# Is Tosca a, well,"you know what"?



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

I refuse to use Kerman's infamous phrase, and since it is so frequently repeated, you can find it very easily in almost any review of the opera. Suffice to say, Kerman thought of _Tosca_ as nothing more than an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, startling opera by Puccini.

I rather think not. While I don't agree with the reviewers who call it his finest score (a ridiculous claim! in light of everything he accomplished after 1910), I still think _Tosca_ is a fine piece of work. This is my favorite part of the opera: 




Listen to Karajan's beautiful interpretation and how he treats the score. Puccini's colors are so rich here.

Is _Tosca_ a trifle of an opera? If so, why? If not, what's great about it?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

It was the first opera I ever saw. I was impressed, and fond of it. I don't know a lot about opera, but surely the story of how she kills the villain but is tragically tricked is very powerful. And I 'recognised' some of the music, so it must have a certain appeal.

It will be interesting to read what the opera-experts say.


----------



## Posie (Aug 18, 2013)

My favorite Tosca clips:










 Even with the bad acting, the orchestra is epic!


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/1/1153/1.html
Tosca is an albanian tribe...Maybe unrelated but Albania and Italy are very close and with many ties...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> If not, what's great about it?


The music.

Point A: Kerman was critic and musicologist. I don't see why would anybody discuss opinion by person of such low condition.

Point B: I have noticed that most of people who criticise this and other operas tend to be more into non-operatic classical music, mainly Austro-German: they praise Wagner, but know little about Italian music, they fail to connect with anything else that German tradition and aesthetic. For many, Tosca is cheap because heroine's death isn't representation of some pretentious, philosophical concept in the spirit of Wagner that can leave pseudo-intellectuals speechless with awe or because Cavaradossi is simply idealised type of passionate artist who doesn't talk about Schopenhauer for half of hour before dying after being shot.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm one of those numerous souls in the camp that any and all of Puccini is a "You Know What." 

The numbers in the opposite camp are also numerous.

Take your pick, or mix and match, as per your personal taste.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aramis said:


> I have noticed that most of people who criticise this and other operas tend to be more into non-operatic classical music, mainly Austro-German: they praise Wagner, but know little about Italian music, they fail to connect with anything else that German tradition and aesthetic.


Okay, take me as a counter-example for your non-musicological (you'd never associate with such low characters) survey, then. I consider Debussy's _Pelleas et Mellisande_ and Ravel's _L'enfant et les sortileges_ among the best operas of that era (I enjoy them more than Strauss), although I do love and enjoy Wagner as well as Mozart and Berg.



Aramis said:


> For many, Tosca is cheap because heroine's death isn't representation of some pretentious, philosophical concept in the spirit of Wagner that can leave pseudo-intellectuals speechless with awe or because Cavaradossi is simply idealised type of passionate artist who doesn't talk about Schopenhauer for half of hour before dying after being shot.


You're sure that it's not because the whole thing is melodramatic and overwrought?


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Aramis said:


> The music.
> 
> Point A: Kerman was critic and musicologist. I don't see why would anybody discuss opinion by person of such low condition.
> 
> Point B: I have noticed that most of people who criticise this and other operas tend to be more into non-operatic classical music, mainly Austro-German: they praise Wagner, but know little about Italian music, they fail to connect with anything else that German tradition and aesthetic. For many, Tosca is cheap because heroine's death isn't representation of some pretentious, philosophical concept in the spirit of Wagner that can leave pseudo-intellectuals speechless with awe or because Cavaradossi is simply idealised type of passionate artist who doesn't talk about Schopenhauer for half of hour before dying after being shot.


This entire comment was hilarious and spot-on. Ire at its finest. And thank you for calling out those people for what they are: _pseudo-intellectuals_, of which Wagner was the crowned and mitered leader. He was a great musician who thought his talent extended to philosophy. It really, really didn't.

Personally I just feel like the Kermans of the world are jealous: he's remembered for grousing about somebody else's art, while Puccini is remembered for his... art.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> You're sure that it's not because the whole thing is melodramatic and overwrought?


So - operas are meant to be naturalistic slice-of-life affairs?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> You're sure that it's not because the whole thing is melodramatic and overwrought?


you could put it that way, but Aramis' take is funnier


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> So - operas are meant to be naturalistic slice-of-life affairs?


So long as the music's good, the libretto can be as insipid as it likes! Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just find the self-conceited notion that the _only_ reason anyone could enjoy Wagner more than Puccini is that they're pretentious snobs offensive, and, incidentally, somewhat snobbish.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> So - operas are meant to be naturalistic slice-of-life affairs?


precisely! I for one always launch into elaborate trills when something exciting happens.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> So long as the music's good, the libretto can be as insipid as it likes! Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just find the self-conceited notion that the _only_ reason anyone could enjoy Wagner more than Puccini is that they're pretentious snobs offensive, and, incidentally, somewhat snobbish.


Sorry, Mahlerian. No offence meant; I just thought it odd to criticise an opera for being melodramatic. The plots of most of them seem that way inclined to me. I took Aramis's remark as a joke, probably because I know nothing of Wagner.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, take me as a counter-example for your non-musicological (you'd never associate with such low characters) survey, then. I consider Debussy's _Pelleas et Mellisande_ and Ravel's _L'enfant et les sortileges_ among the best operas of that era (I enjoy them more than Strauss), although I do love and enjoy Wagner as well as Mozart and Berg.


According to Stravinsky, Debussy quite respected Puccini's work, as did Webern and Ravel (who both raved about _La fanciulla del west_), and Schoenberg, whose music Puccini didn't like but was intrigued by, and finally Stravinsky himself. It's the critics born from that era, not the composers, who hold that opinion. (In all fairness, Mahler was very critical of Puccini, _Tosca_ in particular.) And their influence on Puccini was substantial. His later works contain all kinds of "modern" sounds, and even sections of bi-tonality or atonality, but are still recognizably his, and still very melodic.



Mahlerian said:


> You're sure that it's not because the whole thing is melodramatic and overwrought?


It is, and that's rather the point. For such a clash of natures as occurs between Tosca and Scarpia, how could one not write over the top music? And furthermore, I find the opera to be a sort of negative commentary on the whole thing. Their passions lead to their deaths, but without them, could they have lived at all?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Wagner is not melodramatic _at all_! to be fair, look in the _Why do you love Wagner_ thread and you'll see people going on and on about the intellectual merits of the libretti even more than about the music itself...


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> So long as the music's good, the libretto can be as insipid as it likes! Look, I'm not trying to start a fight here. I just find the self-conceited notion that the _only_ reason anyone could enjoy Wagner more than Puccini is that they're pretentious snobs offensive, and, incidentally, somewhat snobbish.


That would actually make Puccini himself a pretentious snob. He thought the rest of them were "mandolin players" compared to _Tristan_ and especially _Parsifal_, his favorite opera. It doesn't make him better that he liked that music, of course, it's just an interesting thing, I think.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Sorry, Mahlerian. No offence meant; I just thought it odd to criticise an opera for being melodramatic. *The plots of most of them seem that way inclined to me.* I took Aramis's remark as a joke, probably because I know nothing of Wagner.


They are indeed. The trick is for the composer to make whatever contrivance feel plausible. The plot of Der Freischütz is absolutely absurd and idiotic. It only survives because of its music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Freischütz

Tosca bothers me not because it's not well-made, but because nothing in the music ever stops me from feeling like I'm being manipulated into feeling a certain way. I'm fine with just not listening to it, but I don't take kindly to the suggestion that my taste is simply a result of being a pseudo-intellectual.

And Kerman wasn't an "Austro-German above all" critic, either. The first review link to above lists his favorite operas as "Mozart's Marriage of Figaro, Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Verdi's Otello, Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande, Berg's Wozzeck, and Stravinsky's The Rake's Progress". Excellent works, and quite diverse.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

deggial said:


> Wagner is not melodramatic _at all_! to be fair, look in the _Why do you love Wagner_ thread and you'll see people going on and on about the intellectual merits of the libretti even more than about the music itself...


Yes, I always laugh when I hear someone criticize a particular opera/composer/performance as "unsubtle". It's opera! Not that there can't be subtlety, but it's not the primary goal of an art form that is based on people singing much higher and louder than you'd ever expect from a living thing, while pretending to gods/kings/murderers, sometimes all three at the same time, all accompanied by an orchestra and massive sets. It's not a subtle art form.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Tosca bothers me not because it's not well-made, but because nothing in the music ever stops me from feeling like I'm being manipulated into feeling a certain way. I'm fine with just not listening to it, but I don't take kindly to the suggestion that my taste is simply a result of being a pseudo-intellectual.


I must disagree, but that's a perfectly fair reason to dislike it, or it would be if it were true. I used (or intended to use) the term pseudo-intellectual to describe the incessant twittering on about Wagner's sublime philosophy. It was no such thing, and most of the arguments to defend it that I've seen are very poor. The music is another case _entirely_.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> people singing much higher and louder than you'd ever expect from a living thing, while pretending to gods/kings/murderers, sometimes all three at the same time, all accompanied by an orchestra and massive sets.


without all that we'd be left with a bearded chap in a cardigan gently strumming an acoustic guitar and calling it mumblecore


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> You're sure that it's not because the whole thing is melodramatic and overwrought?


I don't think there is anything wrong with good melodrama - you might dislike it, but claiming that this is quality that ultimately deems the work as bad is too much. I also don't feel that melodrama in Tosca is of the worst, ridiculous kind. The dramatic situation which, I remember, you tried to riducle in the other thread some time ago is actually pretty good - a trapped woman is being pushed to the limits of her endurance, you get a boiling mixture of her pride and temperament conflicting with the other part of her nature, expressed by Cavaradossi in last act. It's not "let's make some lady stabbing a horny guy to death, that will be so cool!", you get well sketched (for operatic possibilities) character in strong stage situation and, what's most important, Puccini's music depicts all of it with enough insight and sense of truely dramatic artist to throw away the accusations of empty claptrap - for me at least, it's much more human and possible to connect with than dillemas of many Wagnerian characters. So when somebody is ranting despite of that, I can't help but to think he is biased in the way that I have described in previous post.



> I'm fine with just not listening to it, but I don't take kindly to the suggestion that my taste is simply a result of being a pseudo-intellectual.


Similiarly, I don't take kindly to the suggestion that when I enjoy _Tosca_, I'm getting fooled by bunch of cheap effects and insincere music put together by composer-manipulator.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Aramis said:


> I don't take kindly to the suggestion that when I enjoy _Tosca_, I'm getting fooled by bunch of cheap effects and insincere music put together by composer-manipulator.


Indeed.

Puccini brings insight into the drama. What more can you ask for in opera?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> According to Stravinsky, Debussy quite respected Puccini's work, as did Webern and Ravel (who both raved about _La fanciulla del west_), and Schoenberg, whose music Puccini didn't like but was intrigued by, and finally Stravinsky himself. It's the critics born from that era, not the composers, who hold that opinion. (In all fairness, Mahler was very critical of Puccini, _Tosca_ in particular.) And their influence on Puccini was substantial. His later works contain all kinds of "modern" sounds, and even sections of bi-tonality or atonality, but are still recognizably his, and still very melodic.


Some composers of the next generation, such as Britten (himself an opera composer of no small talent), have been critical.

In regards to Schoenberg, you're of course correct. In his _Fundamentals of Musical Composition_ he cites a passage from _Turandot_ with the following comment: "Melodic progressions, like those of Mussirgsky (Ex. 87 [Boris Godunov]), undoubtedly influenced by Oriental folk-music, in turn influenced Western melodic writing. The example from Puccini (Ex. 88) is also folkloristic (pseudo-Chinese). _Though Puccini is always progressive in his harmony,_ the extreme modernism of this example is exceptional."



HumphreyAppleby said:


> It is, and that's rather the point. For such a clash of natures as occurs between Tosca and Scarpia, how could one not write over the top music? And furthermore, I find the opera to be a sort of negative commentary on the whole thing. Their passions lead to their deaths, but without them, could they have lived at all?


The drama is effectively set up, for sure. On another thread, I was defending Wagner's libretti against the Grand Opera from which he grew, mentioning the taste for spectacle that he turned into a more introspective form. The libretto of Tosca doesn't have those sorts of problems. It doesn't depend on huge set pieces and ballet scenes for its impact. I have my problems with it, but I don't think many if any opera libretti stand on their own as literature.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Some composers of the next generation, such as Britten (himself an opera composer of no small talent), have been critical.


Very true. Britten and Shostakovitch in particular held him in low esteem. Though I am a fan of Shostakovitch's instrumental works, as much as it pains me to say it, I find his operas to be rather unsuccessful. Britten I vacillate over. I think there's simply an aesthetic difference here, especially as regards opera, which is a much different creature than symphonic music.

Webern wrote to Schoenberg of _Fanciulla_: "A score with an original sound throughout, splendid, every bar a surprise..." He then went on to suggest that they study the orchestration together.

The libretto of _Tosca_ couldn't stand on its own, but it certainly isn't a poor piece of work either. There are a number of sections of nice poetry by Giacosa that are usually butchered in translation.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Similiarly, I don't take kindly to the suggestion that when I enjoy _Tosca_, I'm getting fooled by bunch of cheap effects and insincere music put together by composer-manipulator.


Well, I did not at any point during my criticisms intend to intimate anything above my own personal taste in the matter. I have no interest in denigrating the enjoyment of others.



Aramis said:


> I don't think there is anything wrong with good melodrama - you might dislike it, but *claiming that this is quality that ultimately deems the work as bad* is too much.


Something I never said.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> So - operas are meant to be naturalistic slice-of-life affairs?


In the context of the day, "Verismo" -- exemplified by, a.o. Puccini, actually, _yes_. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verismo_%28music%29

All I can say, and it is somewhat true, "things were different back then"


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I am no opera expert, but maybe this explains why I like Puccini's operas over all else. They reach my heart and emotions, and only Puccini can bring tears. I just saw Tosca two weeks ago. I loved it. But I've never seen a Wagner opera, they don't perform Wagner here in Vancouver. I can't make a critical review of Tosca. All I can say is that I think it's a terrific opera.


----------



## alan davis (Oct 16, 2013)

People vote with their feet or pay to see what they enjoy. Put Tosca on in most parts of the world and the theatre will be full. Let the critics and general pretentious know- it- alls say what they like. The opera going public has declared it one of the greats. I concur.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2013)

Of course, just because Kerman is 'wrong' about Tosca, doesn't mean all musicologists and critics are "person of low condition"!


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Tosca is fantastic heart-on-sleeve stuff and I love it - it doesn't let up the whole way through, great tunes, exciting orchestration, high notes for the principals to fermata on. In fact, it was the opera that dragged me kicking and screaming into the genre as a callow teenager after playing the big arias and the end of Act 1 in an Italian opera gala concert (the rest was Verdi selections which failed to impress me then and nothing has changed). I've even seen it live so I know it has a story but who cares with all that unctuous music!

And this is even coming from one of those awful people who pretends to like atonal music to impress people on the internet ;-)


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> So - operas are meant to be naturalistic slice-of-life affairs?


As the great Anna Russell once said:
"And that's the beauty of grand opera, you can do _anything_ as long as you _sing_ it!"

Personally I listen to operas on CD just for the music, and go to operas in performance for the storytelling (music, words, acting included, sets and costumes and lighting least priority in my opinion). I haven't seen Tosca in performance, and frankly I don't give a damn about any controversy to do with the story itself.

Puccini is a brilliant composer, that's all I can say.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Aramis said:


> The music.
> 
> Point A: Kerman was critic and musicologist. I don't see why would anybody discuss opinion by person of such low condition.
> 
> Point B: I have noticed that most of people who criticise this and other operas tend to be more into non-operatic classical music, mainly Austro-German: they praise Wagner, but know little about Italian music, they fail to connect with anything else that German tradition and aesthetic. For many, Tosca is cheap because heroine's death isn't representation of some pretentious, philosophical concept in the spirit of Wagner that can leave pseudo-intellectuals speechless with awe or because Cavaradossi is simply idealised type of passionate artist who doesn't talk about Schopenhauer for half of hour before dying after being shot.


Well, if you put it that way !


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2013)

It might be pedantic to observe that Aramis' complaint is _not _spot on (if it is to be taken as serious criticism) since those to whom he refers who prefer Austro-German music, possibly Wagner, would not criticise Tosca for not being pseudo-intellectual and they would not claim that, by contrast, the deaths of heroes and heroines in Wagner represent pretentious philosophical views.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

alan davis said:


> People vote with their feet or pay to see what they enjoy. Put Tosca on in most parts of the world and the theatre will be full. Let the critics and general pretentious know- it- alls say what they like. The opera going public has declared it one of the greats. I concur.


The public are also very keen on Mcdonalds,does that make it a chain of great restaurants ?


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

I find Tosca a little difficult to get, and not all that moving. It just seems to present a cruel world where good people endure horrible suffering for no reason, and yet we are supposed to relate to these beautiful characters and pity them? At least with a good tragedy you get the hero's fatal flaws contributing to his or her own destruction, which provokes so much pathos as to really move you. However in this particular opera it would take a really charismatic Tosca to make me feel anything other than 'oh how horrible, that poor woman was driven to suicide because she lives in a really bleak world and that scarpia is an evil piece of work'.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Unless Kernan included operas with such plots as Lucia di Lamermoor, Pagliacci, Rigoletto, Il Trovatore, Cavalleria Rusticana, even Norma with its bonfire in a very long operatic roster of shabby little shockers, then his singling out of Tosca would be invalid, based on his selective enforcement of an aesthetical principle.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Personally, the presence of too much or too little melodrama doesn't compensate for the boredom I have to endure when Tosca is playing. The opera has one half-interesting role and they kill him in the second act. I'm certain he's the bad guy because Puccini rams that menacing motif down my throat every time the guy looks a bit shifty.

By the time the third act kicks in, I'm praying for Napoleon's army to storm the stage and kill our two so-called heroes. Or a bear. I'd settle for a bear.

The problem for me is that Miss Tosca's jealous antics make her too unlikable. The dude is a painter - there's going to be a lot of naked chicks in his life. Is she going to moan about everything he paints?
As for Super Mario, we don't really get to know him. He clearly has a fatal attraction for crazy women but what else do we know about him? He's almost absent in Act Two aside from the occasional scream.

The story should have focused on Marchesa Attavanti. That painting made her look like a bit of a hottie.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Couac Addict said:


> As for Super Mario, we don't really get to know him. He clearly has a fatal attraction for crazy women but what else do we know about him?


- He should leave saints and make fun with soldiers
- He's ardent republican 
- He disdains the pain
- He has innate acting skills


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Aramis said:


> disdains the pain


I still laugh when I hear that part. If Gatorade start putting neuro-blocking drugs in their product, I think we've found a new slogan.
...with spokesperson Mr.T, screaming _"Disdain the Pain!"_


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I think _Tosca_ is highly effective drama. I'd hesitate to call it melodrama (though I can sort of see why some people call it that) because, if I remember correctly from my college years, melodrama is when the emotional reactions of the characters are not warranted by the dramatic situation. I don't feel _Tosca_ fits this definition.

I'd say my favorite thing about _Tosca_ is the "pictorial" quality of the music, the way it mirrors certain physical actions. I also love the orchestration of "Va, Tosca" and think Mario Cavarodossi a strong character. Too often he's played as a sort of "pretty boy," which in my opinion is no way to play a character of such obvious courage.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> I'd say my favorite thing about _Tosca_ is the "pictorial" quality of the music, the way it mirrors certain physical actions. I also love the orchestration of "Va, Tosca" and think Mario Cavarodossi a strong character. Too often he's played as a sort of "pretty boy," which in my opinion is no way to play a character of such obvious courage.


How's that for a pretty boy?


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

I love Tosca. It has the Holy Trinity of Italian opera sub-plots - love, politics, and the church. The music has plenty of "Recondita Armonia" in it, along with some wonderfully lush orchestration that ventures into Wagnerian territory when it foreshadows and recalls situations. And how is the plot shabbier than, in increasing order of nastiness, _Wozzeck_, _Lady Macbeth of Mzensk_, _Bluebeard's Castle_ or _Lulu_? It's an opera, not _The Art of the Fugue_ for God's sake.

_Tosca_ is a shabby little shocker to the same extent that the second movement of Brahms' Piano Concerto #2 is "a little wisp of a scherzo".


----------



## alan davis (Oct 16, 2013)

moody said:


> The public are also very keen on Mcdonalds,does that make it a chain of great restaurants ?


Must admit few of my opera going friends eat McDonalds and most love Tosca.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> How's that for a pretty boy?


Yes, Domingo was definitely one of the "manly" Cavarodossis. Actually, I believe it was Domingo himself who said that Mario should not be played as a "pretty boy" but as a man of courage. I'm sure I remember reading a quote by him to that effect in "Opera News."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

waldvogel said:


> I love Tosca. It has the Holy Trinity of Italian opera sub-plots - love, politics, and the church. The music has plenty of "Recondita Armonia" in it, along with some wonderfully lush orchestration that ventures into Wagnerian territory when it foreshadows and recalls situations. And how is the plot shabbier than, in increasing order of nastiness, _Wozzeck_, _Lady Macbeth of Mzensk_, _Bluebeard's Castle_ or _Lulu_?


The problem is not that the plot is lurid. That would touch upon many operas (not sure I'd include Bluebeard here, though), old and new.



waldvogel said:


> It's an opera, not _The Art of the Fugue_ for God's sake.


Oh, and what do you think we who dislike it were looking for? I'm not sure what Art of Fugue has to do with anything, but if you're attempting to use it as a symbol of dry intellectualism, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't understand who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem like it's any of the people who have commented on this thread, nor is it Kerman himself.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Tosca bothers me not because it's not well-made, but because nothing in the music ever stops me from feeling like I'm being manipulated into feeling a certain way.


With all respect, isn't that sign of a successful work of music? Continuing the comparison to Wagner, many do not see oafish Siegfried as a sympathetic character and he is, agruably, as much as victim of circumstances as Tosca. Yet, on hearing the Funeral Music, we can't help but feel his death was highly significant. For that matter the same goes for your namesake (who even spells it out in your signature line quote), and who it seems, had a penchant for writing his own funeral music in an irresistibly powerful manner.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Cavaradossi said:


> With all respect, isn't that sign of a successful work of music? Continuing the comparison to Wagner, many do not see oafish Siegfried as a sympathetic character and he is, agruably, as much as victim of circumstances as Tosca. Yet, on hearing the Funeral Music, we can't help but feel his death was highly significant. For that matter the same goes for your namesake (who even spells it out in your signature line quote), and who it seems, had a penchant for writing his own funeral music in an irresistibly powerful manner.


I am not condemning emotion. Far from it! I do not dislike Tosca because I am embarrassed about its evoking strong feeling in me, I dislike it because to me it evokes absolutely nothing at all, and yet I hear that I am supposed to feel this and that way.

When I listen to the Kindertotenlieder, for example, I am touched most by the restraint that characterizes its lyrical anguish. The orchestral version is colored with subtle care and its storm with all the fury a large ensemble can muster, but the songs are as affecting when sung with piano accompaniment.

Tosca strikes me as effective in depicting whatever detail at a given moment, but less so in adding up to a dramatic/musical whole.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I dislike it because to me it evokes absolutely nothing at all, and yet I hear that I am supposed to feel this and that way.


Feeling that you're "supposed" to feel something is pretty common when you don't connect music written in such emotional idiom. I feel that way about Bruckner - I often read the emotion intended, but it's not evoked in me. Yet I don't accuse Bruckner of things that people are trying to bring against Puccini, since I know many experienced listeners find his music rewarding and obviously there must be something in it.

Anyway, I hope you will get to appreciate _Tosca_. A good thing to do would be exploring more recordings - in opera, the performers shape the character of the work to much greater extent than in other classical music and you might feel entirely different way listening to a different performance.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Feeling that you're "supposed" to feel something is pretty common when you don't connect music written in such emotional idiom. I feel that way about Bruckner - I often read the emotion intended, but it's not evoked in me. Yet I don't accuse Bruckner of things that people are trying to bring against Puccini, since I know many experienced listeners find his music rewarding and obviously there must be something in it.


I don't consider Bruckner's music particularly "emotional". It strikes me as external rather than an expression of internal feelings. Its beauties for me are musical and formal, and even when that produces emotion in me (as it can), it's not because the composer is depicting some feeling or other. He may use the language of Wagner's Tristan, but the longing expressed in the final two adagios, say, does not express any sort of particular emotion, except that in the music itself.

The point, however, is that I don't hear, in Mahler and Bruckner, that I am being told what to feel. I am presented with music, and I may feel what I will (that there are different interpretations of nearly every moment in Mahler's supposedly "openly confessional" music is, I feel, a sign of its inner emotional richness).



Aramis said:


> Anyway, I hope you will get to appreciate _Tosca_. A good thing to do would be exploring more recordings - in opera, the performers shape the character of the work to much greater extent than in other classical music and you might feel entirely different way listening to a different performance.


Perhaps. Who knows. Tastes change over time.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"Shabby little shocker" may be a catchy phrase, but it's just plain DUMB . Tosca is neither shabby, little nor a shocker .
It may not be profound music, but it's superbly crafted , melodious , gorgeously orchestated and from dramatic viewpoint ,
effective as hell . 
It happens to be the opera I've played the most as a horn player , and you can't help but be impressed with 
Puccini's skill at writing operas after getting to know it so well over the years .


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't consider Bruckner's music particularly "emotional".


Hoo boy! I sure do! Emotion is a GOOD thing! Emotionless music sucks.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Hoo boy! I sure do! Emotion is a GOOD thing! Emotionless music sucks.


I think you and I define emotion differently.

Music can evoke emotion without being "emotional", that is, without expressing a particular emotion. Bruckner's music is lyrical and expressive, but that doesn't mean that it expresses _an emotion_.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

superhorn said:


> "Shabby little shocker" may be a catchy phrase, but it's just plain DUMB . Tosca is neither shabby, little nor a shocker .


Ironically, with that pejorative phrase, Kerman achieved exactly what he was accusing Puccini of: it sounds good, it's popular, but it has no substance and no merit whatsoever.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I think you and I define emotion differently.
> 
> Music can evoke emotion without being "emotional", that is, without expressing a particular emotion. Bruckner's music is lyrical and expressive, but that doesn't mean that it expresses _an emotion_.


But in an opera, nobody is telling you how to feel. The music communicates what the characters feel. Take Vissi d'arte. Puccini does a fantastic job of expressing Tosca's pride, desperation, and strength all at once. Those emotions that he's conveying are dependent on the text, or are at least related to it. How you feel about them is up to you. Now, when the music turns sad, you could look at it as, "I'm being told to feel sad." But you could just as easily think, "The event that I'm witnessing onstage is sad, as are the characters." And then you're either moved or not. Would an opera make any sense if it was written differently? If you have a scene where a character is about to be put to death, and the music doesn't convey any particular emotion, it just sounds, I don't know, more intense than at another point, what point is there in having the music at all?

And I'm not even sure how one can have generic emotion. One may have feelings that that one can't put into words, or doesn't understand, or can't discern at the moment, but they are still emotions of a particular kind, you just don't know what kind yet. It's the motivations behind particular emotions that give operas, and other works for that matter, their depth. Sure, we know from the text that Tosca is feeling reproachful towards God, but why? As I said before, Puccini very deftly crafts a melody and harmonies and orchestration that convey range of motivations. The reprise of the theme in the orchestra from when Tosca placed flowers at the feet of Mary reminds us of her faith, but the lilting vocal line moving against it shows how the present situation has challenged that faith. The climax of the aria is both anguished and a bit angry: How could God let this happen to her, but more importantly, how could God let this happen to _her_. If the music didn't express any particular emotions, what could we possibly know about Tosca as a character? That she has feelings? Shocking.

There is a time and a place for music that simply expresses _experience_, or describes a place, or imitates an event. Puccini has all that in his scores too. But _Tosca_ in particular is full of emotional expression of at turns a very nuanced and bombastic sort. After all, life is full of moments of of subtlety and complexity, and also moments of overwhelming passion, pure and simple. To create an opera confined to only one part of the spectrum, or one that doesn't express either at all, would result in something rather beige. _Tosca_ is both brightly and subtly colored.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> But in an opera, nobody is telling you how to feel. The music communicates what the characters feel.


Yes, in Wagner, in Verdi, in Mozart, I agree. Puccini strikes me differently. Maybe it's a personal fault of some kind.



HumphreyAppleby said:


> Take Vissi d'arte. Puccini does a fantastic job of expressing Tosca's pride, desperation, and strength all at once. Those emotions that he's conveying are dependent on the text, or are at least related to it. How you feel about them is up to you. Now, when the music turns sad, you could look at it as, "I'm being told to feel sad." But you could just as easily think, "The event that I'm witnessing onstage is sad, as are the characters." And then you're either moved or not.


But should the music be mourning or should it be telling us to mourn? I'm fine with the former.



HumphreyAppleby said:


> Would an opera make any sense if it was written differently? If you have a scene where a character is about to be put to death, and the music doesn't convey any particular emotion, it just sounds, I don't know, more intense than at another point, what point is there in having the music at all?


Once again, I agree that the music should reflect the drama. I never disagreed with that.



HumphreyAppleby said:


> And I'm not even sure how one can have generic emotion. One may have feelings that that one can't put into words, or doesn't understand, or can't discern at the moment, but they are still emotions of a particular kind, you just don't know what kind yet.


But different people have very different reactions, do they not? Why can a scene not be so emotionally pregnant that one feels one nuance of it at one hearing and another nuance at another? Also, not every moment has to be emotionally expressive as such. There are connections and formal markers in music that are matters more of syntax than description. Saying that _everything_ in music is emotion is like saying pronouns, divorced from literary or poetic context, carry emotional weight. It's just bizarre.



HumphreyAppleby said:


> There is a time and a place for music that simply expresses _experience_, or describes a place, or imitates an event. Puccini has all that in his scores too. But _Tosca_ in particular is full of emotional expression of at turns a very nuanced and bombastic sort. After all, life is full of moments of of subtlety and complexity, and also moments of overwhelming passion, pure and simple. To create an opera confined to only one part of the spectrum, or one that doesn't express either at all, would result in something rather beige. _Tosca_ is both brightly and subtly colored.


I understand that you're very passionate about this, that you find Tosca a very moving work and love it dearly. But I have not been moved by Tosca or impressed with it as music or theater, beyond recognizing its effectiveness. Puccini's music generally does not appeal to me, and it does not strike me either with depth of emotion or beauty.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, in Wagner, in Verdi, in Mozart, I agree. Puccini strikes me differently. Maybe it's a personal fault of some kind.


Maybe it's a personal response. No fault need be acknowledged!


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, in Wagner, in Verdi, in Mozart, I agree. Puccini strikes me differently. Maybe it's a personal fault of some kind.


There's no fault, just personal taste. I get that, and I don't think any less of you because you don't like Puccini. My particular problem is mostly with people like Kerman, who implicitly dismisses the people who like _Tosca_ as having shallow and shabby tastes.



Mahlerian said:


> Once again, I agree that the music should reflect the drama. I never disagreed with that.


I suppose my confusion lies here: if Puccini doesn't give us any insight into what Tosca is feeling, why should we bother with the music? You say that emotion in music can be generic, not expressing any particular emotion. What I'm saying is that the music can express the emotions of the characters just fine, while inducing other emotions in the audience. Obviously, Puccini's expression of sadness induces in you: indifference. In me it sometimes induces a kind of excitement, which seems rather sadistic in the context of a dramatic situation like act II of _Tosca_. But that leads to a kind of introspective state: why do I enjoy something so cruel? Is it the cruelty, or is it the suffering, or is it simply a kind of adrenaline response that means nothing about who I am as a person? One can have all those feelings, or none of them. But that doesn't mean that the music that induces them is of the same emotional character as the emotions that it induces. Does that make sense?



Mahlerian said:


> Also, not every moment has to be emotionally expressive as such. There are connections and formal markers in music that are matters more of syntax than description. Saying that _everything_ in music is emotion is like saying pronouns, divorced from literary or poetic context, carry emotional weight. It's just bizarre.


I never said that every moment has to be emotional. There are lots of moments in _Tosca_ that are pretty much descriptive, or are for characterization, like the dawn prelude or the Sacristan's scene, respectively. And even in the emotional parts, there are simply formal considerations at work as well, of course. And in the descriptive passages, formal considerations can be expressive of psychology or not: Scarpia's chords are built on a whole tone scale, so does that mean something about him or not? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. It's all up to the listener.

I must admit, however, that I have always been puzzled by the word "manipulative" in the context of emotional music. Why is one passage manipulative and one is genuine? Yes, it's true that at time Puccini wanted to make the audience cry, and he was very successful, but he himself broke down in tears while writing Mimi's death. It obviously came from a genuine place inside him. Does that make him a manipulator of himself? And Puccini's most popular opera among the critics is _Gianni Schicchi_, of which the entire premise is the titular character's ability to manipulate the emotions of others, be it greed or love. And this is the opera that they _don't_ find to be manipulative? Perhaps it's because they feel in on the joke, and therefore don't feel like they're being controlled. But I think that that whole mindset stems from a much to alienated view of the theatre. The theatre is about an empathetic experience that leads to an emotional catharsis, or in the case of the most powerful art works, personal transformation. There is no generic way to think about it, and there is no objective better or worse work of theatre. If somebody is genuinely moved or given solace by a piece of music, even if it's by Andrew Lloyd Weber (who is _nothing_ like Puccini, and the comparisons sometimes made between the two of them are ridiculous...), that piece of music has value because of it. And maybe it wasn't the "intended" effect.



Mahlerian said:


> understand that you're very passionate about this, that you find Tosca a very moving work and love it dearly. But I have not been moved by Tosca or impressed with it as music or theater, beyond recognizing its effectiveness. Puccini's music generally does not appeal to me, and it does not strike me either with depth of emotion or beauty.


I can't force you to like _Tosca_ or Puccini, and I wouldn't want to. That being said, I think the opportunity to discuss personal experiences of music and theatre is valuable, and I've enjoyed the conversation. The purpose of symphonic music is much more a kind of musical dialogue, in which somebody who thinks musically can participate and learn. But opera is about theatre, and as such it's about empathy, and participating less in the purely musical aspects but in the emotional and psychological aspects of the work. The music serves that purpose, and as such isn't as free or "pure" as symphonic music. And perhaps that means certain operas are less fulfilling as _music_. But as musical drama, they are no less powerful and no less valuable as art because of it. _Tosca_, though you are correct that I love it dearly, is not one of my favorite Puccini operas. I think that his best operas are _La fanciulla del west_ (his greatest completed project), _Il trittico_ (highly original and, in fact, completely unique in the operatic repertoire, with all sort of complex music and orchestration), and _Turandot_, which would have been his crowning glory had he finished it, but in some ways still is. I think _Tosca_ is one of his weaker operas as far as music alone is concerned: it has nothing on _Fanciulla_, honestly. But as drama, I find it to be a fantastic work, of much greater substance and depth than it is generally given credit for.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I think _Tosca_ is the perfect end for the Italian Ottocento. A powerful drama, well served by the music, but especially by the singing voice. This is the essence of the Italian opera. Of course, a lot of things have happened between Rossini or Bellini, and Puccini: the progressive retirement of the 'solita forma', the great dramatic impulse of Verdi, the influence of German opera and the greater importance of the orchestra... but the core, the basic truth of presenting the "dramma per musica" singing, is still there, and masterfully presented by Puccini.

Of course, it's perfectly normal not to like _Tosca_. But to ignore or disregard his great appeal as an operatic drama, is simply pointless. Sometimes, to understand well the drama in a Baroque opera, or even in Italian belcanto period, one to learn the 'codes', and then fully enjoy the piece. But this is not the case in _Tosca_. Not for everybody's taste (nothing is really for everybody's taste, anyway), but great theater and beautiful music.

This is Magda Olivero singing "Vissi d'arte" in her debut at the MET as Tosca, at 65 years old. This is what Italian 19th century (and early 20th century) opera is all about, really:


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

schigolch said:


> *I think Tosca is the perfect end for the Italian Ottocento.* A powerful drama, well served by the music, but especially by the singing voice. This is the essence of the Italian opera. Of course, a lot of things have happened between Rossini or Bellini, and Puccini: the progressive retirement of the 'solita forma', the great dramatic impulse of Verdi, the influence of German opera and the greater importance of the orchestra... but the core, the basic truth of presenting the "dramma per musica" singing, is still there, and masterfully presented by Puccini.


I agree.

Trio Puccini/Illica/Giacosa had a wonderful theatrical sense, and Tosca is probably their crowning achievement in that way.
Something that lacked for the most part to the other major italian composer of the period.



PetrB said:


> In the context of the day, "Verismo" -- exemplified by, a.o. Puccini, actually, _yes_.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verismo_%28music%29
> 
> All I can say, and it is somewhat true, "things were different back then"


Verismo, as a music genre definition, is a flawed term IMO.
Used as a term to specify a time period in the italian Opera is more fitting (but I always preferred the name Giovane Scuola).

I'd go as far as to say Cavalleria Rusticana wasn't really born as a verismo opera, just was the one which started the phenomenon.
I regard Mascagni as a talented composer whom always tried to fill the source libretto with his passion but somewhat lacking in term of vision.
He just adapted his music to the libretto he had at hand.

That's why I think Cavalleria is a product of coincidence more than a pondered concept.
In fact there is very little verismo in it.
Mascagni's Sicily is totally faked, as for example there is very little Japan in his Opera Iris.
However because of what the source material was and because of Mascagni talent the final work resulted in a more fast paced and thrilling piece which in a sense revolutionazed what was the italian Opera landscape at the time.
After witnessing Cavalleria success, many italian composers raced to blatantly copycat the "winning formula" (those consciously tried to adhere to "verismo").
In Pagliacci, the sly Leoncavallo, even inserted a supposedly programmatic manifest in the prologue.
However there wasn't really any "winning formula" to copy from, it was just a combination of lucky factors (good music by Mascagni was one) and thus very few imitators achieved (durable) success and soon then phenomenon died out.



dgee said:


> And this is even coming from one of those awful people who pretends to like atonal music to impress people on the internet ;-)


I'm impressed


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Bardamu said:


> Verismo, as a music genre definition, is a flawed term IMO.
> Used as a term to specify a time period in the italian Opera is more fitting (but I always preferred the name Giovane Scuola)


Very few people can actually give a coherent description of the concept of _verismo_. A lot of people translate it as "realism". William Berger gives an interesting definition of verismo, which is closer to a kind of "truthism", meaning a kind of "mythical in the everyday" story. He goes on to explain how he thinks _Tosca_ is the prime example of that. The only problem is that the only operas that I can think of that fit that definition are _Tosca_ and _La fanciulla del west_, with _Turandot_ being a kind of reverse verismo opera. As for the generation of composers, however, i agree that _giovine scuola_ is much better term.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I think the term of verismo is alright as long as you don't try to make far-fetched generalization, such as that somebody was a "veristic" composer, because most of them indeed wrote operas that don't come along with the ideas of verismo at all. Jonas Kaufmann and many other singers have heavily abused the term when they named their recital discs "verismo arias" and filled them with pieces that have nothing to do with verismo at all, barely being late XIXth century Italian arias.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

Jobis said:


> I find Tosca a little difficult to get, and not all that moving. It just seems to present a cruel world where good people endure horrible suffering for no reason, and yet we are supposed to relate to these beautiful characters and pity them? At least with a good tragedy you get the hero's fatal flaws contributing to his or her own destruction, which provokes so much pathos as to really move you. However in this particular opera it would take a really charismatic Tosca to make me feel anything other than 'oh how horrible, that poor woman was driven to suicide because she lives in a really bleak world and that scarpia is an evil piece of work'.


Picking this back up: that kind of story is very typical of the literary period in which Puccini was operating; think Emile Zola and Theodore Dreiser. "Literary naturalism," as the genre was called.

I listen to opera for the music anyways; I could care less about all the other trappings, though like Carnaval in Rio it's always a great opportunity to dress up and look dramatic.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Years ago I read an article in "Opera News" about TOSCA that made an impression on me. It explained how the main theme of TOSCA is something like "acting versus real life." In other words, the story shows how much of life can be a performance and how much of life is inescapably "real." Floria Tosca is an opera singer who tends to play every situation in life for high drama, but she learns during the course of the opera how cruel and sordid the real world can be. And if you think about it, so much of the opera is about "acting" and pretending to be what one isn't: there's Tosca pretending to Scarpia in Act II about how much she really knows, there's Scarpia hiding his true intentions and pretending to be suave and disinterested, there's the Mass in Act I with its pageantry, there's Tosca in a sense dramatizing the murder of Scarpia by putting the candles around him and the Crucifix on his chest -- and at the end there's the staged execution that turns out to be real. So I think you can view TOSCA as being _about_ melodrama rather than _being_ a melodrama. In other words, melodrama is perhaps more its theme than its genre.


----------



## altom (Dec 13, 2013)

not being an opera buff, I have seen recently that Shabby Little Shocker in Turkey (sic). And I tell you, whatever you may think of a rather melodramatic libretto, music and arias stays in your mind....
it is something,
and this is the reason why people keep listening with pleasure


----------



## dominique (Sep 22, 2012)

I absolutely adore Tosca! It is shocking of course but it is not at all shabby. I think that the controversy has to do with the fact that Puccini keeps reminding to his viewers that the melodramatic excesses aside this is something very realistic (as John Bell who recently directed Tosca at Sidney put it 'it is probably happening now somewhere in the world') and it could easily happen to them as well. And Puccini told this simple, timeless story in a way that is crude, coarse, unpolished, unbearable at times and in some passages difficult to watch. Despite the popular, catchy tunes and the often unconvincing subplots it is a piece made with the clear intention to make you angry and a bit disgusted at what human beings are able to do to each other. For me Tosca works better when it is set on the second half of the 20th century (a fascist or a nazi context works really well) or even in contemporary or imaginary totalitarian regimes. In Tosca we see an affluent bourgeois couple suffering horrific abuse by the state with the simplest expression of dissent. Mario is not a revolutionary but just a sympathizer, quite privileged but nothing more than the average person who is simply trying to do the right thing, the most revolutionary thing he does is reading Voltaire during the breaks of his well paid job. Both him and Floria (an innocent victim who can only be blamed for blinding ignorance of the reality) work for the system that crushes them down. We know that when they scream during act 2 their former employees are having a ball next door. Even the bad guy is just a corrupted cop who believes that torture and rape are part of his job. Scarpia is so terrifying because we are somehow familiar with people like him - we know that he exists somewhere. Puccini is forcing the viewers in the role of the witness who is watching something that he shouldn't and he is telling us that very easily we can lose everything, that we are never safe and (a bit bitterly) that protest is useless. After the curtain falls we have the feeling that those atrocities will be repeated to someone else on a different place during different times. The only light comes from the suggestion that everyday happiness with your loved ones is the only important thing in life. All these make Tosca very disturbing but definitely not shabby unless we consider lack of pretension as shabbiness.

Maybe it is a bit cultural - I could easily imagine Tosca set in my country where human right abuses are daily routine and it would be altogether convincing and still chilling to the bone. Musically I think it is a masterpiece as well.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Dominique:* I agree with pretty much everything you said except the part about TOSCA working better when it's set in a more modern, fascist regime. I'm no one to argue with your personal tastes, but for me TOSCA works just fine set in 1800. My preference for the original setting probably has something to do with my love for the fashions of that era ("Empire" or "Regency" style), yet I really can't see much point in updating the opera. Remember that Napoleon is mentioned in the libretto, so it's not a non-specific libretto like FIDELIO's is.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Tosca was not a "you know what", as Scarpia found out to his chagrin when she punctured his ego.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

I think, like member Dominique, that a production of Tosca can work very well updated to more modern times; we don't need Rome, the church of Sant'Andrea della Valle or the battle of Marengo, even if somehow they are on the libretto.

However, it seems to me that Dominique is thinking on his post more in terms of the plot (that is, Sardou/Illica/Giacosa) than the music of Puccini.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

schigolch said:


> I think, like member Dominique, that a production of Tosca can work very well updated to more modern times; we don't need Rome, the church of Sant'Andrea della Valle or the battle of Marengo, even if somehow they are on the libretto.


I totally dig 21st century police officers freaking out at the news that Bonaparte won at Marengo. I mean, I know there is all that humour about policemen being stupid and uneducated, maybe it should be Tosca made into The Thin Blue Line? Scarpia wanted to pass a high school diploma in evening school for adults, did the tests and later sent Spoletta to check his answers which turn out to be wrong in history part, so Cavaradossi rejoyces because he thinks that now Scarpia will be fired without the diploma and there will be freedom.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

For those of you who want a quotation disparaging critics, Benjamin Disraeli (who earned his living as a novelist) said, "The ranks of critics are drawn from those who have failed at literature and the arts."


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> For those of you who want a quotation disparaging critics, Benjamin Disraeli (who earned his living as a novelist) said, "The ranks of critics are drawn from those who have failed at literature and the arts."


Ha, ha! I think there's some truth in that. Thanks for posting the quote; I know several good Disraeli quotes but had never heard that one before. I won't forget it.


----------



## dominique (Sep 22, 2012)

Schigolth, that's somewhat true but I thought that the famous quotation we write about is mostly about the plot, isn't it so? i find the music fantastic because it seems conventional when it is really groundbreaking. And the shocking factor is ever present in the score without the music the play is not that strong or convincing all the feelings are in Puccini's music. And the composer himself work on the plot that has few things to do with Sardou's rather pompous play and he even wrote some of the lyrics for example he changed the original lyrics of 'E lucevan le stele'.
Puccini uses several cliches but in an ironic way. Like all Puccini's operas the music seems easy to understand and simple when it is really quite complicated. I think that critics who dismiss Pucccini usually mistake clarity as lack of intellectualism.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Once again, it depends on the quality of the production. They can't all be zingers like this.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Couac Addict said:


> The problem for me is that Miss Tosca's jealous antics make her too unlikable. The dude is a painter - there's going to be a lot of naked chicks in his life. Is she going to moan about everything he paints?


I agree Toscas jealousy makes her a bit annoying.
For me it is one of my favourite operas. Then there is nothing wrong with the clarity. Clarity is one of the things I like with opera and Tosca is one of the best examples of that. And there can´t be too much melodrama especially if its presented in such a good way.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Sloe said:


> And there can´t be too much melodrama especially if its presented in such a good way.


"It's too melodramatic!" I love it when people use this criticism of _Tosca_, or other operas. An opera? *TOO DRAMATIC???* *WHAT????????*


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> "It's too melodramatic!" I love it when people use this criticism of _Tosca_, or other operas. An opera? *TOO DRAMATIC???* *WHAT????????*


Melodrama is not the same thing as drama. It's _bad_ drama, or drama where the causes are not equal to the sought-after effects.

(Or, using the traditional meaning of the word, spoken monologue against music. It was popular in the 19th century, but far less so in the 20th.)


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Melodrama is not the same thing as drama. It's _bad_ drama, or drama where the causes are not equal to the sought-after effects.
> 
> (Or, using the traditional meaning of the word, spoken monologue against music. It was popular in the 19th century, but far less so in the 20th.)


Maria Callas is_ drama_; even high drama.

American Idol is _melodrama_; even un-drama.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Melodrama is not the same thing as drama. It's _bad_ drama, or drama where the causes are not equal to the sought-after effects.
> 
> (Or, using the traditional meaning of the word, spoken monologue against music. It was popular in the 19th century, but far less so in the 20th.)


Which is something different from "Melodramma" as well, I know what the term means. I'm not convinced that it describes _Tosca_, however. But the number of times I've heard an opera criticized because It has this love triangle, and that suicide, etc. is huge. People say that they're too "intense", or something to that effect, as if anybody would go see one where they just sit around and talk. Whoops, I forgot about _Capriccio_ for a second. Operas put human beings under a magnifying glass. Of course they seem overdone.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

_Tosca_ is a brilliant opera, composed by a musical-theatrical genius, which I do not happen to like very much. Stories which focus on characters being victimized and tortured at great length tend not to satisfy the inner needs which compel me to seek out artistic experiences. Puccini's heart-wrenching subjection of young women to thoroughly undeserved pain and death - it occurs in many of his other operas too, whether the agent of torment is illness, infidelity, pregnancy, or suicide - has always stood in the way of my full emotional assent, despite - or perhaps because of - the extreme emotionality of his music. Sometimes we can be moved by a thing and yet be repelled by the quality of emotion to which we are moved; we sense that there is something a bit unwholesome about what is being presented for our enjoyment. I don't relish being shown a slice of life which is purely and hopelessly pathetic or horrible - not tragedy in the classic sense of consequential destiny, or tribulation with redemptive value, but simple personal disaster - and having it accompanied by clever, exciting, passionate, sentiment-laden music which insists that I enjoy being made into a voyeur, forced to look at something so sad or awful as to be none of my business. Puccini's women, most of them, were born only to suffer and to have their sufferings dwelt upon and driven home relentlessly by some of the most poignant music ever penned. And in the case of _Tosca_, the woman's pointless pain is set against the horror of a villain and a milieu which seem to exist only to intensify it. Other elements in this story amount to little: Cavaradossi is an artist but paints only to inspire Tosca's jealousy, and a political activist who gets to do little but struggle to his feet and shout "Victory" before being dragged back to the cellar. I can't help thinking that had Verdi set this story he would have embedded these people and their private situations in a larger and more complex social and political milieu. With Puccini - and nowhere more than in this opera, from its first violent chords - the knife goes straight for the carotid. Of course there's an undeniable power in that.

I'll risk my neck and say that I'm in substantial sympathy with Joseph Kerman about _Tosca_, though I'll pull my head back in an inch or so and say that I probably find it less "shabby" than he does! And having said that, there is one - but only one - performance of _Tosca_ I really do enjoy, that being the 1964 Covent Garden production with Maria Callas and Tito Gobbi, singer/actors who are so intelligent, inventive, intense, and altogether masterly in their portrayals of Tosca and Scarpia that as I witness their mastery I can allow myself the illusion that all the mayhem is to some sublime purpose. Only Act 2 was filmed, unfortunately. But if you haven't seen it, you must not depart this life until you have.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Clarity? Then why does Cavaradossi, in the brief respite afforded him from his horrific torture session, begins to call vociferously for Victoria? Who is this Victoria? And why does it not make the jealous Tosca mad? Maybe an undigested, leftover bit of Sardou.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Revenant said:


> Clarity? Then why does Cavaradossi, in the brief respite afforded him from his horrific torture session, begins to call vociferously for Victoria? Who is this Victoria? And why does it not make the jealous Tosca mad? Maybe an undigested, leftover bit of Sardou.


Funny maybe it is because of jealousy Tosca shouts in despair right after Mario have called for Victoria . At least we know that Mario is excited.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I can't help thinking that had Verdi set this story he would have embedded these people and their private situations in a larger and more complex social and political milieu.


Interestingly I read somewhere that in the original libretto, Cavaradossi philosophised about life and politics in his final moments. When it was shown to Verdi, this was the passage that impressed him most. However Puccini would have none of it. At the moment of his death Cavaradossi was to think of nothing and no one but Tosca. It was Puccini himself who insisted on the lines _e muoio disperato_. Verdi and Puccini were definitely very different animals.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Here's how I see it...

The principal characters in Tosca are not great intellects. They are ruled by their passions often leaving them blind to developing events around them and and this in part leads to their downfall. 

Tosca on the surface a devout and chaste opera singer and although concious of her place as a public figure, is highly sexually charged woman and cant wait to get Mario back to his place! This creates an instability in her personality the causes burst of temper, sometimes manifesting as unreasonable jealousies. 

Mario is consumed by his art usually to the exclusion of whats happening around him. This almost gets him into trouble in the first act with The Attavanti episode. Not really a political person he defies Scarpia just out of stubbornness. Rubbing his nose in it when Scarpia's political position is threatened.

Scarpia, well power corrupts ect...His libido leads him around the set like a randy pup. He is so confident that he can get what he wants, when he wants, he cant see the danger in Tosca's underlying instability. 

Musically there isnt a wasted note in the whole opera! whats not to love? :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couac Addict said:


> Once again, it depends on the quality of the production. They can't all be zingers like this.


Good Lord! And I said back there that there was only one performance of _Tosca_ I truly loved and considered essential? Mea maxima culpa! Tito and Maria, eat your hearts out!

(If you find this as stunning as I do you may want to watch the entire second act as performed by Mme. Galupe-Borszkh and La Gran Scena: 



 The great traumatic soprano herself has his...ah, her own website here: http://www.irasiff.com/ira_siff/Home.html

_Mille grazie_, Couac Addict!


----------



## Cantabile (May 24, 2014)

Has anyone seen the Christopher Alden production ( originally done for Opera North in the UK)? It was the one set in a modern totalitarian Italy without any specific reference to a particular location. The plot was changed somewhat and the characterisations were a bit different, too. It is explicitly very violent and really shocking - more like a violent, gritty crime film as one reviewer wrote.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Cantabile said:


> Has anyone seen the Christopher Alden production ( originally done for Opera North in the UK)? It was the one set in a modern totalitarian Italy without any specific reference to a particular location. The plot was changed somewhat and the characterisations were a bit different, too. It is explicitly very violent and really shocking - more like a violent, gritty crime film as one reviewer wrote.


I do remember a televised production done at New York City Opera around 2000, that was set in Fascist Italy. I wonder if this is the same production you're talking about. Tosca wore a shiny, 1930's-style blue dress, and during Act II Scarpia and his henchman were very rough with Mario while questioning him -- more so than in most traditional productions I've seen.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

superhorn said:


> "Shabby little shocker" may be a catchy phrase, but it's just plain DUMB . Tosca is neither shabby, little nor a shocker .
> It may not be profound music, but it's superbly crafted , melodious , gorgeously orchestated and from dramatic viewpoint ,
> effective as hell .
> It happens to be the opera I've played the most as a horn player , and you can't help but be impressed with
> Puccini's skill at writing operas after getting to know it so well over the years .


I think it is a shocker. To discover together with Tosca that Cavaradossi is actually executed is shocking at least it was for me. That is why I never tell the ending of the opera to those that have never seen it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I watched the Pappano Tosca with Gheoghiu, Kauffmann and Terfell the other day. It really is fantastic, well acted and sung and certainly a great performance. Of course I know for some people Callas will always be inccomperable, but the video of Act 2 was recorded when her voice had deteriorated and Gheorghiu certainly gives a performance worthy of her great predecessor. Tosca is one of the great dramatic operas. I'd agree it's a shocker - but in a good way!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I watched the Pappano Tosca with Gheoghiu, Kauffmann and Terfell the other day. It really is fantastic, well acted and sung and certainly a great performance. Of course I know for some people Callas will always be inccomperable, but the video of Act 2 was recorded when her voice had deteriorated and Gheorghiu certainly gives a performance worthy of her great predecessor. Tosca is one of the great dramatic operas. I'd agree it's a shocker - but in a good way!


Funny. I found Gheorghiu's acting mannered in the extreme. Kaufmann and Terfel were terrific though.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Funny. I found Gheorghiu's acting mannered in the extreme. Kaufmann and Terfel were terrific though.


Shows you how subjective these things are!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Shows you how subjective these things are!


True, Gheorghiu can be visually hammy, but vocally the colours and inflections of a singing actress are all there.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> True, Gheorghiu can be visually hammy, but vocally the colours and inflections of a singing actress are all there.
> 
> N.


Oddly enough, I'd seen Gheorghiu on stage a few times before that. First as Nina in *Cherubin*, then as Violetta and then as Adina, and I found her a very natural actress. The mannerisms seem to have crept in more recently.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Oddly enough, I'd seen Gheorghiu on stage a few times before that. First as Nina in *Cherubin*, then as Violetta and then as Adina, and I found her a very natural actress. The mannerisms seem to have crept in more recently.


Yes, I agree.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Oddly enough, I'd seen Gheorghiu on stage a few times before that. First as Nina in *Cherubin*, then as Violetta and then as Adina, and I found her a very natural actress. The mannerisms seem to have crept in more recently.


of course it depends what you mean by 'mannerisms'. Some people found Oliver's acting 'mannered'. In Tosca she is a diva playing a diva! So perhaps a little 'manner' is appropriate.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> of course it depends what you mean by 'mannerisms'. Some people found Oliver's acting 'mannered'. In Tosca she is a diva playing a diva! So perhaps a little 'manner' is appropriate.


It's all the arm waving I can't cope with, the exaggerated gestures. She does it a lot when she's recording too. That's forgivable. Many voice over artists do it too, as this physical exaggeration helps to make them more expressive before the microphone, when the voice is the only form of expression open to them. I noticed it in the videos of her recording *Madama Butterfly*, but she now seems to do the same on stage. Perhaps she's not aware of it, and perhaps nobody's had the nerve to tell her :devil:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> It's all the arm waving I can't cope with, the exaggerated gestures. She does it a lot when she's recording too. That's forgivable. Many voice over artists do it too, as this physical exaggeration helps to make them more expressive before the microphone, when the voice is the only form of expression open to them. I noticed it in the videos of her recording *Madama Butterfly*, but she now seems to do the same on stage. Perhaps she's not aware of it, and perhaps nobody's had the nerve to tell her :devil:


Perhaps you should, Greg! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Funny. I found Gheorghiu's acting mannered in the extreme. Kaufmann and Terfel were terrific though.


Must agree. I don't enjoy Gheorghiu in that video, though I respect her as a singer.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Must agree. I don't enjoy Gheorghiu in that video, though I respect her as a singer.


Whilst I agree totally about her visually, that is the least important aspect of a performance to me (I'm not saying it isn't important, but the experience for my ears means more to me).

I think Angela's visual shortcomings in that recording have overshadowed the great vocal accomplishment in her performance.

N.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

The Conte said:


> Whilst I agree totally about her visually, that is the least important aspect of a performance to me (I'm not saying it isn't important, but the experience for my ears means more to me).
> 
> I think Angela's visual shortcomings in that recording have overshadowed the great vocal accomplishment in her performance.
> 
> N.


For me I found the physical mannerisms so distracting it was hard to concentrate on the vocal performance.

I had a similar experience seeing Ian Bostridge sing Britten's "Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings". His physical mannerisms were so eccentric I can't remember for the life of me how he sang. I just wanted to yell, "Stand still, for God's sake."

Over the years I have seen many great singers in recital, amongst them Jessye Norman, Janet Baker, Lucia Popp, Margaret Price, Tatyana Troyanos, Dmitri Hvorostovsky, Thomas Allen, Joyce DiDonato, Renata Scotto, Katia Ricciarelli and David Daniels. I have never come across anything like it before.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> For me I found the physical mannerisms so distracting it was hard to concentrate on the vocal performance.
> 
> I had a similar experience seeing Ian Bostridge sing Britten's "Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings". His physical mannerisms were so eccentric I can't remember for the life of me how he sang. I just wanted to yell, "Stand still, for God's sake."
> 
> Over the years I have seen many great singers in recital, amongst them Jessye Norman, Janet Baker, Lucia Popp, Margaret Price, Tatyana Troyanos, Dmitri Hvorostovsky, Thomas Allen, Joyce DiDonato, Renata Scotto, Katia Ricciarelli and David Daniels. I have never come across anything like it before.


Funny how differently we react. I was completely taken with the performance - a diva playing a diva. Sorry you didn't enjoy it! the main problem I have with the production is that Scarpia is portrayed as somewhat of a scruff bag with his long hair. I would have thought as chief of police he would have been less unkempt. Terfal's portrayal otherwise is superb. And Kauffmann is also superb.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Tosca is not an opera that I would have pursued as it did not fit my criteria. However, an intense Maria Callas spree I went on early this year resulted in my getting the Callas Act II video and I love it. That is my favorite part because to me it is the ultimate sexual harassment response and that justifies her stabbing Scarpia in the heart/chest. Act III kind of spoils it but is a fine and dramatic finish that I am beginning to appreciate more and more. I did buy a full Tosca in English CD set and recently got the full opera CD set with Callas.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

I grew up with the Callas set on LP but now tend to watch the DVD 'live' performance in the Roman settings. The 'shabby little shocker' (GBS??) has always struck me as an incomprehension of Puccini general: as many have said, you could apply that to many other operas as well. Tosca works because Puccini, like Verdi and Rickard Strauss understood the stage and have excellent timing, helped so often by their librettists. My only concern is Puccini's fascination with torture and suffering, which some commentators have linked to episodes in his home life with his wife Elvira.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

manyene said:


> My only concern is Puccini's fascination with torture and suffering, which some commentators have linked to episodes in his home life with his wife Elvira.


That is one reason to like Puccini.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

Good way to shrink a community one is a part of is to crap all over the things that might have interested newcomers in the activity in the first place. Tosca is a crowdpleaser and a damned good, well-crafted one. I know the first time I saw it, it hit *hard*.

It's not my favorite opera, or even my favorite Puccini, but it's a really good one. Great tunes, vivid characters, shocking and gutwrenching twist. And I don't think liking the opera indicates any aesthetic or moral failing on one's part. Even if you think anything more catchy than Makropolis Case or Lulu is insufficiently rigorous, that doesn't mean others are wrong for liking something different.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tosca is what good opera is all about - rattling good entertainment!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I have noticed that, over the years, I have developed a habit of avoiding the last act of many Puccini operas, whether it be _Manon Lescaut, Tosca, Boheme or Butterfly_. There is something about the slight over-the-top melodrama that I can't take much of. Interestingly, the one of his operas where that doesn't seem to be the case is _Turandot._ And my favourite Puccini opera? _Gianni Schicchi_


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Some very interesting comments in this thread. Kerman had his reasons for his harsh critical evaluation of the opera, and while I and others may disagree with him, I think he was on to something that others here have touched on. I find myself agreeing with some of Mahlerian's thoughts earlier in the thread. With Puccini I often feel like it goes beyond the usual relationship of the music commenting or fitting the drama, and his music seems to be trying to evoke a certain emotional reaction in a way that I don't get with most other opera composers. There is something unique about it. Whether you like it or not I guess depends if you are moved by the characters and the music.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

OperaChic said:


> Some very interesting comments in this thread. Kerman had his reasons for his harsh critical evaluation of the opera, and while I and others may disagree with him, I think he was on to something that others here have touched on. I find myself agreeing with some of Mahlerian's thoughts earlier in the thread. With Puccini I often feel like it goes beyond the usual relationship of the music commenting or fitting the drama, and his music seems to be trying to evoke a certain emotional reaction in a way that I don't get with most other opera composers. There is something unique about it. Whether you like it or not I guess depends if you are moved by the characters and the music.


What emotional reaction?
I get more emotional reactions from Wagner and Verdi than from Puccini.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Sloe said:


> What emotional reaction?
> I get more emotional reactions from Wagner and Verdi than from Puccini.


I think Puccini's music is very heart on its sleeve emotional in a way the music of others is usually not, and for some who don't feel the emotional reactions it can seem a little over the top.

Just my impression.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

OperaChic said:


> I think Puccini's music is very heart on its sleeve emotional in a way the music of others is usually not, and for some who don't feel the emotional reactions it can seem a little over the top.
> 
> Just my impression.


I usually don´t feel the emotional reactions and I don´t think it is over the top.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Sloe said:


> I usually don´t feel the emotional reactions and I don´t think it is over the top.


Ok. But I don't think that invalidates the reactions of those that I have seen in this thread and talked to elsewhere that feel that do feel that way.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

OperaChic said:


> Some very interesting comments in this thread. Kerman had his reasons for his harsh critical evaluation of the opera, and while I and others may disagree with him, I think he was on to something that others here have touched on. I find myself agreeing with some of Mahlerian's thoughts earlier in the thread. With Puccini I often feel like it goes beyond the usual relationship of the music commenting or fitting the drama, and his music seems to be trying to evoke a certain emotional reaction in a way that I don't get with most other opera composers. There is something unique about it. Whether you like it or not I guess depends if you are moved by the characters and the music.


Welcome to the forum, OperaChic.

I've always found something slightly repellent about Puccini's emotional appeal. It may be a little insulting to compare it to the constant emotional crisis of a TV soap opera - it's certainly on a higher artistic plane - but I do sometimes feel that it's a little self-indulgent on his part, and even somewhat morbid. The way he pins his poor butterfly to a board and relates her every painful spasm in excruciating emotional detail makes me just a bit queasy, and I can say much the same about poor Manon, poor Mimi, poor Suor Angelica, and poor Liu. At least Tosca gets to strike back at her tormentor, but look what she still has to go through and how she ends up.

I don't blame Puccini for his wonderful ability to write soaring, passionate, piquantly harmonized melodies. I love some of those melodies, in and of themselves. But his emotions are not subtle, and even if he doesn't intend it I tend to feel that both his suffering heroines and I are being exploited.

Beautifully, of course. :lol:


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Welcome to the forum, OperaChic.
> 
> I've always found something slightly repellent about Puccini's emotional appeal. It may be a little insulting to compare it to the constant emotional crisis of a TV soap opera - it's certainly on a higher artistic plane - but I do sometimes feel that it's a little self-indulgent on his part, and even somewhat morbid. The way he pins his poor butterfly to a board and relates her every painful spasm in excruciating emotional detail makes me just a bit queasy, and I can say much the same about poor Manon, poor Mimi, poor Suor Angelica, and poor Liu. At least Tosca gets to strike back at her tormentor, but look what she still has to go through and how she ends up.
> 
> ...


I think that you perfectly explained the reasoning behind what I posted above!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> What emotional reaction?
> I get more emotional reactions from Wagner and Verdi than from Puccini.


I certainly get more emotional reaction from Verdi or Puccini than Wagner. And even more from Mozart!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I certainly get more emotional reaction from Verdi or Puccini than Wagner. And even more from Mozart!


We are all different.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> I think Puccini's music is very heart on its sleeve emotional in a way the music of others is usually not, and for some who don't feel the emotional reactions it can seem a little over the top.
> 
> Just my impression.


There are people who are afraid of emotion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Welcome to the forum, OperaChic.
> 
> I've always found something slightly repellent about Puccini's emotional appeal. It may be a little insulting to compare it to the constant emotional crisis of a TV soap opera - it's certainly on a higher artistic plane - but I do sometimes feel that it's a little self-indulgent on his part, and even somewhat morbid. The way he pins his poor butterfly to a board and relates her every painful spasm in excruciating emotional detail makes me just a bit queasy, and I can say much the same about poor Manon, poor Mimi, poor Suor Angelica, and poor Liu. At least Tosca gets to strike back at her tormentor, but look what she still has to go through and how she ends up.
> 
> ...


I mean, what emotions in opera written in the romantic era are subtle? They simply aren't and in that lies the appeal of opera. I mean, you don't call the full scale assault on the senses found in Verdi and even more in Wagner, subtle, do you?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> We are all different.


Absolutely! We need to realise this!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I mean, what emotions in opera written in the romantic era are subtle? They simply aren't and in that lies the appeal of opera. I mean, you don't call the full scale assault on the senses found in Verdi and even more in Wagner, subtle, do you?


There is far, far, far more to these composers (and to Puccini, I should add) than a full-scale assault on the senses. Perhaps the assault is all you care about, since that's the appeal of opera for you, and therefore you don't notice the subtleties. It is precisely the subtleties of Wagner that constitute his greatest fascination for me. The sighs and shudders and nocturnal magic of _Tristan_, the mysterious glimmerings and otherworldly intimations of _Parsifal_, the quiet rapture of the boy Siegfried listening to the voices of nature, the awesome hush of Waltraute's account of Wotan awaiting his end - to name a few instances - are for me among operas's most beautiful experiences.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> There is far, far, far more to these composers (and to Puccini, I should add) than a full-scale assault on the senses. Perhaps the assault is all you care about, since that's the appeal of opera for you, and therefore you don't notice the subtleties. It is precisely the subtleties of Wagner that constitute his greatest fascination for me. The sighs and shudders and nocturnal magic of _Tristan_, the mysterious glimmerings and otherworldly intimations of _Parsifal_, the quiet rapture of the boy Siegfried listening to the voices of nature, the awesome hush of Waltraute's account of Wotan awaiting his end - to name a few instances - are for me among operas's most beautiful experiences.


dI do wish you would actually read what I put rather than reading your own interpretation into it. I certainly didn't say that was all there was to them at all as you imply. Of course there are subtleties in Wagner, But when it comes to a full scale assault on the senses Wagner just about fits the bill. Of course, if you want real subtlety you go to the complete master - Mozart!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I mean, what emotions in opera written in the romantic era are subtle? They simply aren't and in that lies the appeal of opera. I mean, you don't call the full scale assault on the senses found in Verdi and even more in Wagner, subtle, do you?


Berlioz does subtle in his operas. Emotions are conveyed without exaggeration and without a 'full scale assault on the senses' - unless such an assault is called for by the depth of emotion at the time.

There is much in Berlioz' work (for example, _Les Troyens_) where the emotion is employed subtlely - there is a huge complexity of emotion and a wide diversity of portrayals of emotions in his work that goes far beyond the crude stereotyping of his work. Of course, those crude stereotypes have persisted since the cartoons of the C19 (and we say a recent refence to his 'inferiority' in a recent exchange here on TC) and are usually the product of those who have little evidence in their own ears of Berlioz'work


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Berlioz does subtle in his operas. Emotions are conveyed without exaggeration and without a 'full scale assault on the senses' - unless such an assault is called for by the depth of emotion at the time.
> 
> There is much in Berlioz' work (for example, _Les Troyens_) where the emotion is employed subtlely - there is a huge complexity of emotion and a wide diversity of portrayals of emotions in his work that goes far beyond the crude stereotyping of his work. Of course, those crude stereotypes have persisted since the cartoons of the C19 (and we say a recent refence to his 'inferiority' in a recent exchange here on TC) and are usually the product of those who have little evidence in their own ears of Berlioz'work


frankly I've never been able to get through Les Troyens without feeling pretty bored by it. Sorry but it just doesn't work for me!


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> frankly I've never been able to get through Les Troyens without feeling pretty bored by it. Sorry but it just doesn't work for me!


And here we differ again. I think "Les Troyens" is one of the greatest operas ever written. It doesn't bore me at all, not for one minute, and I find it enormously moving and, in places, thrillingly exciting. Berlioz's crowning achievement.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> And here we differ again. I think "Les Troyens" is one of the greatest operas ever written. It doesn't bore me at all, not for one minute, and I find it enormously moving and, in places, thrillingly exciting. Berlioz's crowning achievement.


Yes, it is amazing how one man's meat and all that.......

I must confess I don't find much to like in Berlioz outside his Symphonie Fantastique. However, I'll make a note to get my Troyens off the shelf sometime and have another go. the trouble is one collects so many cds that stuff that doesn't appeal doesn't have much of a chance.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I'm with you on this DavidA.
Melody free zone.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> frankly I've never been able to get through Les Troyens without feeling pretty bored by it. Sorry but it just doesn't work for me!


It is boooooooooring.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Yes, it is amazing how one man's meat and all that.......
> 
> I must confess I don't find much to like in Berlioz outside his Symphonie Fantastique. However, I'll make a note to get my Troyens off the shelf sometime and have another go. the trouble is one collects so many cds that stuff that doesn't appeal doesn't have much of a chance.


I hope you have one of the Davis recordings. The conductor in Berlioz makes all the difference.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> I hope you have one of the Davis recordings. The conductor in Berlioz makes all the difference.


I have the second Davis one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I mean, what emotions in opera written in the romantic era are subtle? They simply aren't and in that lies the appeal of opera.


So you would like to retract this statement now?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

DavidA said:


> frankly I've never been able to get through Les Troyens without feeling pretty bored by it. Sorry but it just doesn't work for me!


Try watching the Troyens DVD with John Eliot Gardiner from Le Chatelet in Paris. That managed to convert me from 'yes it is nice' to 'wow, this is terrific'.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Itullian said:


> It is boooooooooring.




Not in the least bit boring. And full of the most wonderful melodies


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

GregMitchell said:


> Not in the least bit boring. And full of the most wonderful melodies


I quite agree. Although, its length means that I can understand why someone might get bored listening to it on CD if not acquainted with the work. However, in performance the time flies by. It's similar to Tristan, very long, but worth it. 

N.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Yes, it is amazing how one man's meat and all that.......
> 
> I must confess I don't find much to like in Berlioz outside his Symphonie Fantastique. However, I'll make a note to get my Troyens off the shelf sometime and have another go. the trouble is one collects so many cds that stuff that doesn't appeal doesn't have much of a chance.


You and Itullian have both repeatedly say you dislike _Les Troyens_ so it doesn't surprise me that you say so again ... howevver, that was not the point I was making - as you probably are able to realise. The point is .... that not all romantic-era operas deliver a 'full scale assault on the senses'. Whether you (or Itullian) will ever appreciate Berlioz' music is unlikely as you have both decided that it is 'not your thing'


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Itullian said:


> It is boooooooooring.


but much less so than tedious repetitions of negativity


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> You and Itullian have both repeatedly say you dislike _Les Troyens_ so it doesn't surprise me that you say so again ... howevver, that was not the point I was making - as you probably are able to realise. The point is .... that not all romantic-era operas deliver a 'full scale assault on the senses'. Whether you (or Itullian) will ever appreciate Berlioz' music is unlikely as you have both decided that it is 'not your thing'


I don't believe I ever said that all romantic operas ever deliver a 'full scale assault join the senses'. Please quote me in context dear friend. And if you would take the trouble to read what I have written in 128 you will see my mind is not as closed as you make it out to be. Do not rush to judgment with such haste, dear sir!


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I don't believe I ever said that all romantic operas ever deliver a 'full scale assault join the senses'. Please quote me in context dear friend. And if you would take the trouble to read what I have written in 128 you will see my mind is not as closed as you make it out to be. Do not rush to judgment with such haste, dear sir!


You wrote: "I mean, what emotions in opera written in the romantic era are subtle? They simply aren't and in that lies the appeal of opera. I mean, you don't call the full scale assault on the senses found in Verdi and even more in Wagner, subtle, do you?" 
I answered what you wrote

I'm happy if you wish to re-write what I have just quoted to articulate what you actually mean. Please, old chap, feel free to go ahead .... !


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> You wrote: "I mean, what emotions in opera written in the romantic era are subtle? They simply aren't and in that lies the appeal of opera. I mean, you don't call the full scale assault on the senses found in Verdi and even more in Wagner, subtle, do you?"
> I answered what you wrote
> 
> I'm happy if you wish to re-write what I have just quoted to articulate what you actually mean. Please, old chap, feel free to go ahead .... !


My post in response to

You and Itullian have both repeatedly say you dislike Les Troyens so it doesn't surprise me that you say so again ... howevver, that was not the point I was making - as you probably are able to realise. The point is .... that not all romantic-era operas deliver a 'full scale assault on the senses'. _Whether you (or Itullian) will ever appreciate Berlioz' music is unlikely as you have both decided that it is 'not your thing'_

Ie telling me That Les Troyens was 'not my thing' in spite of my saying to GregI would hear it again. That's where you rush to judgment old fellow !


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Ie telling me That Les Troyens was 'not my thing' in spite of my saying to GregI would hear it again. That's where you rush to judgment old fellow !


I don't rush to judgement at all. You have repeatedly made it clear that _Les Troyens_ is not your cup of tea and my judgement is based on your repeatedly stated position. Of course, it is possible that you may change your mind - of course it is _possible_.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I don't rush to judgement at all. You have repeatedly made it clear that _Les Troyens_ is not your cup of tea and my judgement is based on your repeatedly stated position. Of course, it is possible that you may change your mind - of course it is _possible_.


Nope! You are definitely rushing to judgment in your opinion that I will never like it. Or are you better at discerning my tastes than I am?


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Nope! You are definitely rushing to judgment in your opinion that I will never like it. Or are you better at discerning my tastes than I am?


Are you deliberately mis-stating my position or is it that you have difficulty in understanding?

It is said in clear English .... "Of course, it is possible that you may change your mind - of course it is possible."

Let me repeat - I am NOT 'rushing to judgement in my opinion that you will never like it'.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Headphone Hermit said:


> Are you deliberately mis-stating my position or is it that you have difficulty in understanding?
> 
> It is said in clear English .... "Of course, it is possible that you may change your mind - of course it is possible."
> 
> Let me repeat - I am NOT 'rushing to judgement in my opinion that you will never like it'.


OK have it your way. Who cares anyway? As this thread is about Tosca protracted discussion on whether or not I might like Troyens is rather besides the point!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> frankly I've never been able to get through Les Troyens without feeling pretty bored by it. Sorry but it just doesn't work for me!


Berlioz IS boring- in the same way and to the same extent that the local morgue or, say, Boito's _Mefistofele_, is actually GAL-VAN-IZ-ING.

I prefer the company of the living though.

These catatonic-Boito types never smile, never laugh, and never- obviously- look into the mirror.

Just listen to the Serafin performance.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Welcome to the forum, OperaChic.
> 
> I've always found something slightly repellent about Puccini's emotional appeal. It may be a little insulting to compare it to the constant emotional crisis of a TV soap opera - it's certainly on a higher artistic plane - but I do sometimes feel that it's a little self-indulgent on his part, and even somewhat morbid. The way he pins his poor butterfly to a board and relates her every painful spasm in excruciating emotional detail makes me just a bit queasy, and I can say much the same about poor Manon, poor Mimi, poor Suor Angelica, and poor Liu. At least Tosca gets to strike back at her tormentor, but look what she still has to go through and how she ends up.
> 
> ...


Hi Woodduck thank you. Yes I can sympathize with your slight distaste for some elements in his operas, even if I don't find them to be that true for me. I personally find them to be very sad yes, but am very moved by them without ever feeling uncomfortable. However I can see how it can be divisive!! For some viewers watching an opera like Tosca, after she stabs Scarpia and that big, super dramatic theme rings through the orchestra it will be an emotional wallop that knocks them on the floor, while others will find it to be overreaching and maybe even somewhat superficial. I think for the kind of music and stories Puccini was writing that is to be expected really.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Just watched - for the umpteenth time - the famous Callas/Gobbi/Zeffirelli Act II of *Tosca*, which never ceases to amaze me. With acting and singing of this calibre (one inseparable from the other), the opera is in no way shabby, though it is pretty shocking (in the right way).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> Just watched - for the umpteenth time - the famous Callas/Gobbi/Zeffirelli Act II of *Tosca*, which never ceases to amaze me. With acting and singing of this calibre (one inseparable from the other), the opera is in no way shabby, though it is pretty shocking (in the right way).


I haven't reached umpteen yet, but I'm working on it.

Having seen and heard any number of renditions of this scene, and having had nothing close to the same reaction to it when performed by other singers/actors, I can't avoid thinking that this is one of those instances where the performers are so charismatic, and their performance so brilliant and gripping, that they make the work into something more than it really is. Act two of _Tosca_ is not the high point of opera, but this performance may just be the high point of opera on film.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I haven't reached umpteen yet, but I'm working on it.
> 
> Having seen and heard any number of renditions of this scene, and having had nothing close to the same reaction to it when performed by other singers/actors, I can't avoid thinking that this is one of those instances where the performers are so charismatic, and their performance so brilliant and gripping, that they make the work into something more than it really is. Act two of _Tosca_ is not the high point of opera, but this performance may just be the high point of opera on film.


You haven't reached the 'umpteenth' performance of _Tosca_ yet because ""Wagner"" keeps getting in the way- infinitely and endlessly.

Wagner may wear the pants in the operatic family but Divina wears the crown.
_
;D_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> You haven't reached the 'umpteenth' performance of _Tosca_ yet because ""Wagner"" keeps getting in the way- infinitely and endlessly.
> 
> Wagner may wear the pants in the operatic family but Divina wears the crown.
> _
> ;D_


Actually I don't think I've ever reached the umpteenth of anything. How will I know when I'm there? And what comes after umpteen?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Actually I don't think I've ever reached the umpteenth of anything. How will I know when I'm there? And what comes after umpteen?


Don't worry about it, it is all a social construct anyway.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> Don't worry about it, it is all a social construct anyway.


Yeah, tell a post-modernist poseur at your work that his paycheck is a 'social construct'- and that as such- it simply doesn't exist; and not to worry about the instantiation of such bourgeois things.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Actually I don't think I've ever reached the umpteenth of anything. How will I know when I'm there? And what comes after umpteen?


When the '53 Florence _Medea_ comes out in super-audiophile sound- you'll know you're there.

What's after umpteenth?- 'umpteenth-plus-one': audiophile Florence _Medea _plus audiophile Covent Garden _Traviata_. _;D_

But that's admittedly in another universe.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> What's after umpteenth?- 'umpteenth-plus-one'


Umpteen, Humpteen, Dumpteen,...


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> What's after umpteenth?


umptenty, umptirty, umptorty, umptifty ..... and so on?? :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I've always found something slightly repellent about Puccini's emotional appeal. It may be a little insulting to compare it to the constant emotional crisis of a TV soap opera - it's certainly on a higher artistic plane - but I do sometimes feel that it's a little self-indulgent on his part, and even somewhat morbid. The way he pins his poor butterfly to a board and relates her every painful spasm in excruciating emotional detail makes me just a bit queasy, and I can say much the same about poor Manon, poor Mimi, poor Suor Angelica, and poor Liu. At least Tosca gets to strike back at her tormentor, but look what she still has to go through and how she ends up.
> 
> I don't blame Puccini for his wonderful ability to write soaring, passionate, piquantly harmonized melodies. I love some of those melodies, in and of themselves. But his emotions are not subtle, and even if he doesn't intend it I tend to feel that both his suffering heroines and I are being exploited.
> 
> Beautifully, of course. :lol:


Mind you the heroines in Wagner don't do so good either. I mean Senta chucks herself off a cliff, the Elizabeths both die, Sieglinde dies in childbirth, Brunnhilde self-immolates, Isolde expires on Tristan's corpse, Kundry dies, leaving only Eva alive at the end of the opera. Pretty high mortality rate. Haven't thought about Verdi but it'll be pretty much the same. Being a heroine in opera is certainly bad for your health!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Mind you the heroines in Wagner don't do so good either. I mean Senta chucks herself off a cliff, the Elizabeths both die, Sieglinde dies in childbirth, Brunnhilde self-immolates, Isolde expires on Tristan's corpse, Kundry dies, leaving only Eva alive at the end of the opera. Pretty high mortality rate. Haven't thought about Verdi but it'll be pretty much the same. Being a heroine in opera is certainly bad for your health!


The operas are about to be over anyway when they die.

To be fair the deaths are a bit different in Puccini´s operas than in Wagner´s operas.
Senta dies to be united with her sailor Butterfly dies because she can´t be united with her sailor.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I don't care for Tosca. Musically uninteresting *to me.*
But then, I am not a Puccini fan.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> The operas are about to be over anyway when they die.
> 
> To be fair the deaths are a bit different in Puccini´s operas than in Wagner´s operas.
> Senta dies to be united with her sailor Butterfly dies because she can´t be united with her sailor.


In Puccini it's far more believable.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> In Puccini it's far more believable.


We need both the believable and the unbelievable.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> We need both the believable and the unbelievable.


Opera is pretty unbelievable anyway. But Wagner's are myths of myths!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Opera is pretty unbelievable anyway. But Wagner's are myths of myths!


That is one of the things that makes them great.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> That is one of the things that makes them great.


To a certain type of person maybe.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The problem for me is that Puccini makes an apparently conscious attempt to wring all the pathos out of the ending that he possibly can such that I am wishing for them to get it over with long before he is done, Manon Lescaut, Boheme particularly. Yes the heroines in Wagner meet unfortunate ends, but they get it over and done with a lot quicker! Maybe it's an Italian thing because Verdi does it also, e.g. Traviata and Aida come mind.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> The problem for me is that Puccini makes an apparently conscious attempt to wring all the pathos out of the ending that he possibly can such that I am wishing for them to get it over with long before he is done, Manon Lescaut, Boheme particularly. Yes the heroines in Wagner meet unfortunate ends, but they get it over and done with a lot quicker! Maybe it's an Italian thing because Verdi does it also, e.g. Traviata and Aida come mind.


You don't call Isolde's end quick when she has the whole Liebestode to sing? Or Tristan's? Crumbs he takes a whole act to expire. And Brunnhilde's Immolation? And Kundry has been around for over 1000 years and counting???
Yes, I'll give you that Puccini knows how to turn on the pathos. But that is why we go to Italian opera, isn't it? To me the characters are so much more sympathetic than Wagner's. I know this is probably a reflection of the way people think but I can wring my heart out for Butterfly while being relatively emotionally unmoved when Wagner's heroines meet their end.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Yes, but they are musically magnificent.
Puccini is just boooooooooooring.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> Yes, but they are musically magnificent.
> Puccini is just boooooooooooring.


Wagner's heroine's are often magnificent in girth! :lol:

(Come on mate! If this was a Wagner thread you'd accuse me of trying to derail it! )

But I must confess I feel sorry for anyone who finds Tosca boring. I mean, lust, betrayal, sadism, torture, murder, suicide..... What else do you want from an opera?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Wagner's heroine's are often magnificent in girth! :lol:
> 
> I must confess I feel sorry for anyone who finds Tosca boring.


I knew you'd get personal.
Losers always do :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Itullian said:


> I knew you'd get personal.
> Losers always do :tiphat:


I'm not going down the line of name calling. This is about music. Let's just enjoy what we enjoy and smile about it.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Itullian said:


> I knew you'd get personal.
> Losers always do :tiphat:


At the risk of getting a little personal myself, what do you expect when you keep telling people that the things they love are booooring?

I'm not a big Wagner fan. I like it every now and then, but it's not life's blood to me as I know it is for many people. Do I knock them or ridicule them? I wouldn't dream of it because I know Wagner means a great deal to them. Maybe one day I'll see the light and feel the same way. In the meantime I'll carry on enjoying *Les Troyens* or *Otello*, *Carmen* or *Tosca*, to name just a few that you profess to find boring, happy that I find them quite the opposite!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Becca said:


> The problem for me is that Puccini makes an apparently conscious attempt to wring all the pathos out of the ending that he possibly can such that I am wishing for them to get it over with long before he is done, Manon Lescaut, Boheme particularly. Yes the heroines in Wagner meet unfortunate ends, but they get it over and done with a lot quicker! Maybe it's an Italian thing because Verdi does it also, e.g. Traviata and Aida come mind.


Tosca just jumps and the opera is over.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> At the risk of getting a little personal myself, what do you expect when you keep telling people that the things they love are booooring?
> 
> I'm not a big Wagner fan. I like it every now and then, but it's not life's blood to me as I know it is for many people. Do I knock them or ridicule them? I wouldn't dream of it because I know Wagner means a great deal to them. Maybe one day I'll see the light and feel the same way. In the meantime I'll carry on enjoying *Les Troyens* or *Otello*, *Carmen* or *Tosca*, to name just a few that you profess to find boring, happy that I find them quite the opposite!


I prefer if people dislike an opera because they think they are boring even if I don´t find them boring than other reasons that have been expressed.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Itullian said:


> Yes, but they are musically magnificent.
> Puccini is just boooooooooooring.


I am more than a bit tired of seeing this type of comment, let's get it correct please ... you may find it boring but a lot of people don't.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Becca said:


> I am more than a bit tired of seeing this type of comment, let's get it correct please ... you may find it boring but a lot of people don't.


Correctomundo.............:tiphat:

And the same goes for the attacks on Wagner, right?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I love Wagner AND Puccini, is there something wrong with me?

N.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

Sloe said:


> The operas are about to be over anyway when they die.
> 
> To be fair the deaths are a bit different in Puccini´s operas than in Wagner´s operas.
> Senta dies to be united with her sailor Butterfly dies because she can´t be united with her sailor.


Spot on. I would say in Wagner, most of the deaths of the heroines are an attempt to depict something, a state of being or state of fulfillment, that really isn't able to be physically represented or translated on stage except as "death". So we are left with the music to do the speaking.



Becca said:


> The problem for me is that Puccini makes an apparently conscious attempt to wring all the pathos out of the ending that he possibly can such that I am wishing for them to get it over with long before he is done, Manon Lescaut, Boheme particularly. Yes the heroines in Wagner meet unfortunate ends, but they get it over and done with a lot quicker! Maybe it's an Italian thing because Verdi does it also, e.g. Traviata and Aida come mind.


Yeah, and Puccini starts wringing out the pathos from his heroines long before the last act, usually. I think many people's problem with Puccini is that he kind of focuses on the suffering bit rather than on the spiritual growth and self-awakening that comes from the suffering.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I love Wagner AND Puccini, is there something wrong with me?
> 
> N.


The only way we will find out is with a year of intensive analysis. You will need to come 3 times a week and my rate is $290/hour, payable in advance.


----------



## Faustian (Feb 8, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I love Wagner AND Puccini, is there something wrong with me?
> 
> N.


If so I happily have the same condition.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

The Conte said:


> I love Wagner AND Puccini, is there something wrong with me?
> 
> N.


Absolutely not I love them both too.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

GregMitchell said:


> At the risk of getting a little personal myself, what do you expect when you keep telling people that the things they love are booooring?
> 
> I'm not a big Wagner fan. I like it every now and then, but it's not life's blood to me as I know it is for many people. Do I knock them or ridicule them? I wouldn't dream of it because I know Wagner means a great deal to them. Maybe one day I'll see the light and feel the same way. In the meantime I'll carry on enjoying *Les Troyens* or *Otello*, *Carmen* or *Tosca*, to name just a few that you profess to find boring, happy that I find them quite the opposite!


Confidence starts with beauty- inside, outside, or both.

And of course it culminates in Berlioz operas. _;D_


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Because someone expresses reservations about a composer and his music does not mean he is 'attacking' him. Someone has recently elsewhere expressed the opinion that Mozart's recitatives are boring and hold up the drama. I don't agree but grant him the right to express his opinion. And I'm not going to fall out with that guy as we're both lovers of music, albeit in different ways. It doesn't in any way spoil my listening to Mozart because some guy doesn't appreciate that part of it. I do and I'm all that counts when I'm listening alone on my hi-fi. We are talking here about opera, not some form of holy writ. So I love Mozart, like Verdi and Puccini very much, have a soft spot for Rossini and admire Wagner the composer. I also like other forms of opera from Monteverdi to Janacek, but realise it was all written by very fallible human beings. So say what you like - I like opera!!! 
PS my wife doesn't but we don't fall out with each other over it! :lol:


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Itullian said:


> I knew you'd get personal.
> Losers always do :tiphat:


Not sure that I'd agree DavidA has lost this argument. I think he's done pretty well. But neither of you has gone much beyond personal preference, so perhaps it's not really an argument. 
Reminds me of a great quote from Sydney Smith, observing two fishwives hurling insults at each other across an alley: "Those two will never agree. they are arguing from different premises" Boom boom! And of course you two are far more civilised.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

The Conte said:


> I love Wagner AND Puccini, is there something wrong with me?
> 
> N.


At the risk of being part of the chorus, ditto.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Actually I don't think I've ever reached the umpteenth of anything. How will I know when I'm there? And what comes after umpteen?


Not to go off topic, but I may be pushing the umpteenth viewing of Fidelio DVDs, and surely am into the umpteenth listening of Fidelio CDs, and plan to keep on with it.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Itullian said:


> I don't care for Tosca. Musically uninteresting *to me.*
> But then, I am not a Puccini fan.


You have to watch Act II though. I am not a Puccini fan either, but Act II is a masterpiece with Callas and Gobi (Watch it Here). The knifing scene is phenomenal--and I am non-violent, but she has just cause.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tosca is a tremendous opera so don't let anyone kid you otherwise!


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

The Conte said:


> I love Wagner AND Puccini, is there something wrong with me?
> 
> N.


There is nothing wrong with loving Wagner and Puccini, but that don't mean there isn't something wrong with you. 

I jest! Actually, I think anyone who loves one but has no interest in the other is possibly a fool. They have the same singers, same conductors, same orchestras, same opera houses. I took the hint and understood it was all there to be enjoyed.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> There is nothing wrong with loving Wagner and Puccini, but that don't mean there isn't something wrong with you.
> 
> I jest! Actually, I think anyone who loves one but has no interest in the other is possibly a fool. They have the same singers, same conductors, same orchestras, same opera houses. I took the hint and understood it was all there to be enjoyed.


Not always there are several singers that sings Puccini but never Wagner and reversed.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Don Fatale said:


> There is nothing wrong with loving Wagner and Puccini, but that don't mean there isn't something wrong with you.
> 
> I jest! Actually, I think anyone who loves one but has no interest in the other is possibly a fool. They have the same singers, same conductors, same orchestras, same opera houses. I took the hint and understood it was all there to be enjoyed.


i enjoy both but I certainly wouldn't have the temerity to call someone a fool because he liked one and not the other. I mean, I can go into a restaurant with the same cook, same waiter, same table but still like one dish and not another.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Sloe said:


> Not always there are several singers that sings Puccini but never Wagner and reversed.


Yes of course not every singer. I'm watching a Wagner DVD right now, and I'm pretty sure I've seen all of this cast in Puccini roles.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

DavidA said:


> i enjoy both but I certainly wouldn't have the temerity to call someone a fool because he liked one and not the other. I mean, I can go into a restaurant with the same cook, same waiter, same table but still like one dish and not another.


You make a good simile, even if it's a stretch. I know you're no fool. But I'm content with my (deliberately provocative) comment. To have preferences is one thing, but to ignore one or the other is... foolish. I'm not a big fan of Mozart's operas but for me (an opera fan) to completely ignore them would be foolish, don't you think?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> You make a good simile, even if it's a stretch. I know you're no fool. But I'm content with my (deliberately provocative) comment. To have preferences is one thing, but to ignore one or the other is... foolish. I'm not a big fan of Mozart's operas but for me (an opera fan) to completely ignore them would be foolish, don't you think?


After a certain amount of acquired experience and knowledge one may no longer have an interest in certain works or composers. I was fascinated by all opera initially, but after decades of familiarity and honing of my tastes there are many operas I now don't care to listen to at home and probably wouldn't go to see except on the promise of a really outstanding performance (and maybe not even then). So I'd say that to ignore completely operas one is unfamiliar with may be foolishly self-limiting, but to ignore portions of the repertoire later on is merely to have accepted one's limitations - or to have refined one's tastes. I'd guess that almost all of us have some standard-repertoire operas of recognized quality which we dislike or feel indifferent toward, and if that includes several by the same composer we needn't hide our heads.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> After a certain amount of acquired experience and knowledge one may no longer have an interest in certain works or composers. I was fascinated by all opera initially, but after decades of familiarity and honing of my tastes there are many operas I now don't care to listen to at home and probably wouldn't go to see except on the promise of a really outstanding performance (and maybe not even then). So I'd say that to ignore completely operas one is unfamiliar with may be foolishly self-limiting, but to ignore portions of the repertoire later on is merely to have accepted one's limitations - or to have refined one's tastes. I'd guess that almost all of us have some standard-repertoire operas of recognized quality which we dislike or feel indifferent toward, and if that includes several by the same composer we needn't hide our heads.


Yea, verily! In my case it is some (not all) Mozart, most of Bellini, Donizetti & Verdi - all of whom I had high regard for in my younger days. I don't dispute the value of these works but there is still more than enough repertoire to keep me well occupied.


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

Woodduck;941254we needn't hide our heads.[/QUOTE said:


> Speak for yourself. Many people have requested me to hide mine.
> As the bard so eloquently put it:
> As a beauty I'm no shining star.
> There are others more handsome by far.
> ...


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Am I terrible if I never want to keep listening to Tosca after Scarpia is dead?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

graziesignore said:


> Am I terrible if I never want to keep listening to Tosca after Scarpia is dead?


I don't like the ending either. That is where Callas Act II on DVD is great--you get the best part and a "good" ending.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Agree. Act 2 is better than acts 1 and 3, and without Callas they're not interesting to me at all, with the exception of Jonas Kaufmann's beautifully acted _E lucevan le stelle._ A nonwimpy Cavaradossi - hurrah!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Agree. *Act 2 is better than acts 1 and 3, and without Callas they're not interesting to me at all*, with the exception of Jonas Kaufmann's beautifully acted _E lucevan le stelle._ A nonwimpy Cavaradossi - hurrah!


Callas has the 'Midas touch' that counterbalances the 'reverse-Midas touch' of so many of the other dramatically-impaired singers around her.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Callas has the 'Midas touch' that counterbalances the 'reverse-Midas touch' of so many of the other dramatically-impaired singers around her.


Of course in the Tosca film we have Gobbi, whose dramatic powers were equal to hers, and they inspired each other. Cioni, on the other hand... But then Puccini didn't make much of the hero. He was only really interested in women.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Of course in the Tosca film we have Gobbi, whose dramatic powers were equal to hers, and they inspired each other. Cioni, on the other hand... But then Puccini didn't make much of the hero. He was only really interested in women.


Gobbi's tremendous. I love him. . . and of course, 'he' loved 'her.'

I love that famous quote of his in his autobiography _My Life_ where he says, "_I always thought she was immortal- and she is._"

Total gentleman.

Awesome artist.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

graziesignore said:


> Am I terrible if I never want to keep listening to Tosca after Scarpia is dead?


Not terrible but you're missing some great music - *E lucevan le stelle* - for a start. And then the end where Tosca does her jump. It really is tremendous.

And let me say I enjoy this opera even if Callas and Gobbi aren't in it as long as it is done well. To say only two persons - however good - bring enjoyable performances seems very narrow. So I continue to appreciate my other recordings of Tosca - what Price / Karajan and Gheorghiu / Pappano bring to the opera even if I do eventually come back to Callas / de Sabata as the best. Culshaw and Karajan knew that when they recorded Tosca they were never going to beat de Sabata's version. What they tried to do was to bring something different. For me I love the performance. even after Callas.


----------



## Autumn Leaves (Jan 3, 2014)

graziesignore said:


> Am I terrible if I never want to keep listening to Tosca after Scarpia is dead?


I feared I was the only one! 

Watched _Tosca_ with Guleghina only eight days ago, and it's enough to say that _finally_ I have an Italian opera that impressed me as much as the Ring!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

^ You can get the Maria Callas video of Act II Tosca and that way you don't see the tragic ending and you skip the less exciting Act I also. The Maria Callas video is extremely good, probably the best "kiss of Tosca" (the stabbing of Scarpia) on video. Here it is, queued to just before the stabbing. You can get it on DVD but beware: as I recall there are two versions of this with Callas and I believe this may be the better one, but it is nice to get on DVD with the English subtitles.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> Culshaw and Karajan knew that when they recorded Tosca they were never going to beat de Sabata's version


I strongly disagree, Karajan did always for the top.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Flamme , there are two main groups of Albanians , the Gheg and the Tosk , both speaking different dialects . This doesn't have anything to do with the name Tosca, which may be connected to the region of Tuscany in Italy . Tuscany is named after the ancient Etruscans, whose language was not Indo-European and were the original inhabitants of what is now Italy before the Latin tribes settled there .


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

superhorn said:


> Flamme , there are two main groups of Albanians , the Gheg and the Tosk , both speaking different dialects . This doesn't have anything to do with the name Tosca, which may be connected to the region of Tuscany in Italy . Tuscany is named after the ancient Etruscans, whose language was not Indo-European and were the original inhabitants of what is now Italy before the Latin tribes settled there .


According to some they were descendents of immigrants from Minor Asia.
Tosca is not an opera I listen to that often but I like it really a lot when I do.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Tosca is my ideal woman. Passionately loyal and brave. She sings great too.

I'm sure she would serve tender callas-flower as a side vegetable if she invited me over for a meal.

Attempting to denigrate one of the world's greatest opera women is, well I can't say it here, but it starts with a b, ends with a t and totals 8 letters. Put a ! after it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Tosca is my ideal woman. Passionately loyal and brave. She sings great too.
> 
> I'm sure she would serve tender callas-flower as a side vegetable if she invited me over for a meal.
> 
> Attempting to denigrate one of the world's greatest opera women is, well I can't say it here, but it starts with a b, ends with a t and totals 8 letters. Put a ! after it.


Bouffant! .............


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Not terrible but you're missing some great music - *E lucevan le stelle* - for a start. And then the end where Tosca does her jump. It really is tremendous.
> 
> And let me say I enjoy this opera even if Callas and Gobbi aren't in it as long as it is done well. To say only two persons - however good - bring enjoyable performances seems very narrow. So I continue to appreciate my other recordings of Tosca - what Price / Karajan and Gheorghiu / Pappano bring to the opera even if I do eventually come back to Callas / de Sabata as the best. Culshaw and Karajan knew that when they recorded Tosca they were never going to beat de Sabata's version. What they tried to do was to bring something different. For me I love the performance. even after Callas.


I actually have a recording of Birgit Nilsson and Franco Corelli in Tosca that I enjoy quite a lot ... as long as I don't try to envision the two of them, uh, ah, actually doing anything _more than singing._ Scarpia is horribly miscast with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barelytenor said:


> I actually have a recording of Birgit Nilsson and Franco Corelli in Tosca that I enjoy quite a lot ... as long as I don't try to envision the two of them, uh, ah, actually doing anything _more than singing._ Scarpia is horribly miscast with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.
> 
> :tiphat:
> 
> ...


A peculiar recording, vocally. Nilsson was an interestingly "different" Tosca. She was in the role for Placido Domingo's Met debut as Cavaradossi, which I heard broadcast in 1968. They were an odd match, and I don't even remember who the Scarpia was.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Barelytenor said:


> I actually have a recording of Birgit Nilsson and Franco Corelli in Tosca that I enjoy quite a lot ... as long as I don't try to envision the two of them, uh, ah, actually doing anything _more than singing._ Scarpia is horribly miscast with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.
> 
> :tiphat:
> 
> ...


AS much as I love Corelli, not what one called a refined Cavardosi.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Pugg said:


> AS much as I love Corelli, not what one called a refined Cavardosi.


Was he a refined anything? What a voice though!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Was he a refined anything? What a voice though!


I knew something like this would come up, but you are right, his Trovatore ( EMI) another example, but my goodness, the sensation of that recording.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Pugg said:


> I strongly disagree, Karajan did always for the top.


There was one point during the recording where Karajan put on de Sabata's version of a certain passage and said: "I can't do that. That's HIS secret." Of course HvK went for the top. But he knew greatest and de Sabata was one of his heroes.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Was he a refined anything? What a voice though!


Two good points.

The ideal role for Corelli - the only one in which I don't prefer someone else - was Calaf in _Turandot._ Big, loud, handsome, stupid (Calaf, not Corelli), and viscerally thrilling. When he and Nilsson competed onstage, they released a tsunami of adrenaline and endorphins. I can listen to their live recordings over and over and still not believe the glorious noise they made.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Two good points.
> 
> The ideal role for Corelli - the only one in which I don't prefer someone else - was Calaf in _Turandot._ Big, loud, handsome, stupid (Calaf, not Corelli), and viscerally thrilling. When he and Nilsson competed onstage, they released a tsunami of adrenaline and endorphins. I can listen to their live recordings over and over and still not believe the glorious noise they made.


"Nessun dorma," I mean, well, like, who could sleep with all that _racket _going on?

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Tosca is one of those operas that is made by having really great singers. I love the thematic writing of Puccini here and especially the big scene with Scarpia and Tosca is Italian opera at it's most dramatic. Of course it is a stretch that some of our heroines could inspire such lust in Scarpia, but if the high C and the chest notes are all there, her looks are of secondary importance;-)


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

I love all those major chords moving by four whole steps that end up spelling out a tritone, the Scarpia theme. If you think Wagner was the only one using leitmotifs, you're not listening. E major, D major, C major, B-flat major, dum, dum, dum, dum. 

Great stuff!

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Barelytenor said:


> I love all those major chords moving by four whole steps that end up spelling out a tritone, the Scarpia theme. If you think Wagner was the only one using leitmotifs, you're not listening. E major, D major, C major, B-flat major, dum, dum, dum, dum.
> 
> Great stuff!
> 
> ...


Totally!!!! It is also one of those operas that when you hear it you don't think just Puccini but "Tosca". It has a "sound".


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Yup, another one I generally just think of as the "love theme" is the vocal line starting on E-flat and rising scalewise to F and G, how many times in the opera does that occur? I know it's in the Act I love duet when Mario sings "Occhio all'amor soave," it's in the accompaniment to Vissi d'arte at "sempre con fè sincera," I'm sure there are other instances that give the opera its unique "sound." 

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## sacraselva (Aug 31, 2016)

Seattleoperafan said:


> Totally!!!! It is also one of those operas that when you hear it you don't think just Puccini but "Tosca". It has a "sound".


This is so true! And personally I looove that sound


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barelytenor said:


> If you think Wagner was the only one using leitmotifs, you're not listening.


Wagner didn't invent the idea of attaching a specific musical figure to a character or situation, but his elaborate use of it influenced those who came after him, including Puccini and, to a greater extent, Strauss. Weber, Berlioz (his "idee fixee") and Verdi, among others, used thematic reminiscences. Puccini's use of the device is pretty simple compared to the way Wagner works constant variations upon his themes to mirror plot and character development and weaves complex musical textures by extending, transforming and combining motifs. In _Tosca_ I recognize a theme for Scarpia and one for Tosca, and those aren't varied greatly. Are there any others?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck, you said "influenced those who came after him, including ... Berlioz", but didn't Berlioz get there first?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Woodduck, you said "influenced those who came after him, including ... Berlioz", but didn't Berlioz get there first?


Check again. Berlioz is in the next sentence.


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Wagner didn't invent the idea of attaching a specific musical figure to a character or situation, but his elaborate use of it influenced those who came after him, including Puccini and, to a greater extent, Strauss. Weber, Berlioz (his "idee fixee") and Verdi, among others, used thematic reminiscences. Puccini's use of the device is pretty simple compared to the way Wagner works constant variations upon his themes to mirror plot and character development and weaves complex musical textures by extending, transforming and combining motifs. In _Tosca_ I recognize a theme for Scarpia and one for Tosca, and those aren't varied greatly. Are there any others?


Of course Wagner went far beyond what Puccini did, and yes I would almost call them musical labels rather than leitmotifs in that sense. But yes, sure, there are several others, including ones for Angelotti (the G minor, rushing entrance music for him), the ditsy eighth-note them for the sacristan, even one for Tosca's eyes and a love theme (Bb, F-G, D-Eb-F-G-A-Bb-C-Bb etc.) that recurs several times throughout the opera.

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

How did we become talking about Wagner in the Tosca thread


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pugg said:


> How did we become talking about Wagner in the Tosca thread


When you can take the chance you do.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Pugg said:


> How did we become talking about Wagner in the Tosca thread


We're talking about leitmotifs. Without Wagner there is no Puccini. He kept the scores of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ on his piano for inspiration.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> We're talking about leitmotifs. Without Wagner there is no Puccini. He kept the scores of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal_ on his piano for inspiration.





> Is Tosca a trifle of an opera? If so, why? If not, what's great about it?


As much as I do respect your opinion , the real question from O.P 2013.


----------

