes complexity, harmony, and the predominance of intellectual ideas over beauty. The Italian tradition emphasizes simplicity and clarity, melody, and the predominance of beauty over abstract ideas.They are (and these are generalizations, of course) diametrically opposed. People like Mark Berry, whose ignorant reviews of Italian opera have annoyed my to no end in the past, is only showing his incredibly myopic intellectual prejudices in full force in the above quote. he has the right to not like Verdi; he has the right to say it's not interesting to him; he has the right to say that he doesn't care about Italian music at all, and that it has no value for him; but the words he chooses routinely impugn the "objective" value of composers like Puccini and Verdi in a way that is not only misinformed and closed minded, but simply rude. The casual dismissal of a master opera composer like Donizetti is a further sin. A musicologist, unless he or she has some particular affinity for drama or training in theatre/literature, really has no business doing criticism of opera. It is _not_ pure music, it is music in the service of drama, always.


You're absolutely right about the different "values" held by German and Italian opera composers. Professor Robert Greenberg once summed up the Italian values in the word _sprezzatura_ which I believe roughly translates as "the appearance of ease" or "making it all look easy."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> I found recently that I can't bear to listen to Alban Berg. But I'll refrain from making a comment like 'Berg's music is for people who can't recognize a good tune," because a.) I have next to no experience with twelve-tone music, and b.) I trust that Berg was in fact a great composer of his type -- that his music has an appeal that I simply can't relate to, at least not at this point.


Wozzeck isn't 12-tone, and both it and Lulu (which is 12-tone) are full of great melodies.

Anyway, as relates to the main discussion, I'm not that offended because the original comment was not "Verdi's music is absolutely shallow and horrible and I think anyone who enjoys it is a cultural boor," but "I have never found anything of worth in Verdi's music, and to this day I wonder what others hear in it that I don't."

Why are people treating it as if he said the former rather than the latter?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Wozzeck isn't 12-tone, and both it and Lulu (which is 12-tone) are full of great melodies.
> 
> Anyway, as relates to the main discussion, I'm not that offended because the original comment was not "Verdi's music is absolutely shallow and horrible and I think anyone who enjoys it is a cultural boor," but "I have never found anything of worth in Verdi's music, and to this day I wonder what others hear in it that I don't."
> 
> Why are people treating it as if he said the former rather than the latter?


To which I would say, then it is his loss. Just as it is no doubt mine that I can't hear all those great melodies in *Wozzeck* and *Lulu*.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> To which I would say, then it is his loss. Just as it is no doubt mine that I can't hear all those great melodies in *Wozzeck* and *Lulu*.


Afraid I have to give Wozzeck and Lulu a miss too. I think it was the late John Steane who said he wished Berg's masterpiece had been a more pleasant subject!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Verdi Is Great*



Bellinilover said:


> Anyone is free to like or not to like Verdi's music, but I object to any line of reason that says 'people who like Verdi have no taste,' or something of that kind. That's just snobbery, and I have no time for it.


All of us here have are little biases.

I tried to review the threads and to the best of my recollection no one here has taken the above position. Maybe I missed one other than the original article.

Even those of us who dislike Verdi still consider him a great composer.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> To which I would say, then it is his loss. Just as it is no doubt mine that I can't hear all those great melodies in *Wozzeck* and *Lulu*.


Aaaaaaaaaaaah. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

I'm laughing so hard at work right now that I'm eliciting more than a few glances.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . .

I don't know.

Perhaps all this is a matter of temperament; or what the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand calls "a sense of life."

You can't 'explain' _elan vital_. It either resonates with you. . . or it doesn't.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> You're absolutely right about the different "values" held by German and Italian opera composers. Professor Robert Greenberg once summed up the Italian values in the word _sprezzatura_ which I believe roughly translates as "the appearance of ease" or "making it all look easy."


--
Well, that's Greenberg's definition. . . with music as his context.

I see _sprezzatura_ more along the Renaissance and salon lines of something like "staggering erudition expressed with the utmost nonchalance." Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Wozzeck isn't 12-tone, and both it and Lulu (which is 12-tone) are full of great melodies.
> 
> Anyway, as relates to the main discussion, I'm not that offended because the original comment was not "Verdi's music is absolutely shallow and horrible and I think anyone who enjoys it is a cultural boor," but "I have never found anything of worth in Verdi's music, and to this day I wonder what others hear in it that I don't."
> 
> Why are people treating it as if he said the former rather than the latter?


But don't you have to wonder about someone of presumed musical cultivation who could even say the latter? Philistinism could scarcely have a better friend, unless it be Pierre Boulez himself (whose music has apparently moved our critic "to and beyond tears," as quoted by one contributor).

I'm practically in tears right now.:lol:


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not that offended because the original comment was not "Verdi's music is absolutely shallow and horrible and I think anyone who enjoys it is a cultural boor," but "I have never found anything of worth in Verdi's music, and to this day I wonder what others hear in it that I don't."


But he didn't say the former. I wouldn't mind if he had. He said:


> Puccini can be mawkish, Rossini can be shallow, but there is a degree of craftsmanship to be heard and admired there. Verdi seems to combine the worst aspects of both, standing perhaps slightly above Donizetti, but that is all."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> You mean instrumentalists? Well I used to work for the LSO (only in admin admittedly), and I can tell you there was a whole swathe of great composers that certain instrumentalists found less than interesting, because that particular composer didn't write particularly demanding parts for their instrument, and we're not just talking about Italian music. I remember some of them moaning about all the Berlioz the orchestra were performing (including the operas). It was hard for them to make sense of it sitting where they were sitting in the orchestra, and playing what they had to play. They couldn't hear how magnificent it sounded out front.


WAGNER?

Horn Player: Great composer -- terrific horn parts, Yay! 
Violinist: Terrible and tedious composer -- endless arpeggios, Bah!

When the musicians are instrumentalist who are so "their instrument centric," -- do we really want to give much credence to their 'music criticism?'


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Violinist: Terrible and tedious composer -- endless arpeggios, Bah!


Apparently, in his younger years, Wagner tried his hand at being a violinist, after a local music teacher recommended it would be good to have some practical familiarity if he planned to compose orchestral music. When I told my violin teacher she seemed mortified. "Can you imagine the violin concerto?!"


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> But he didn't say the former. I wouldn't mind if he had. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, it's harsh, but it is still presented as opinion. The operative word here is "seems".

Anyway, I admire and enjoy Otello myself as well as Verdi's Requiem (no one besides Orff is more ripped-off for apocalyptic Hollywood visions of destruction), so I'm not agreeing with Mark Berry here.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

But of course "Wozzeck" and "Lulu" are full of great melodies!.

Thing here is that some people use technical musical terms like 'tonality' or 'melody' as synonyms of Romantic or Post-Romantic music (with a drop of Mozart's, to provide flavour) that is the one they really appreciate, or understand. 

I guess there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we can differentiate by the context what kind of meaning are we attaching to the word "melody".


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Oh Peter - I've been a simpleton "musician instrumentalist", and a horn player at that. Innocent to music and only concerned with making a nice big sound. But of course, you as a piano player can identify - only really interested in Alkan, Clementi, Chopin and Liszt, right???

We're all the same tho - don't worry. All orchestral tuba players are rockin a bumper sticker saying "I'd rather be playing Variations on 'Carnival of Venice'" ;-)



PetrB said:


> WAGNER?
> 
> Horn Player: Great composer -- terrific horn parts, Yay!
> Violinist: Terrible and tedious composer -- endless arpeggios, Bah!
> ...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> Oh Peter - I've been a simpleton "musician instrumentalist", and a horn player at that. Innocent to music and only concerned with making a nice big sound. But of course, you as a piano player can identify - only really interested in Alkan, Clementi, Chopin and Liszt, right???
> 
> We're all the same tho - don't worry. All orchestral tuba players are rockin a bumper sticker saying "I'd rather be playing Variations on 'Carnival of Venice'" ;-)


I began to be lost as a pianist when I started to become as interested in the orchestral activity of concerti as much as the piano solo part. (The seminal start of a deep interest in composition, music all by itself Now, I find myself anything but interested in a whole slew of the piano rep which to me is more about technical virtuosity than music, and though I find Alkan so eccentric as to be fun, he is in that not so interesting camp to me. Something about so much pyrotechnical virtuosity is that circus performer on the trapeze or high wire sort of thingie, and there it does not fascinate or interest; other works, innately pyrotechnical, grip me because of their musical substance... so, I am no longer at all piano-centric.

I have a pal -- we attended the same music camp and prep school -- who after graduating from Juilliard became first a horn player for the Toronto symphony and after that was in the NYPhil under Bernstein. He does have 'very good taste' in music and is a shrewd critic of all kinds of music in performance, not just orchestral... but he cannot refrain from often commenting upon any particular piece, "Great Horn Part!" I tease him about that, mercilessly


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

This thread makes an interesting counterpoint to the various "what is the value of contemporary music" threads. 

Verdi - it's not for everybody but some people seem to like it! That's gotta be OK to say

The thesis that a bunch of musicians (conductors, composers, singers, orchestral musicians, musicologists) aren't impressed by Verdi - or Donizetti or Bellini for that matter - is greeted with dismay. This can't be true! If it is true, this observation has no value! The idea some members of the general public don't like Verdi - let's weep for them and suggest they are intellectual snobs! 

Noone has suggested only thickies like Verdi - but it's being defended! 

Anyway - why would you care what Dr Berry, or me, or thousands of musicians feel about Verdi? You like it, right?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

dgee said:


> Anyway - why would you care what Dr Berry, or me, or thousands of musicians feel about Verdi?


I don't. Though I have yet to see figures that back up your theory that _thousands_ of musicians don't like Verdi. Fortunately _millions_ of people, both musicians and listeners do, so I doubt Verdi would be much concerned.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dgee said:


> This thread makes an interesting counterpoint to the various "what is the value of contemporary music" threads.
> 
> Verdi - *it's not for everybody*


That "It's not for everybody" is what is said about Jazz and Chamber Music, lol.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Yet again, I don't think that anybody here is claiming that just because you don't like Verdi you are a snob. What we who have defended Verdi have objected to is the snobbish tone of _one particular_ dismissal of Verdi.



> Noone has suggested only thickies like Verdi - but it's being defended!


Not stated it directly, no. But when you call a piece of music shallow, you risk implying that the people who enjoy it, or worse, love it dearly, are themselves shallow. After all, what does it say about me if I adore a composer who is nothing but folderol? Of course, I don't actually adore Verdi, I just like him. But I love Puccini very much, and some pretty terrible things are said about him. I can give you quite a list.



> Verdi - it's not for everybody but some people seem to like it! That's gotta be OK to say


I don't object to that at all. But that isn't what was said...


----------



## JakeBloch (Mar 27, 2014)

Complexity >> Emotion? Not directly, if at all. I would try to connect the two by saying that complexity realized or enjoyed can be a pleasant experience, and pleasantness can twang an emotional string. But "direct" emotion - either from the notes and their progressions themselves, or from the words mixed with the notes, is not arrived at through complexity, unless one needs a certain degree of complexity to generate an expected sound, and then the unexpected one might generate an emotional response.

Reger is famously complex, and I like him, but almost never do I feel an emotional response to his music (there is one moment in his String Sextet).

Enescu is famously complex, but his chamber music, at least, to me, is quite emotional- gentle, kind, secret-garden'y'.

Brahms is famously complex, but not very often to I get an emotional response to his music. It is incredibly beautiful, but it can be so engrossing that the focus is itself, instead of what it emotes or shares, is the focus. Brahms' beauty is not often emotional beauty - I would contribute - precisely because it surrounded and embedded with such complexity.

Thanks for your post!


----------



## JakeBloch (Mar 27, 2014)

Itullian said:


> It seems like in Italian opera the drama almost always comes from the singing.
> In Wagnerian opera the orchestra or voice can provide the drama.


With the exception of Puccini.


----------



## JakeBloch (Mar 27, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Let's be clear - he doesn't have to explain why "it is" mawkish and shallow, only why he finds it so (and in fact, he doesn't _have _to do that either: both terms could stand on their own two feet). As for its being 'name-calling' (whether it is a critique or not) - that is only in the ear/eye of the beholder.


Let's contrast a composer and a professional critic of classical music. The composer can make a dense work that is ultimately very rewarding only after multiple listens - maybe even after only having personally played the piece or studied the score. That is, the composer can reward depth of study by the listener, but has to catch them initially, or they will not come back to it.

The published critic has to do the same, but often his/her hook (to catch the initial reader) is not rewarded with deep study of the piece written, but rather with personal reflection and discussion. That is, the hook does not catch the fish, but rather energizes the fish to swim elsewhere and spread the word.

So I expect Dr. Berry has comprehensible reasons worthy of pursuit as to his Verdi statements, but we fish who were caught on his 'mawkish and shallow' hook have swum elsewhere, like to this forum, and have voiced our personal responses to his hook, instead of delving deeper into his reasons behind his statement.

I adore Puccini when I want to 'feel' music. I have a hard time with Verdi outside of Rigoletto. But so many adore Verdi, I will keep at it once and again.

But I spend more time trying to connect with Messiaen, Pettersson, Reger, Prokofiev....


----------



## JakeBloch (Mar 27, 2014)

PetrB said:


> I began to be lost as a pianist when I started to become as interested in the orchestral activity of concerti as much as the piano solo part. (The seminal start of a deep interest in composition, music all by itself Now, I find myself anything but interested in a whole slew of the piano rep which to me is more about technical virtuosity than music, and though I find Alkan so eccentric as to be fun, he is in that not so interesting camp to me. Something about so much pyrotechnical virtuosity is that circus performer on the trapeze or high wire sort of thingie, and there it does not fascinate or interest; other works, innately pyrotechnical, grip me because of their musical substance... so, I am no longer at all piano-centric.
> 
> I have a pal -- we attended the same music camp and prep school -- who after graduating from Juilliard became first a horn player for the Toronto symphony and after that was in the NYPhil under Bernstein. He does have 'very good taste' in music and is a shrewd critic of all kinds of music in performance, not just orchestral... but he cannot refrain from often commenting upon any particular piece, "Great Horn Part!" I tease him about that, mercilessly


This is a great post - fun and consequential. Makes me feel that Verdi operas are more often like concertos for voice, and exactly the kind you have pulled away from. That is one reason why Puccini is so much more modern and "un-dated" (same thing?) as Verdi.

I saw a dude wearing a t-shirt (and this was not 30 years ago at Oberlin) wherein Beethoven was thanked for the 4th movement of his 9th Symphony, on behalf of all cellists!!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

What's everyone getting upset about? He said Verdi was a little better than Donizetti, not worse. ;-)


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Afraid I have to give Wozzeck and Lulu a miss too. I think it was the late John Steane who said he wished Berg's masterpiece had been a more pleasant subject!


Did he? That's interesting. I always _sensed_ Steane didn't care for WOZZECK, but I wasn't sure as he never said so outright.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

JakeBloch said:


> With the exception of Puccini.


Puccini is a complicated case. Sometimes he goes back and forth, as in _Tosca_, where the scene is set and the stakes given by the Prelude to Act III. But later, E lucevan le stelle is a gorgeous expressive moment for voice, where the orchestra is little more then accompanying color. Of course in the later works like _La fanciulla del west_ and _Il tabarro_ there is a perfect synthesis, so that everything is working together to achieve the highest expressive qualities. Many People consider Puccini's work to be a kind of synthesis of Verdi and Wagner; it is in some sense, but I think that he also had an extremely unique operatic style that was more than the merging of different cultural inheritances.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I don't listen to Puccini anymore. I seem to have tired of him very fast.
oh well.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I don't. Though I have yet to see figures that back up your theory that _thousands_ of musicians don't like Verdi. Fortunately _millions_ of people, both musicians and listeners do, so I doubt Verdi would be much concerned.


Let us assume for the purposes of discussions that the majority of instrumentalists have objections toward Verdi. So what? The final judge is your ears, not those of a disgruntle bassoon player in the pit orchestra.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Though I have yet to see figures that back up your theory that _thousands_ of musicians don't like Verdi.


Unfortunately my subscription to the Quarterly Survey of Musician Tastes has lapsed :-(


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I don't listen to Puccini anymore. I seem to have tired of him very fast.
> oh well.


Schade. He's not everybody's cup of tea. But if you ever feel the need to try again, I recommend _La fanciulla_ for a Wagner fan particularly, and all the later stuff very highly.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Schade. He's not everybody's cup of tea. But if you ever feel the need to try again, I recommend _La fanciulla_ for a Wagner fan particularly, and all the later stuff very highly.


And Il Tabarro.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> Did he? That's interesting. I always _sensed_ Steane didn't care for WOZZECK, but I wasn't sure as he never said so outright.


Sorry, I wasn't clear. Steane was commenting on Lulu.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Well, I have now come to the end of my pilgrimage through the Verdi operas, a journey that started with *Un Giorno di Regno* back in mid January and ended only yesterday with *Falstaff*. I have listened to every single one of Verdi's operas in chronological order (though I missed out his first effort *Oberto*, and *Jersualem* and *Aroldo*, re-workings of *I Lombardi* and *Stiffelio* respectively) and I can tell you that I find Verdi neither mawkish nor shallow. That's 25 operas altogether, some in multiple recordings. I wonder if Prof Berry embarked on such a marathon before making his protestations. In fact I have emerged from the experience revitalised, more in awe of Verdi than ever, and convinced he is the musical equivalent of Shakespeare, who was the inspiration for his last two great operas and also for that flawed and imperfect masterpiece *Macbeth*. However I will leave the last word to the esteemed Julian Budden, whose three volume expose of the the complete operas of Verdi, the result of a lifetime of study and love of the composer, is essential reading for anyone who has ever fallen under the spell of this great composer.

_Starting with a technique cruder and more primitive than that of any young composer of comparative stature the provincial from Busseto achieved a refinement of musical craftsmanship and thought that has never been surpassed and rarely equalled. The upward path can be traced in detail from opera to opera, but no amount of foresight could have deduced the end from the beginning. Looking backwards from the vantage point of 1893, we can discern the seed of *Falstaff* even in the most unpromising moments of, say, *Il Corsaro*. That the mechanical commonplaces of 1848 should have been fanned into such magnificent life forty-five years later is a miracle of regeneration difficult to parallel in the history of music.....
By his eightieth year he knew that nothing in this world can be taken for granted and that 'Man is born to be made a fool of'. That he was no mere destructive cynic; that, if no orthodox Christian, he thought seriously on first and last things and was capable of religious experience we know from the *Requiem* and the *Quattro Pezzi Scari* that were his last compositions; but the final message of the secular Verdi is one of tolerance, comprehension and humour. if we cannot all agree we can at least laugh with each other and at ourselves. It is a message of hope._


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> GregMitchell: I have listened to every single one of Verdi's operas in chronological order (though I missed out his first effort Oberto, and Jersualem and Aroldo, re-workings of I Lombardi and Stiffelio respectively) and I can tell you that I find Verdi neither mawkish nor shallow.


Bravo. Brav-_issimo!_ That's what I'm talking about: the good-faith effort-- _listening to all of the operas_, in _multiple_ incarnations,_ reading _the criticism of specialists, and of course consulting_ primary _sources and not-- Ha. Ha. Ha.-- '_weblogs_'.

This reminds me in a cognate way of that preeminent philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper. He had some very definite views on Plato, well outside of the received wisdom; so he taught himself Greek in order to read Plato in the original, so that there would be nothing to disambiguate with Plato's political and philosophic views. He truly wanted to understand.

Congratulations to Greg and to Sir Karl for getting out of Plato's cave.

Cheers.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2014)

One of the customary themes emerges here: the idea that the listener must give thorough and complete attention to all works before making any kind of pronouncement (though most especially a negative one).

I know it might suit one or two members for this to occur, but imagine the paucity of conversation and membership if we were all to adopt that approach. Only those who had waded all the way through Haydn's 100+ symphonies would be in a position to declare him shallow or a genius. Anyone attempting to venture an opinion on classical music more generally couldn't do so until they had heard everything!

I have no personal opinion to express on Verdi, having listened to only the merest snatches, but what I can say is that as a selective listener - that is, choosing to listen to this composer over that as I don't have unlimited time or money - I make a provisional judgement about the music I choose not to listen to. At present, I choose not to listen to Verdi on the grounds that I have heard nothing that attracts me to it. Had I heard as much as Dr Berry reports he has heard, I might feel better qualified to make a more detailed personal response, and would probably do so, without any worry about what the completists might say.

Of course, only those who enjoy the exchange of amateur opinion here at TC need worry. My opinion is of no consequence beyond this Forum, and perhaps of little consequence within it. I would say that Dr Berry's probably need not detain us for long either: I go elsewhere for recommendations. But 10 pages to explore an inconsequential opinion and his right to express it...!?

[Jeez, I remind myself of other pompous posters here: it's contagious!]


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

You may be right. Of the little I have heard of Webern and Berg, nothing much excites me or interests me, ditto much of post *Gurrelieder* Schoenberg, so I choose not to listen to them. The same goes for Boulez. However, I also refrain to comment on them, because I really don't know enough about them or their music. They simply don't interest me.

Dr Berry, on the other hand (Who is he anyway? A google search provided very little information, whereas there is plenty of information on the above mentioned Julian Budden.) chooses to review a performance of *La Traviata*, music that he confesses he already has a total antipathy for. I don't know if he was asked to review it or chose to. Either way, it would seem the wrong reviewer was called on to fulfill the brief. After all, most readers will be looking for a review of the performance, not a hatchet job on a composer who is well established as one of the greatest opera composers of all time.

Evidently the person who started this thread wished to throw the cat among the pigeons, and it would seem he succeeded. I, on the other hand, am not going to lose much sleep over what Dr Berry has to say.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> [...snip!...] Evidently *the person who started this thread *wished to throw the cat among the pigeons, and it would seem he succeeded. I, on the other hand, am not going to lose much sleep over what Dr Berry has to say.


If I were that person, I would glance at the ten-page indicator and mutter contentedly: "My work here is done".


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> One of the customary themes emerges here: the idea that the listener must give thorough and complete attention to all works before making any kind of pronouncement (though most especially a negative one).
> 
> I know it might suit one or two members for this to occur, but imagine the paucity of conversation and membership if we were all to adopt that approach. Only those who had waded all the way through Haydn's 100+ symphonies would be in a position to declare him shallow or a genius. Anyone attempting to venture an opinion on classical music more generally couldn't do so until they had heard everything!
> 
> ...


Everyone's entitled to their opinion and to their evaluations-- certainly. I couldn't be in more deeply-moved agreement. Criticism: infinitely and endlessly. Yes, cheers.

I certainly tailor _my_ aesthetic judgement in proportion to what I like or what can be pointed out to me by others.

What do I mean by this?

A personal story may be in order: I've only recently became a Maria Callas fan. Initially, I didn't like her voice. If anything was certain, it was that I didn't like the timbre and shrill high end of Callas' voice. No one could tell me otherwise. I 'knew' what I heard.

That is until recently.

I realized that what I 'heard' was the blown-out voice of Callas in her sunset years; Callas in the sixties; a severely-limited spectrum of Callas that I was statistically sampling; the thin-end of the bell curve; the exception rather than the rule.

Then, when someone in this Forum piqued my curiosity in Callas' dramatic abilities from the fifties, the Necker cube began to shift; that is to say, I saw the same singer, but in a completely different way. I finally understood what she was doing (and with a much more youthful voice). She wasn't coming from a tradition of merely beautiful singing like Caballe, Sutherland, Tebaldi, or Te Kanawa. She was a singer who would alter her voice to the dramatic contours of not only the character at hand, but to every word, syllable, and textual nuance in the libretto; and then of course meld it with her superb craftsmanship of bel canto. This is what I was missing out on all of these years.

And, if I didn't second-guess my initial impressions, and actually dig into Callas' back catalogue of performances from the late forties to the late fifties-- I would have completely missed out on what I consider to be some of the greatest feats of singing and character acting ever recorded: the '52 Rossini_ Armida_, the '55 Karajan _Lucia_, the '55 _Norma_, the '53 Gui _Medea_, the '55 Karajan _Butterfly_, the studio Rossini_ Il Turco in Italia_, the '55 Covent Garden _Traviata_-- the list just goes on and on.

Early Sutherland was my bel canto standard bearer. Not so any more. By constantly assessing and reassessing, weighing and assaying, my aesthetic enjoyment has become immeasurably richer.

-- Which isn't to say that you need to like Verdi or Callas. But I always like to give great artists their due to the greatest extent imaginable. . . otherwise,_ I_ could miss out. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> If I were that person, I would glance at the ten-page indicator and mutter contentedly: "My work here is done".


as *Linda Richman* would say, "tawk amongst yourselves".


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Congratulations to Greg and to Sir Karl for getting out of Plato's cave.


he missed a couple. He must try harder then get back to us


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Schade. He's not everybody's cup of tea. But if you ever feel the need to try again, I recommend _La fanciulla_ for a Wagner fan particularly, and all the later stuff very highly.


I'll keep that in mind HA. thanks.
I've seen all his big 4 operas live as well.
And cant say i'd be excited to see them again.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

GregMitchell said:


> Well, I have now come to the end of my pilgrimage through the Verdi operas, a journey that started with *Un Giorno di Regno* back in mid January and ended only yesterday with *Falstaff*. I have listened to every single one of Verdi's operas in chronological order (though I missed out his first effort *Oberto*, and *Jersualem* and *Aroldo*, re-workings of *I Lombardi* and *Stiffelio* respectively) and I can tell you that I find Verdi neither mawkish nor shallow. That's 25 operas altogether, some in multiple recordings. I wonder if Prof Berry embarked on such a marathon before making his protestations. In fact I have emerged from the experience revitalised, more in awe of Verdi than ever, and convinced he is the musical equivalent of Shakespeare, who was the inspiration for his last two great operas and also for that flawed and imperfect masterpiece *Macbeth*. However I will leave the last word to the esteemed Julian Budden, whose three volume expose of the the complete operas of Verdi, the result of a lifetime of study and love of the composer, is essential reading for anyone who has ever fallen under the spell of this great composer.
> 
> _Starting with a technique cruder and more primitive than that of any young composer of comparative stature the provincial from Busseto achieved a refinement of musical craftsmanship and thought that has never been surpassed and rarely equalled. The upward path can be traced in detail from opera to opera, but no amount of foresight could have deduced the end from the beginning. Looking backwards from the vantage point of 1893, we can discern the seed of *Falstaff* even in the most unpromising moments of, say, *Il Corsaro*. That the mechanical commonplaces of 1848 should have been fanned into such magnificent life forty-five years later is a miracle of regeneration difficult to parallel in the history of music.....
> By his eightieth year he knew that nothing in this world can be taken for granted and that 'Man is born to be made a fool of'. That he was no mere destructive cynic; that, if no orthodox Christian, he thought seriously on first and last things and was capable of religious experience we know from the *Requiem* and the *Quattro Pezzi Scari* that were his last compositions; but the final message of the secular Verdi is one of tolerance, comprehension and humour. if we cannot all agree we can at least laugh with each other and at ourselves. It is a message of hope._


Let us not forget the brilliant libretti he was given for his final operas by Maestro Boito.
A huge part of their success.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Let us not forget the brilliant libretti he was given for his final operas by Maestro Boito.
> A huge part of their success.


Interesting that two of Shakespeare's weakest plays - one about a noble simpleton who is deceived by a handkerchief and the other a slapstick written for Elizabeth 1 - have produced two of the greatest operas. Obviously the brilliance of Boito and the magic of Verdi's music!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Interesting that two of Shakespeare's weakest plays - one about a noble simpleton who is deceived by a handkerchief and the other a slapstick written for Elizabeth 1 - have produced two of the greatest operas. Obviously the brilliance of Boito and the magic of Verdi's music!


Though I'd agree that *The Merry Wives of Windsor* is not a great play (admittedly it can be extremely entertaining in performance), I do not accept that *Othello* is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. It is usually considered, along with *Hamlet*, *Macbeth* and *King Lear*, one of his greatest tragedies.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> Though I'd agree that *The Merry Wives of Windsor* is not a great play (admittedly it can be extremely entertaining in performance), I do not accept that *Othello* is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. It is usually considered, along with *Hamlet*, *Macbeth* and *King Lear*, one of his greatest tragedies.


I assumed he was kidding--though one never knows, I suppose, given how tastes differ.

In any case, both are very "busy" plays, and in Othello's case especially there was a lot of clean-up required to make it suitable for an opera. I just thought I'd mention Joseph Kerman, who has written well about Verdi's alteration of Shakespeare's text for Otello. Kerman's writing has been on my mind lately, since I learned of his death a few days ago.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If you want to be a happy bassoon player, you should find a conductor who does a lot of Haydn symphonies.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Though I'd agree that *The Merry Wives of Windsor* is not a great play (admittedly it can be extremely entertaining in performance), I do not accept that *Othello* is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. It is usually considered, along with *Hamlet*, *Macbeth* and *King Lear*, one of his greatest tragedies.


May I split the difference here? I've always felt the plot devices and motivation of the characters in Othello/Otello rather weak; the bare bones of the story are not promising. But poetry and music can glorify mediocrity. Shakespeare and Boito/Verdi have both provided a fabulous role for an actor/singer, great poetry/music, and a powerful emotional charge. Love them both!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Though I'd agree that *The Merry Wives of Windsor* is not a great play (admittedly it can be extremely entertaining in performance), I do not accept that *Othello* is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. It is usually considered, along with *Hamlet*, *Macbeth* and *King Lear*, one of his greatest tragedies.


I've never rated Otello as I can never have any respect for someone who is so gullible. I don't rate Lear either. One of the most miserable theatrical experiences in Shakespeare. But that's my taste. My wife says Hamlet annoys her as he can't make up his mind!
The merry wives provided me with one of the most hilarious of all theatrical evenings when I saw it directed by Terry Hands at Stratford with Ian Richardson as Ford.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I've never rated Otello as I can never have any respect for someone who is so gullible. I don't rate Lear either. One of the most miserable theatrical experiences in Shakespeare. But that's my taste. My wife says Hamlet annoys her as he can't make up his mind!
> .


But Shakespeare, like Verdi, is about so much more than plot.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I've never rated Otello as I can never have any respect for someone who is so gullible.


he's not thick, he's obsessively jealous and insecure. Different kettle of fish.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

deggial said:


> he's not thick, he's obsessively jealous and insecure. Different kettle of fish.


Yes, yes, but...

Don't you want to grab him by the shoulders, sit him down, and say "for God's sake, just _talk_ to her, before you become completely unmoored!"


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Yes, yes, but...
> 
> Don't you want to grab him by the shoulders, sit him down, and say "for God's sake, just _talk_ to her, before you become completely unmoored!"


True, but then I can think of a few people in real life I'd like to say that to as well. Emotional immaturity can exist in the most successful of people.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> True, but then I can think of a few people in real life I'd like to say that to as well. Emotional immaturity can exist in the most successful of people.


Granted. But only a North African can become unmoored.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Don't you want to grab him by the shoulders, sit him down, and say "for God's sake, just _talk_ to her,


so many operatic situations could have easily been sorted out over a cup of tea, eh?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I've never rated Otello as I can never have any respect for someone who is so gullible. I don't rate Lear either. One of the most miserable theatrical experiences in Shakespeare. But that's my taste. My wife says Hamlet annoys her as he can't make up his mind!
> The merry wives provided me with one of the most hilarious of all theatrical evenings when I saw it directed by Terry Hands at Stratford with Ian Richardson as Ford.


It just goes to prove Shakespeare's ability to find both the grandeur and the humor in all of us fallible, irritating humans. He asks us not to admire, but to see more clearly, whether or not we see what we'd like, or like what we see.

I saw Merry Wives years ago, in Boston I think, and split my sides even though half the Elizabethan slang went over my head. I think Verdi's sense of humor ran more to the ironic; Falstaff evokes few laughs from me, though I find much of the music wonderful.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

deggial said:


> so many operatic situations could have easily been sorted out over a cup of tea, eh?


Dejanira in Handel's *Hercules* is almost Otello's female counterpart.

After a stage performance of the orotorio, in which Joyce DiDonato was a superb Dejanira, I turned to my friend, a well-known psycho-therapist, and said to him, "If only she had gone to see you!"


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> GregMitchell- I do not accept that Othello is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays. It is usually considered, along with Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear, one of his greatest tragedies.


For that deep and disobliging reason I can't let it pass. . . _Sustained_. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck:


> I've always felt the plot devices and motivation of the characters in Othello/Otello rather weak; the bare bones of the story are not promising. But poetry and music can glorify mediocrity


Respectfully, I agree with the conclusion if not the analysis. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Granted. But only a North African can become unmoored.


His Moorship is not amused.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Italian Opera Is "Music *Porn* You can take this statement as a complement, a criticism or both.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ are you a puritan?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Italian Opera Is "Music Porn"


Maybe _that's_ why I like it!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> His Moorship is not amused.


His Moorship looketh pale and hirsute.

His Moorship also needeth to clean out his private message box, declared by TC Central to have reached permissible capacity, so that His Duckship's response to His Moorship's enquiry about His Knappertship's Parsifal shall not henceforth be blocked as undeliverable.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> His Moorship looketh pale and hirsute.
> 
> His Moorship also needeth to clean out his private message box, declared by TC Central to have reached permissible capacity, so that His Duckship's response to His Moorship's enquiry about His Knappertship's Parsifal shall not henceforth be blocked as undeliverable.


Indeed, thou must indeed needeth to clean that message box that is known as in and that doth delivereth and receiveth messages, for then I would be able to clarify that the writer to whom I referred is indeed named Nigel Douglas, not Nigel Davis, and is the author of Legendary Tenors and More Legendary Tenors.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> Indeed, thou must indeed needeth to clean that message box that is known as in and that doth delivereth and receiveth messages, for then I would be able to clarify that the writer to whom I referred is indeed named Nigel Douglas, not Nigel Davis, and is the author of Legendary Tenors and More Legendary Tenors.


Thou too, Revenant? Methinks His Moorship is too popular. O Beauty! O don fatale! Praise Fortune, 'tis no curse of mine - nor thine, if thine avatar be true.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Thou too, Revenant? Methinks His Moorship is too popular. O Beauty! O don fatale! Praise Fortune, 'tis no curse of mine - nor thine, if thine avatar be true.


My avatar is that of a good man who was poisoned, so if it is true then the implication thereof is dire.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> My avatar is that of a good man who was poisoned, so if it is true then the implication thereof is dire.


I do laugh me unto tears and thank thee heartily.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I do laugh me unto tears and thank thee heartily.


Do so, with such dire yell and timorous accent as when, by night and negligence, the fire is spied in populous cities. (Just my way of getting back on topic with Othello - although not Otello.)


----------

