# Opera confessions



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

So what are your guilty secrets about opera? The main one for me is ... well, I just can't believe people honestly like 12 tone music, particularly in opera. I mean, really? (Though, among non-opera fans, that's their feeling about opera in general. They're shocked I can like the sound of "people screaming"). The only serial music I even somewhat like is The Nose, and there it's not used constantly. But something like Lulu or Moses und Aron? Blech. Give me a nice melody any day.


----------



## ooopera (Jul 27, 2011)

Believe it. Lulu is soooo beautiful. 
It's just fine if you don't like it. But you should believe that I'm completely moved while listening to Lulu.


----------



## Sieglinde (Oct 25, 2009)

I really, really can't stand fat singers. Chubby/buxom is ok (but not for a Violetta/Mimi), whale is not. ACTORS who play heroes are never fat. Why should I tolerate it in opera? The only exception being Brünnhilde. I'd rather have a big one like Watson or Gasteen who has the voice than a slim one with a voice 2 sizes smaller *cough Behrens cough*. Basses are another exception, but they don't play young romantic leads...

Will never understand what the soprano sees in the tenor when she could have a sexy baritone or even a bass.

I ship Don Carlo and Rodrigo, other Don Carlo and Alvaro, one-sided Kurwenal/Tristan, Onegin/Lensky, Luna/Manrico, and of course the leading trio from Billy Budd, but that's quite canon.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I love Dallapiccola's Volo di notte (Night's flight)


















Martin


----------



## Festat (Oct 25, 2011)

I never could like Joan Sutherland. And I tried.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

rgz said:


> So what are your guilty secrets about opera?...


I think this is less about guilty secrets and more about us not understanding why some people liking things that we don't like re opera.

I suppose for me, it's about plot, in terms of how the same, similar or carbon copy some are. Eg. in Baroque opera, also some Classical Era, is basically about people standing around singing about the gods. People I know who like these eras of opera to the max actually told me this, even though they like it they are aware of the weaker points of what they like. Which I see as admirable (same as how my more favoured genre of operetta is the same, I admit it's all about love triangles ending with champagne, but that's supposed to be like that, isn't it, it's not "high art," it's just to give a good time, etc.).

It's a great "atonal" opera, Berg's _Wozzeck_, that really boosted my interest in more recent music (eg. from 1918 onwards, something like that). In terms of "serial" operas, they grab me less than _Wozzeck_, but I still like their sense of drama and expressiveness, a sense of that being more unfettered by stifling cliches and convention (see above re Baroque opera, etc.).

I also admire the skill involved in writing "serialist" operas, Berg wasn't able to finish_ Lulu_, and Schoenberg worked on _Moses und Aron _for many years, started it in the early 1930's, worked on it on and off, but never was able to finish the third act by his death in 1951. So it's not easy you know, and I kind of respect that, this is not simply about producing cardboard cut-outs of your last or somebody else's opera, this is about the combination of expression and high level, cutting edge techniques.



rgz said:


> ...But something like Lulu or Moses und Aron? Blech. Give me a nice melody any day.


One could argue that virtually all of Austro-Germanic opera is not as melodic as that of the Italians & maybe even the French. I don't know, Wagner's long-winded things that go on and on and on do strike many people today as not fulfilling your criteria of what is a "nice melody" compared to something by say Verdi or Puccini. So it's all relative, imo...


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

In my opinion, Baroque, Clasiccal or Belcanto opera are also about drama and expresiveness. It's just that they are using their own codes to represent that drama. Once you are familiar, you understand the codes, then the expresiveness and the drama are there, open for you.

Modern opera, let's say from _Wozzeck_ onwards for the sake of discussion, use another set of codes, that are much closer to the average 20th and 21st non operatic audience. It's much easier for an average person to grasp in the theater a performance of _Wozzeck_ than one of _Tamerlano_. Of course, Handel's music can make the magic happens and then some members of this non operatic audience will get enthralled. But the action will look to many more just a collection of 'cliches' and 'conventions'.

They are not, they are just Baroque Opera codes. You need to understand them (it's not a difficult task at all), and then you see _Tamerlano_ for what it's: a wonderful piece of theater.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

schigolch said:


> In my opinion, Baroque, Clasiccal or Belcanto opera are also about drama and expresiveness. It's just that they are using their own codes to represent that drama. Once you are familiar, you understand the codes, then the expresiveness and the drama are there, open for you.
> 
> Modern opera, let's say from _Wozzeck_ onwards for the sake of discussion, use another set of codes, that are much closer to the average 20th and 21st non operatic audience. It's much easier for an average person to grasp in the theater a performance of _Wozzeck_ than one of _Tamerlano_. Of course, Handel's music can make the magic happens and then some members of this non operatic audience will get enthralled. But the action will look to many more just a collection of 'cliches' and 'conventions'.
> 
> They are not, they are just Baroque Opera codes. You need to understand them (it's not a difficult task at all), and then you see _Tamerlano_ for what it's: a wonderful piece of theater.


 Do you really think so? I don't exactly see flocks of younger folk swarming to opera houses to see the latest atonal masterpiece. 
I find this article to be more accurately descriptive of both the zeitgeist and my personal feelings: http://scottlf.livejournal.com/63186.html


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Most of the people approaching Opera do so for the music. In my example above, because they love Handel's music.

Now, if you take an audience of people that are not at all familiar with Opera, with Berg or with Handel, most of them will relate more to _Wozzeck_ than to _Tamerlano_. It's much easier to understand.

About real Opera audiences, both are repertoire pieces, liked by many people, and of course disliked by others. There are fans that don't like _Wozzeck_, or _Tamerlano_, no problem with that. Fortunately the genre is very broad, and can appeal to different people, in different ways.

Personally, I enjoy both operas a lot.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Geez, I entirely disagree. The average non-opera-goer wants melody, not dissonance. If that weren't the case, American Idol et al wouldn't be filled with people singing pop songs. And the libretto is of secondary importance if they can't get through the music, and even then -- well, Cats, Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and the like contain religious or fantastical, unrelateable plots and were/are wildly popular. But they all have good solid tunes you can sing (or hum) along to.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Well, unless you are using a definition of melody unknown to me, in _Wozzeck_ there are plenty of melodies. The whole opera is full of them. If you are interested, we can review the score together and I will show you. Perhaps in person, though we should wait to the Fall of 2013. 

Please don't get lost in diatribes against "dissonance", "12-tone" and all this kind of stuff... There are many opera aficionados that love _Wozzeck_ or _Lulu_. In this same forum, and in this same thread, you got three examples (myself, ooopera and Sid), not to count myaskovsky2002 , that loves _Volo di Notte_.

Now, if you don't like those operas, that's fine. But that means only your taste, not any kind of general rule, my friend. What I was commenting about Sid's post, anyway, was not related to melody or lack of melody in any way, but to the codes of Opera Seria, or the 'solita forma' of Belcanto opera, versus the more modern teathrical approach of 20th century opera.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

rgz said:


> Geez, I entirely disagree. The average non-opera-goer wants melody, not dissonance. If that weren't the case, American Idol et al wouldn't be filled with people singing pop songs. And the libretto is of secondary importance if they can't get through the music, and even then -- well, Cats, Jesus Christ Superstar, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and the like contain religious or fantastical, unrelateable plots and were/are wildly popular. But they all have good solid tunes you can sing (or hum) along to.


People want approachable music (which often means melody), but they also want approachable drama (which usually means, as schigolch suggests, something close to what they are used to in more popular media).

Musically, some opera neophytes may have an easier time with _Tamerlano_ than with _Wozzeck_. But dramatically, much pre-Wagnerian opera, with its aria/recitative patterns and/or da capo arias, can strike today's audiences as static, repetitive, and artificial. In that sense, some listeners might actually find _Wozzeck_ more approachable.

Of course, these dual musical and dramatic considerations explain why Puccini (for all his faults) will always be a good deal more accessible to most newbies than either _Tamerlano_ or _Wozzeck_.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Of course, any given individual can access opera with any given piece, it will depends a lot on his background, in music and in drama.

But, on average, more people can enter opera with Puccini, _Carmen_ or Verdi (or with _Die Tote Stadt_ ) than with _Tamerlano_ or _Wozzeck_.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

rgz said:


> Do you really think so? I don't exactly see flocks of younger folk swarming to opera houses to see the latest atonal masterpiece...


Younger folks tend not to go to opera full stop. Not in my experience here, anyway. Opera audience is dominated by the over fifties (who I have nothing against, I have quite a few acquaintances who are of that demographic into classical, incl. opera).

On the flip side, I did see comparatively more younger people (eg. between say ages 20 - 40) at a concert this year of Xenakis' percussion music. There was a mix of ages, but more younger people than usual. The hall was about two thirds filled, which is a very good turn out, and the ensemble got a standing ovation at the end, more than half the audience stood and clapped at the end. So it varies. New music can appeal to younger people.

Don't get me wrong, I'm similar to schigolch (more in terms of instrumental than opera), my tastes are fairly broad and eclectic. But let's face it, there is a visceral impact that music gives us, and often it's got little to do with rational or technical things (eg. this is Baroque, this is "atonal," etc.) but something that is not easy to quantify or put into words. Ask any musician, or any listener familiar with them, to say describe a Mahler symphony in one sentence, and they'll probably be unable or unwilling to do that. That's what I mean. So I'm with schigolch here.

& I wouldn't compare anything classical to _American Idol _and the like. That kind of thing probably even outsells the highest selling classical recordings, eg. Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_, etc. Do we need to compare them, things that are so different?



schigolch said:


> ...Now, if you take an audience of people that are not at all familiar with Opera, with Berg or with Handel, most of them will relate more to _Wozzeck_ than to _Tamerlano_. It's much easier to understand. ...


I basically agree, basically due to the strong dramatic element of things like_ Wozzeck_, but even things going back to_ Fidelio _or _Don Giovanni_, which really broke down barriers about the old more rigid conventions. Suddenly, opera became more human and more about fallible human beings, not just about gods or a "God," etc. Of course this is generalising, but overall the shift happened with Mozart.

& I agree with the gist of your comments, I think that a lot of the older music, eg. before 1800, can be quite complex due esp. to it's ornamentation. You often don't get things "straight," you get a lot of going here and there before you reach your "goal" so to speak. But now I'm realling beginning to enjoy things like J.S. Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Boccherini, etc., their chamber music esp. I had kind of overlooked them partly for the reasons you discuss re opera. Of course music after 1800 can also be very complex, but of course it's a different type of complexity, it is a set of different styles & closer to our own time...


----------



## Operafocus (Jul 17, 2011)

Overall I cannot stand the way most of what Rossini did _actually sounds_. That bloody overdone coloratura (some refer to it as "vocal fireworks") really does my head in. Blech.


----------



## MAnna (Sep 19, 2011)

I guess my dirty secret is that most operas - I do not like!!! Probably about a 20% success rate for me. But boy, those that I do like... 

Anyway, I wouldn't sweat the aged opera crowds. I really wonder at what age people who do like opera started appreciating it. It wouldn't surprise me if many of them started at the tender age of "Too old to rock and roll, too young to die".


----------



## Operafocus (Jul 17, 2011)

MAnna said:


> I guess my dirty secret is that most operas - I do not like!!! Probably about a 20% success rate for me. But boy, those that I do like...


I have to agree with you there. I've seen quite a few operas, and only a handful have I not been bored for most of the duration of the opera. I have about 3 or 4 I've seen that I've LOOOOVED, and I could see them again and again with that exact cast. Operas, for me, is as much about the cast as it is about the opera itself. If the leads suck, or don't appeal to me, then I could may as well leave. I actually much prefer concerts, with chosen arias, rather than sit for four-five hours and watch an entire opera.


----------



## Shostakovichiana (Nov 7, 2011)

Ouch...!  The best opera I have ever witnessed is actually Berg's "Lulu".. The opera has a really exciting and dramatic plot, it is obviously very well rooted in the 20th century's mind, in share complexity and chaos, I think. Although, I have to admit I am not a great opera lover, this time, for three hours, my eyes were glued to the stage.. just the share curiosity and experience of seeing a twelve-tone composed opera was enough. I actually find the music not at all disturbing- it goes so well with the overall atmosphere. Even though it is very experimental music, it's still got what I would call a late-romantic feel about it, very long legato-ish melodies: very romantic.
And the finale!  That's the most thrilling and dramatic end to any opera I've ever seen!
(Mind you: the soloists and orchestra did a very good job of creating that right atmosphere :tiphat


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Agreed with you fully there, _Wozzeck_ is my favourite opera, although very intense so I rarely listen to my recording of it. & I have to correct you, it isn't 3 hours long but only about half that time, which is in my favour, I don't like overly long works & I like it's sense of compression & how Berg keeps the action moving along, he doesn't muck about one little bit...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

My opera confession is: I don't know much about it!

That's why I've been peeking in on your threads trying to stay unnoticed.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

Operafocus said:


> Operas, for me, is as much about the cast as it is about the opera itself. If the leads suck, or don't appeal to me, then I could may as well leave.


This is generally true for me as well. And that's where my "guilty secret" comes in. There are some really great singers whose voices I've just never been able to warm up to -- Leonie Rysanek, Leontyne Price, Renata Scotto, Jon Vickers, and Rene Kollo, to name just a few. I apologize to anyone who loves these individuals; I know they are all great artists, and I wish I enjoyed listening to them. Heaven knows I've tried . . .


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

MAnna said:


> I really wonder at what age people who do like opera started appreciating it. It wouldn't surprise me if many of them started at the tender age of "Too old to rock and roll, too young to die".


Oh oh . . . then I've waited too long.


----------

