# Modern Opera



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't know what the breakdown is here, of people that love modern opera and those that don't, so I thought I'd try a poll. If you think up an option you would have selected that's better than "Other" please let us know!


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

I understand you.

When not even a simple leitmotif can we whistle... It harms none other than the opera itself (genre or this particular one) because it alienates/excludes people.

Or maybe opera composers think that writing a melody is too mainstream and the more you turn it into an underground scene the better...


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

I don't know what you really mean with the term "Modern Opera": Contemporary, 20th Century up to our days or the last few decades?
As a first reply, I could simply state that, gradually in the course of 20th century, there has been a decline of the production of Operas in the mainstream or for the Grand Theatres. One of the reasons could be found in the fact that, with the exception of Britten and very few others, composers relied on other genres for their output to show their compositional depth.
On the other hand, the classically trained voices tend, almost always and almost exclusively, to show their strength and quality in works written for the glory of the operatic voices, namely mostly the Classic Italian, French or German and, occasionally, Russian or Slavic tradition. So, the "modern" composers have to rely on specialised voices of not so solid beauty or quality to perform normally roles of modest vocal proportions and not in an idiomatic operatic frame and form (see even the case of Britten).
As long as no composer, nowadays, would dare to write arias, duets and ensembles for great voices, with solid and memorable (Opera, as a form of Theatre -in Music-, should be something to remember) melodic lines, the genre would be in a constant decline and addressed only to a specific and meagre audience.

Principe


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I love all kinds of opera, thought my favourites are Wagner and then early twentieth century operas.

One of my favourites is this which I recommend greatly, though no chance for whistling tunes:





I dont think at all that melody is such an important thing, in fact - on many occasions melody disturbs the dramatic structure.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

I usually prefer works from the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. However, I'm willing to listen to new operas. Some are better than others, but that was true for operas of previous centuries. (I'm probably one of the few who likes or is even familiar with the operas of Ferdinando Paër.) However, modern operas work best for me when I can attend live performances, or at least watch videos. I can't imagine just listening to audio recordings of them.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I hate recitative in any opera,and I'm afraid most modern operas seem like 100% recitative to me. Vocal music without melody is seldom pleasant to me unless, like some non-melodic instrumental music, it can create an interesting atmosphere or effect. To use it to try to tell a story seldom works.

When I hear this kind of piece, my thought isn't - 'wow, this composer composed this non-melodic vocal music on purpose because it's the best way to tell the story!' It's more, "too bad this composer got sucked into the you-must-avoid-melody-at-all-costs mindset'.

Unsophisticated, I know.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I dont think many people would dispute the fact that Opera is intended to be seen in a theater. Opera seems to lose the most in reproduction on recordings and DVDs of all the art forms. How many of you who voted for the first option have actually seen a contemporary opera in the theater?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont think many people would dispute the fact that Opera is intended to be seen in a theater. Opera seems to lose the most in reproduction on recordings and DVDs of all the art forms. How many of you who voted for the first option have actually seen a contemporary opera in the theater?


Good point. My experience has come entirely from the other two media you mentioned.

I was using a little hyperbole, too. I have seen some modern operas on DVD that I could sit through, and that even had a scene or two I enjoyed (Doctor Atomic is one recent one that comes to mind).

How that would play out in a real theater, I have no idea. I seldom go to the opera, and the local opera company hardly ever puts on anything really modern.

I just know that there are quite a few moments from Operas on DVD that I would gladly play for an uninitiated friend and say "Listen to this!", but no example of a non-melodic kind comes to mind. If I listen at all, it's a solitary experience.

The closest example to an unconventional opera I can think of that I would play for a friend is the beautiful DVD of Stravinsky's "Le Rossignol", and that's hardly non-melodic.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I must say that despite my love for modern opera, I dont at all enjoy watching them on DVD, so if you ever do have the chance I would recommend going to see one. There are some real operatic masterpieces from the past 50 years.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I think it's more a question of getting used to the idiom. I am making a real effort to see more moderen opera (yes, see rather than listen to, I agree with Mary there) and I am getting to like it more as I get used to it. Ones that have worked particularly well for me are Birtwistle's The Minotaur, Sariaaho's L'Amour de Loin, and Sciarrino's Luci mie traditrici. I'm still to see die Soldaten but it's on my little list, emiel.

I also like Philip Glass and John Adams but I'm much more accustomed to the minimalist sound as I listened to a lot of their orchestra works (particularly Glass) before getting back into opera.

Britten I don't see as a modern composer in quite the same way, he certainly could never be accused of being unmelodic, Billy Budd will transport you in an instant to the the deck of a man'o'war with its gorgeous surging choruses.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

mamascarlatti said:


> Britten I don't see as a modern composer in quite the same way, he certainly could never be accused of being unmelodic, Billy Budd will transport you in an instant to the the deck of a man'o'war with its gorgeous surging choruses.


Thats good to hear! Ive got tickets to Death in Venice next summer; it'll be my first Britten opera in the theater. (Though Ive conducted his opera Noye's Fludde)


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I'll give anything a go.  Modern opera sometimes more getting used to. I have a recording of Rautavaara's Vincent, which is rather strange, but becomes better with repeated listenings and the libretto handy.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Thats good to hear! Ive got tickets to Death in Venice next summer; it'll be my first Britten opera in the theater. (Though Ive conducted his opera Noye's Fludde)


Jealous much, Death in Venice is my latest love in his operas. I'm watching the Visconti film of the same name at the moment, attracted by the thought of a Mahler-fest.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

dionisio said:


> It harms none other than the opera itself (genre or this particular one) because it alienates/excludes people.
> 
> Or maybe opera composers think that writing a melody is too mainstream and the more you turn it into an underground scene the better...


Right, I really would love to know what composers are thinking ...


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

principe said:


> I don't know what you really mean with the term "Modern Opera": Contemporary, 20th Century up to our days or the last few decades?


Well, I was kind of thinking people would figure out what I meant from the options I wrote ... the key distinction being the apparent absence of melody, rhythm and harmony in certain operas, and that absence defining the term.



> As a first reply, I could simply state that, gradually in the course of 20th century, there has been a decline of the production of Operas in the mainstream or for the Grand Theatres. One of the reasons could be found in the fact that, with the exception of Britten and very few others, composers relied on other genres for their output to show their compositional depth.
> On the other hand, the classically trained voices tend, almost always and almost exclusively, to show their strength and quality in works written for the glory of the operatic voices, namely mostly the Classic Italian, French or German and, occasionally, Russian or Slavic tradition. So, the "modern" composers have to rely on specialised voices of not so solid beauty or quality to perform normally roles of modest vocal proportions and not in an idiomatic operatic frame and form (see even the case of Britten).


Interesting ... so you kind of attribute it to the reduced quality of voices available for traditional roles. Well, who knows ...



> As long as no composer, nowadays, would dare to write arias, duets and ensembles for great voices, with solid and memorable (Opera, as a form of Theatre -in Music-, should be something to remember) melodic lines, the genre would be in a constant decline and addressed only to a specific and meagre audience.
> 
> Principe


I can see you've put some thought into it ... thanks!


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> I love all kinds of opera, thought my favourites are Wagner and then early twentieth century operas.
> 
> I dont think at all that melody is such an important thing, in fact - on many occasions melody disturbs the dramatic structure.


Well, I would agree that on occasion a melody is counterproductive - a couple of times in Trovatore, which I listen to almost constantly now, the music really doesn't fit the action at all, at all. The abbey scene, where everyone is at daggers drawn, di Luna is about to be shot (we think), and di Luna, Manrico and Leonora engage in a charming patter de trois that wouldn't be out of place in a Gilbert and Sullivan show, or perhaps a Rossini opera buffa. It's funny. But it's still wonderful music. I listened to about five minutes of your offering and I have to say, I wish I had time for the rest, because what's on stage looks fascinating, but I don't think I could manage the dissonance. Now that's intefering with the drama.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Maybe, but when I saw it in the theater it was an overwhelming experience.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

MAuer said:


> I usually prefer works from the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. However, I'm willing to listen to new operas. Some are better than others, but that was true for operas of previous centuries. (I'm probably one of the few who likes or is even familiar with the operas of Ferdinando Paër.) However, modern operas work best for me when I can attend live performances, or at least watch videos. I can't imagine just listening to audio recordings of them.


Absolutely - nothing to argue with there. I've said earlier, I loved The Nose, which was at the Met I think season before last, I went twice - but it wasn't for the music.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> I hate recitative in any opera,and I'm afraid most modern operas seem like 100% recitative to me. Vocal music without melody is seldom pleasant to me unless, like some non-melodic instrumental music, it can create an interesting atmosphere or effect. To use it to try to tell a story seldom works.
> 
> When I hear this kind of piece, my thought isn't - 'wow, this composer composed this non-melodic vocal music on purpose because it's the best way to tell the story!' It's more, "too bad this composer got sucked into the you-must-avoid-melody-at-all-costs mindset'.
> 
> Unsophisticated, I know.


Well, now I'm embarrassed - I couldn't even tell you what recitative is! lol I just looked it up on Wiki and I still don't really understand it.



> a style of delivery (much used in operas, oratorios, and cantatas) in which a singer is allowed to adopt the rhythms of ordinary speech


It just doesn't explain much to me. It's all about rhythm, recitative is? The composer still writes the notes you have to hit? Or what? Maybe I should go on Youtube and put in "recitative" and see what pops up ...


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont think many people would dispute the fact that Opera is intended to be seen in a theater. Opera seems to lose the most in reproduction on recordings and DVDs of all the art forms. How many of you who voted for the first option have actually seen a contemporary opera in the theater?


I saw the Nose, I saw the first act or two of Nixon in China ... can't remember any others, but it seems to me there must be one or two ....


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> I think it's more a question of getting used to the idiom. I am making a real effort to see more moderen opera (yes, see rather than listen to, I agree with Mary there) and I am getting to like it more as I get used to it. Ones that have worked particularly well for me are Birtwistle's The Minotaur, Sariaaho's L'Amour de Loin, and Sciarrino's Luci mie traditrici. I'm still to see die Soldaten but it's on my little list, emiel.
> 
> I also like Philip Glass and John Adams but I'm much more accustomed to the minimalist sound as I listened to a lot of their orchestra works (particularly Glass) before getting back into opera.
> 
> Britten I don't see as a modern composer in quite the same way, he certainly could never be accused of being unmelodic, Billy Budd will transport you in an instant to the the deck of a man'o'war with its gorgeous surging choruses.


Well, I appreciate your suggestions, believe me - I'm now kicking myself that I passed up Billy Budd last season, just because Peter Grimes didn't work for me - but I really don't believe that operagoers in Mozart's time, or in Rossini's or Donizetti's , had to "get used to the idiom." Why should operagoers have to work that hard? It's hard enough with the old operas, to figure out what's going on and work out the dramatic force. Can't we have music, to help us along? Honestly, I think the notion that audiences don't work hard enough was something Wagner started, and I can't appreciate it.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

crmoorhead said:


> I'll give anything a go.  Modern opera sometimes more getting used to. I have a recording of Rautavaara's Vincent, which is rather strange, but becomes better with repeated listenings and the libretto handy.


Well, and that's true of most operas!


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

emiellucifuge said:


> Maybe, but when I saw it in the theater it was an overwhelming experience.


I don't doubt it - and you know, in the theater, the dissonance wouldn't scare me nearly as much either.

Goodness, where did the like/dislike buttons go?


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

guythegreg said:


> Well, and that's true of most operas!


True, but Vincent was my first 'Modern Opera' so to speak and very different musically speaking. I need to relisten to it though!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I LOVE modern opera, but you can't say it doesn't have melody or harmony or a beat!


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I LOVE modern opera, but you can't say it doesn't have melody or harmony or a beat!


.. et pourquoi pas? Does Die Soldaten have melody, harmony, or beat? Not in the selection I listened to. If you want to point out something I've missed, please go ahead ...


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> .. et pourquoi pas? Does Die Soldaten have melody, harmony, or beat? Not in the selection I listened to. If you want to point out something I've missed, please go ahead ...


Have you ever had the feeling that we are living what the witches of Macbeth foresaw? " faire is foule, and foule is faire"


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

dionisio said:


> Have you ever had the feeling that we are living what the witches of Macbeth foresaw? " faire is foule, and foule is faire"


I know, right? But some people - not all, of course - some modern opera aficionados seem so scornful sometimes of those who like music you can get addicted to.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Modern Opera (provided we talk about the last few decades) is in decline because we simply lack great composers in the broader Classical sense. Contemporary music may work somehow in the forms of "absolute" character (Symphonic, Chamber, Instrumental) but it's quite difficult for the "modern idiom" to serve the Theatre. 
However, if we're talking for the 20th century in general, there are quite a few wonderful Operas to treasure. Britten was the last Master of the form and he offered quite a few very fine examples of it.
Finally, guythegreg, in every era, the audiences have to try to get into the work in question, if they wish to enjoy all the rewards offered by the composer. The difference with brilliant composers and smart musicians was that they could allow the iddle listener to survive the enjoyment of the performance by a music that, in the surface, could sound fine and straightforward. However, one needs a hell of effort, study, research and attentiveness (and alertness) to indulge in the enormous rewards an Opera like "Le Nozze di Figaro" has to offer. Much more than the "modern idiom", which, unfortunately, has nothing to offer in the surface and only some (not in great demand) rewards...underneath.

Principe


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

guythegreg said:


> .. et pourquoi pas? Does Die Soldaten have melody, harmony, or beat? Not in the selection I listened to. If you want to point out something I've missed, please go ahead ...


I haven't heard that one, but unless it's entirely monophonic then it wouldn't have harmony. There are plenty of modern operas with those three element anyway, tonal and atonal, and I have enjoyed every one that I have heard. Anyway, melody, harmony and a beat aren't the things that I always listen out for, in atonal music especially. A lot of people mainly hang on to melody and harmony and simple rhythms when listening to music and they find the beauty of the music in that. This is why a lot of people generally don't like a lot of modern atonal works. I find the beauty and emotion in atonal works through the tone colour, dynamics and contour of the lines. You have to let go of the old ways to make way for the new. Melody and harmony and simple rhythms aren't the most important things anymore.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

ComposerofAvantGarde, _melody_ is the "face" of the music work: the trademark with which you recognise and remember it (some called it its "social passport"). _Harmony_ is the "figure" of music. Through harmony we can have a general idea of how the work comes to our perception. _Rhythm_ is the "movement(s)" of the work. How it is "advanced" along the way. Of course, above all that, it has not been mentioned that, probably, the greatest feature in Classical Music is the _form_ and the _structure_. For example, the Sonata form is the highest achievement in the Classical development, the rondeau is the highest form of a theme alternating with _relative_ episodes, the Variations, let alone the Sonata-rondeau, Fantasia, etc.

As you admit, CAG, you enjoy the "tone colours, dynamics, contour of lines". I would add the "sonorities" in general. However, these features can be found in the Classical works too. Particularly, as we advance in the Romantic period, we have some wonderful tone colours and incredibly interesting sonorities in Rimsky-Korsakof, Wagner, Verdi, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel. Dynamics too: From the early baroque to our days, dynamics play their important role in the whole score. The critical point is the "contour of lines": In Classical compositions they are written under strict rules and normes, while in modern...almost anything goes. And that's the key difference we have with "modern" or contemporary music: In Classical, all these features (tone colours, sonorities, dynamics, rhythm, melody, etc.) are part of a strict and formal structure, while in contemporary, we struggle to even find traces of it. Whether we need this "structure" anymore or not is a pertinent question. However, this strucutre is practically the definition of Classical Music.

Principe


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

^
I didn't say you can't find them in earlier music, but I think the reason why I find the twentieth and twenty first centuries the most interesting (and my favourite) *is* because anything goes. The composer now has to be even more creative to make the music interesting to listen to, and they do this marvellously. Music since 1900 has been more diverse than any other era and the most new ideas and colours and, as you say, sonorities have come from this era. It's what makes modern classical music so amazing.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

If "anythig goes" is your motto, so be it...for you. However, I trust more people appreciate the "strict" form (where everything works in perfect order) rather a "diverse" loose one. Even popularity tests have demonstrated that. The question, you see, is what is the _essence_ of Music.

Principe


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Modern music is not necessarily loosely formed. Individual compositions are strictly formed. What COAG means, I think is that there is no particular form that is used by *all* composers. Each composer is free to invent his own language and methods, some are more successful than others, but of course the effectiveness of a work's structure still plays a role in our valuation of the work.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Posting at the moment from Beijing, I can assure you, emiellucifuge, that, if you don't speak Chinese, you're missing at least 90% of what's going on in this huge and always evolving country, the richness of its immense culture and everything that happens around you simply eludes you.
The same happens with modern composers, by choosing "to invent their language and methods", to follow "their" or any form it is suitable for them. The result is that they create a lot of new languages that few can truly follow, they invent forms that few can comprehend and, in the meantime, the whole "edifice" of Contemporary" Music is seriously shaken, as it alienates more audiences and, somehow, degrades what has already been attained in the development of the only language we still know: the tradition of the Classical one.
The worse: we have not encountered a single leading "universal" composer since the death of Shostakovich and Britten.

Principe


----------



## Bardamu (Dec 12, 2011)

guythegreg said:


> Well, I was kind of thinking people would figure out what I meant from the options I wrote ... the key distinction being the apparent absence of melody, rhythm and harmony in certain operas, and that absence defining the term.


I don't like your definition of "modern".
So an atonal work written 80 years ago is "modern" while a tonal one written 40 years ago is not.

However I do agree with you when you say that operagoers shouldn't be required to do extensive work to appreciate an Opera, barring in mind that Opera as a whole should be experienced in the theatres.

I feel you and the others that aren't quite happy with serial Operas because I'm too not much fond of it but I still think that a little gem like Dallapiccola's Il Prigioniero is unmissable.

What I'm more baffled with the more recent trends is that , in my own little ignorance, there seems a lack of new Operas that can make you do a genuine laughs.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Aparts from the music theory discussion, (modern) opera should be for people and not for the composers themselves.

In my recent readings on Opera, i read about Opera during the French Revolution. Apart from the plots, Opera audience gain augmentation with its spread to other classes aside nobility. Therefore librettists had to adapt their librettos to a text more comprehensible to this bigger audience. Thus librettos, whether the plot itself or its writing, has to be adjusted to the times. With Opera Seria in a irreversible downfall, stories on greek/roman mythology or the crusades started to decay also and gave ways to new dramas based on themes familiar to that society (widely with a revolution/liberty theme).

The world in this 21st century is living a crisis never seen before in almost 1600 years (with the fall of the Roman empire). This is a crisis (mostly in europe and USA, i beg your pardon about the current financial situation on other regions which i'm not as aware as about these). Whatever the result is, it will change the world as World War 1 and 2 did. Old values are failing, people are losing confidence what they thought about politics and losing hope, economic theories are breaking down and when we thought that old ghosts would appear nevermore (like world wars or autocratic regimes), this certainty isn't as clear as before.

Opera should (or at least according to what i think about it) as a form of art (and by the primitive definitions of art) a mirror of its times. And the human crisis in nowadays should not be ignored. We have long departed from Romanticism and modernism. Intense love plots or abstract dramas makes less sense today. Reality is needed, because people live in a real world and we live in a society that can be familiar with books, movies, music, theater, etc. (Demonstration: The acting in the 1960's and 1970's cannot be tolerated in a today's movie).

Upon this premisses, then the music should come. And it should come not tonal or atonal or microtonal. It should come with the exact note in each word of the libretto, no more no less. And here Verdi teach us a great lesson. He knew he was not a genius in music neither wanted to. He only compose the right music (as best as he could) to the libretto. His rapidly up and down chromatic scales expressed human feelings than philosophical debates (as in Wagners).

The problem today (or at least about what i know from Opera. I beg your pardon again for my ignorance, but i can get to know all operas that are around. No money and no time as i wanted to have are the reasons) is that in opera first the need for breaking music barriers are thought, the most uncharacteristic accord is looked for and then, at last, it might come the plot. 

And just to finish my post, i'd like to say that the more composers despise music from Puccini and Verdi, the more they need Puccini's and Verdi's operas to be stage so they get a chance to have theirs staged also. Opera companies need Puccini, Mozart and Verdi (Wagner is for aficcionados like us) to live and because their operas are something that people identify themselves with. Maybe we should think why.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Bardamu said:


> I don't like your definition of "modern".
> So an atonal work written 80 years ago is "modern" while a tonal one written 40 years ago is not.


Well, if you want to suggest a better term that fits the definition, I sure don't mind. I can't think of one offhand, though.



> However I do agree with you when you say that operagoers shouldn't be required to do extensive work to appreciate an Opera, barring in mind that Opera as a whole should be experienced in the theatres.
> 
> ... a little gem like Dallapiccola's Il Prigioniero is unmissable.


All right, that one is officially on my list! Along with Nielsen's Maskarade.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

dionisio said:


> Aparts from the music theory discussion, (modern) opera should be for people and not for the composers themselves.
> 
> And just to finish my post, i'd like to say that the more composers despise music from Puccini and Verdi, the more they need Puccini's and Verdi's operas to be stage so they get a chance to have theirs staged also. Opera companies need Puccini, Mozart and Verdi (Wagner is for aficcionados like us) to live and because their operas are something that people identify themselves with. Maybe we should think why.


Wow - well put. I love it.


----------

