# Opera is stupid - The Guardian



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/09/opera-love-island-english-national-opera

just read this stuff

what do you think

see comments at bottom too


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

You can't argue with ignorance.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

_Love Island_ is TV trash of the lowest possible common denominator. Sure, opera can be as ridiculous but it never insults my intelligence in the way that a lot of TV does. But perhaps I've misunderstood the premise of Stuart Jeffries' article - what's the actual point he is trying to make?


----------



## ericdxx (Jul 7, 2013)

I always thought that Opera is closer to Hollywood blockbuster movies than to reality tv.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Articles talking about the stupidity of opera plots are stupider than opera plots, as well as unredeemed by musical genius.

And the Guardian web site has the nerve to ask me to subscribe.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

stomanek said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/09/opera-love-island-english-national-opera


the title is delusive, and that is on purpose, for actually the author means not what the title suggests; in fact his intention was deride the regietheatre in its attempts to sabotage opera masterpieces on pretext of 'classicals not pop enough' etc.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course there will be a lot of indignant comments to this article. But of course it's right. To any logically minded person opera is stupid - an utterly ridiculous artform where people sing rather than speak, where overweight sopranos play tubercular heroines and elderly people sing young lovers. I have many friends - sensible, educated people - who cannot sit through opera for those and similar reasons. It therefore requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. Why we should just enjoy it without taking it too seriously. Else we are in danger of self delusion.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Of course there will be a lot of indignant comments to this article. But of course it's right. To any logically minded person opera is stupid - an utterly ridiculous artform where people sing rather than speak, where overweight sopranos play tubercular heroines and elderly people sing young lovers. I have many friends - sensible, educated people - who cannot sit through opera for those and similar reasons. It therefore requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. Why we should just enjoy it without taking it too seriously. Else we are in danger of self delusion.


I assume you dont like shakespeare then or chaucer


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

stomanek said:


> I assume you dont like shakespeare then or chaucer


I didn't say I didn't like it. Please read what I said.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Excerpt: '_What made critics such as Norman Lebrecht set up a harrumphing chorus, though, was Murphy's suggestion that it would be "healthy" for his as-yet-unappointed new artistic director to be "aware of the pull" of popular culture such as Love Island, Fleabag and superhero films in order to win over audiences to the opera.'_

I would imagine that most listeners are looking for relief from the bottoming out of crude booty-driven popular culture. I view most opera as fantasy driven; it does not have to be a reflection of reality, make sense, add up, be consistent, be wise or adult - like the blissful reality of one's childlike imagination where everything can be a refreshing temporary escape that can bring some form of self-renewal and all things are possible... It's more about being in touch with one's sense of play and freedom from the adult world surrounding by music that is often glorious, at least to me. In art, reality is often overrated and imagination suggests freedom from the tedious mundane.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Interestingly my take on that article was that the Jeffries was actually championing opera by trying to make it appeal to a younger crowd. If you look at most storylines and plots from popular culture they're silly (soap operas, some movies, etc). Jeffries was merely trying to drum up a bit of business. He's a journalist, it's his job.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Of course there will be a lot of indignant comments to this article. But of course it's right. To any logically minded person opera is stupid - an utterly ridiculous artform where people sing rather than speak, where overweight sopranos play tubercular heroines and elderly people sing young lovers. I have many friends - sensible, educated people - who cannot sit through opera for those and similar reasons. It therefore requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. Why we should just enjoy it without taking it too seriously. Else we are in danger of self delusion.


However, that isn't the point that the article is making. The article is challenging the premise that "low art" (using the example of Love Island) and "high art" are radically different from one another with one being more worthy than the other. It starts off by comparing Love Island and Opera and saying that they are both equally low brow (whilst conveniently omitting that Love Island doesn't have any music to 'redeem' it - as some here have pointed out already). The article then turns that hypothesis (opera and Love Island are equally low brow, harmless bits of amusement) on its head and puts forward the writer's main argument. His actual point is that opera does of course have deeper meanings and is more than harmless fun, but Love Island does too...

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

I naturally dislike discussions about 'Opera', as if a 400+ year old artform can be analysed as one big lump. Comparing the whole of opera with one reality TV show is rather a waste of time. Is opera like Hamlet? Like War and Peace? Like Picasso's Guernica? See what I mean? Some operas are rather like Shakespeare's Hamlet (although ironically not Thomas' Hamlet).

The second issue with the article is that opera is primarily about music whereas Love Island is not. Perhaps we should compare opera to cheese or baboons...

Getting those two points out of the way, what is the article actually about and what is it saying? It's a take on the age old (and tired) class clash as embodied in the "high art" vs. "low art" debate. Fortunately it goes beyond the 'which is better, Love Island or opera' position and has something interesting, if not particularly novel to say. Perhaps high art and low art aren't as far apart as we think. Just as Love Island has sparked off some interesting debates about current issues, opera has the potential to do that too (in actual fact the deeper meanings of opera plots has been a topic of discussion since the beginning of the art form).

For example I'm listening to Madama Butterfly at the moment, which is a story about unrequited love, but also about child abuse and colonialism. (And the plot of this opera is all too real and believable.)

Some opera plots are silly, sometimes because they are comedies playing on the absurdities and ironies of life. Perhaps opera plots and Love Island _are_ stupid, but they are both far saner than the political situation in the west at the moment, so I'm quite happy to stick with the opera!

N.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I didn't say I didn't like it. Please read what I said.


any work of art requires susPension of disbelief since each genre is a language for transmission of meaning or narrative

since very early times - song has been used to tell stories


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Of course there will be a lot of indignant comments to this article. But of course it's right. To any logically minded person opera is stupid - an utterly ridiculous artform where people sing rather than speak, where overweight sopranos play tubercular heroines and elderly people sing young lovers. I have many friends - sensible, educated people - who cannot sit through opera for those and similar reasons. It therefore requires a huge suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. Why we should just enjoy it without taking it too seriously. Else we are in danger of self delusion.


So people who don't agree that opera is "stupid" and "utterly ridiculous" are not "logically-minded"? They are insufficiently "sensible" and "educated," and "in danger of self-delusion"?

Thanks for insulting the majority of us here, as well as all the great composers and performing artists who have devoted themselves to the art of opera. Now if we tell you what we think of _your_ "logical-mindedness," will you run crying to the moderators?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The writer of the article is playing a little joke on us, leading up to his point that popular culture (TV or whatever) may not be as stupid as it looks. He gives his game away when he says, "Opera is at its most biting when we get plunged beneath its sometimes silly surface and exposed to something unexpectedly profound." We might ask, "Why 'unexpectedly'?"

Evidently he has failed to notice a certain little detail about his subject: opera is about music. "Deeds of music made visible," Wagner called it. Perhaps our author is tone deaf. Or stone deaf.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Remember Superhorn's law of opera :

THE OPERA HAS YET TO BE WRITTEN WITH A PLOT AS RIDICULOUS AS THE THINGS WHICH HAPPEN EVERY DAY IN REAL LIFE .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

superhorn said:


> Remember Superhorn's law of opera :
> 
> THE OPERA HAS YET TO BE WRITTEN WITH A PLOT AS RIDICULOUS AS THE THINGS WHICH HAPPEN EVERY DAY IN REAL LIFE .


Absolutely true. The opera about the Trump regime will be the most ludicrous and incredible farce ever put upon the stage.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely true. The opera about the Trump regime will be the most ludicrous and incredible farce ever put upon the stage.


You haven't been following UK politics that closely, have you? 

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> You haven't been following UK politics that closely, have you?
> 
> N.


Well, maybe it's a tie... But I'm biased.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely true. The opera about the Trump regime will be the most ludicrous and incredible farce ever put upon the stage.


You forgot my friend Boris! :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

_Impeachment: the Opera_ 
Act 1: Miraculous Birth
Act 2: Trump Towers
Act 3: Election & Scandals
Act 4: Rebirth as a Liberal
_Four-year Intermission_
Act 5: Reconciliation with the Press
Act 6: Adoption of a Foreign National Child 
Act 7: Marriage to Hillary Clinton
Act 8: Hostile Takeover by Putin


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

lemme guess: "opera is racist, misogynist and excludes the poor! stop flaunting your privilege all around the Metropolitan!" -_-


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

BalalaikaBoy said:


> lemme guess: "opera is racist, misogynist and excludes the poor! stop flaunting your privilege all around the Metropolitan!" -_-


Hasn't that one already been written?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> _Impeachment: the Opera_
> Act 1: Birth
> Act 2: Trump Towers
> Act 3: Election & Scandals
> ...


Possible final scene: Putin rides into the oval office barechested on horseback, Trump climbs on behind him, and they ride off into the sunset. Hillary walks in dressed in winged helmet, breastplate, spear, and pink pantsuit. She sings 'Ho-jo-to-ho!", pumps her fists, sits down at the president's desk, puts her feet up, and laughs madly as the curtain falls.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Possible final scene: Putin rides into the oval office barechested on horseback, Trump climbs on behind him, and they ride off into the sunset. Hillary walks in dressed in winged helmet, breastplate, spear, and pink pantsuit. She sings 'Ho-jo-to-ho!", pumps her fists, sits down at the president's desk, puts her feet up, and laughs madly as the curtain falls.


Hillary's mad scene! We've gotta see that. But we have to take into account that Putin's playing kissy-face with China these days, definitely not Trump.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Hillary's mad scene! We've gotta see that. But we have to take into account that Putin's playing kissy-face with China these days, definitely not Trump.


OK. Putin's out. How about Boris Johnson, riding into the Oval in one of his model buses?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ons-bizarre-model-buses-claim-raises-eyebrows

_[Brexit, stage far right]_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> OK. Putin's out. How about Boris Johnson, riding into the Oval in one of his model buses?


Nobody gets in the way of Boris!


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Hasn't that one already been written?


of course it has, but indoctrination is a blunt force and repetitive instrument, not an intellectual or even an honest one.


----------



## Guest (Aug 13, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> And the Guardian web site has the nerve to ask me to subscribe.


But it doesn't _compel _you to subscribe as The Times and The Telegraph do (and some of the leading US papers which I can't access - I forget which).

Two quotes suggest that the writer does not belive that opera is stupisd at all. First, get the tone of the piece:



> this kind of storyline would keep the twitterati and op-ed commentators seething for weeks about the commodification of women's bodies and the structural misogyny of heteronormative dating rites


And then, get his love of opera:



> Opera is at its most biting when we get plunged beneath its sometimes silly surface and exposed to something unexpectedly profound. Take Berg's Lulu. For all that many productions attempt to lure audiences with promises and posters of a sexpot who can't keep her clothes on and who is ultimately (spoiler alert!) murdered by Jack the Ripper, it is as heartbreaking and instructive about the patriarchy as any work of art.


The provocative title should not be taken at face value. Here's the clincher:



> even what's regarded as the basest mass culture is rarely as stupid or worthless as detractors might suggest. Just like opera.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Dimace said:


> You forgot my friend Boris! :lol:


Boris (not)Goodenuff?

N.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Opera is dumb, I prefer Firefox


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

I'm pretty sure many of you here didn't read the tag line:

"Lust, infidelity, bronzed muscle-men humiliating themselves in public - *opera has always been dumb fun. Pop culture should take lessons from it, rather than the other way round*"


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Jacck said:


> Opera is dumb, I prefer Firefox


Opera is now just a Chrome skin. Another Classical reference is Vivaldi, which is OK, too, but I agree that Firefox is best.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

For the Minimalists:

_Nutshell: the Opera_
Act 1: The first note
Act 2: The second note
Act 3: The first note


----------



## IgorS (Jan 7, 2018)

The Guardian is stupid - Opera


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Nobody gets in the way of Boris!


...that'd be Boris Not Good Enough, presumably.

Edit. I turned the page to see I'd been trumped, so to speak, by The Conte:



The Conte said:


> Boris (not)Goodenuff?


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Opera is dumb, I prefer Firefox


Is it copyrighted? We should wear shirts with it


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

The thread title reminds of the classic -

'God is dead' - Nietzsche.
'Nietzsche is dead' - God!


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

When an opera about is written some time in the future , it will be called "Infidelio ".


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

OOPS ! Should be "When an opera about Trump is written in the future it will be called "Infidelio ."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Perhaps an oblique point may be that "opera takes itself too seriously," as evidenced by die-hard Wagnerites who have zero tolerance for any criticism of it. Perhaps we should take a lesson from Rameau's comic operas.


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

All art forms take themselves seriously, and I'm not sure enthusiasts for any anything tolerate much criticism of avocations they love.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MaxKellerman said:


> All art forms take themselves seriously, and I'm not sure enthusiasts for any anything tolerate much criticism of avocations they love.


You're totally wrong on the first point, and admittedly unsure on the second.


----------



## MaxKellerman (Jun 4, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> You're totally wrong on the first point, and admittedly unsure on the second.


Do you tolerate criticisms of John Cage and let negative remarks on works like 4'33" go unchallenged?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MaxKellerman said:


> Do you tolerate criticisms of John Cage and let opinions on works like 4'33" go unchallenged?


Have you been reading the file on me? That's ancient history.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MaxKellerman said:


> Do you tolerate criticisms of John Cage and let negative remarks on works like 4'33" go unchallenged?


He tolerates no opposition of any kind. He just leaves his ivory tower to come down and troll people he can't win debates with, in this case opera lovers.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Perhaps an oblique point may be that "opera takes itself too seriously," as evidenced by die-hard Wagnerites who have zero tolerance for any criticism of it. Perhaps we should take a lesson from Rameau's comic operas.


but Wagner wrote no comic operas, except Die Meistersingers, so we take his seriously, except that one.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Absolutely true. The opera about the Trump regime will be the most ludicrous and incredible farce ever put upon the stage.


Until the tragic dénouement.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> He tolerates no opposition of any kind. He just leaves his ivory tower to come down and troll people he can't win debates with, in this case opera lovers.


You've got to admit that I made a good point. Opera, when it takes itself too seriously, is much like a person: they become tedious and predictable after a while.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> You've got to admit that I made a good point. Opera, when it takes itself too seriously, is much like a person: they become tedious and predictable after a while.


Nah, you just come across as a poor man's DavidA. Not a good look.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Byron said:


> Nah, you just come across as a poor man's DavidA. Not a good look.


No, you're wrong. This is a very good point I made, but you're afraid to discuss it, since Woodduck didn't give his seal of approval. As an outsider, I do not recognize these pecking orders.

Anyway, with a thread title like "Opera is Stupid," I found it hard to resist. Now, I'm not saying that opera is stupid; just that it takes itself too seriously.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

The article didn't make much sense to me because I watch opera for the music alone and don't usually bother to take the libretto all that seriously. I get a general understanding of the plot during an opera to help my understanding of the music, but that's about it. Many of the operas I love don't even have librettos written by the composer, so...

A question for the author of the article: Would opera be more or less stupid if it were only music? 

I (and, I suspect, a lot portion of music-lovers) wouldn't mind it one way or the other. I can understand the idea that knowing the plot allows the music itself to make more sense, but if I want to watch something with a good plot, I find an Arthur Miller or Oscar Wilde play. Or find a good film drama. Some musicals can have very interesting plots.

Opera isn't meant to be Shakespeare. Opera stars are singers first and actors second (the opposite can be said for players in musicals).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

chu42 said:


> ...I watch opera for the music alone and don't usually bother to read the libretto or take it all that seriously. A question for the author of the article: Would opera be more or less stupid if it were only music? I (and, I suspect, a lot portion of music-lovers) wouldn't mind it one way or the other. If I want to watch something with a good plot, I find an Arthur Miller or Oscar Wilde play. Or find a good film drama. Some musicals can have very interesting plots. Opera isn't meant to be Shakespeare. Opera stars are singers first and actors second (the opposite can be said for players in musicals).


So basically, what I take away from this, is that most "good" opera, if it's doing its intended job, is like a comic book. It has familiar clichés which make us feel comfortable, because of their comforting simple-minded nature.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Opera's strength is not so much in telling elaborate and interesting plots, but in poignantly distilling the emotions of a given dramatic situation. For that reason, unlike before seeing a movie or a play, I usually will read through a synopsis of an opera plot before I watch it, yet still gain a lot by following along with the action or reading the libretto as I listen. At its best, opera will take a simple plot and transfigure it, turning it into something incredibly beautiful and moving.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> So basically, what I take away from this, is that most "good" opera, if it's doing its intended job, is like a comic book. It has familiar clichés which make us feel comfortable, because of their comforting simple-minded nature.


Good opera has good music. A better plot can make a good opera great, but if I couldn't care less if the plot makes me "comfortable" as long as the music is good. And if the plot is amazing but the music is bland and trite, well...I'd consider it a waste of a good plot that should've gone straight to a movie or a stage play. I'm sure most people would agree that the most important factor to an opera's success is it's music.

The main point is: Good music doesn't need a good story to function, made evidenced by all the non-programmatic music out there. Good music can be heightened by a story but the core of an opera is still its music.

Now I wonder what the guys at the Guardian would think of Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Byron said:


> Nah, you just come across as a poor man's DavidA. Not a good look.


No he's just millionrainbows! Keep the cheap insults to yourself please! People only resort to insults when they haven't an argument.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please keep comments focused on the thread topic and not TC members - directly or indirectly.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> So basically, *what I take away from this,* is that most "good" opera, if it's doing its intended job, is like a comic book. It has familiar clichés which make us feel comfortable, because of their comforting simple-minded nature.


So insightful. 

Fortunately, good opera doing it's intended job is nothing like a comic book. Or are you referring only to "good" opera - whatever _that_ is. Something "like a comic book," presumably? Or maybe just something to make a derogatory remark about about.

Well, whatever you "take away from this," you can't take it far enough away from people who actually appreciate opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

chu42 said:


> Good opera has good music. A better plot can make a good opera great, but if I couldn't care less if the plot makes me "comfortable" as long as the music is good. And if the plot is amazing but the music is bland and trite, well...I'd consider it a waste of a good plot that should've gone straight to a movie or a stage play. I'm sure most people would agree that the most important factor to an opera's success is it's music.
> 
> The main point is: Good music doesn't need a good story to function, made evidenced by all the non-programmatic music out there. Good music can be heightened by a story but the core of an opera is still its music.


Yes. Music is the central expressive medium of opera. Wagner called opera "deeds of music made visible." A good opera must work as theater, and the best opera has dramatic integrity, but the power of music, vocal and instrumental, is opera's _raison d'etre. _ Great music can redeem a poor libretto, but the opposite is virtually impossible.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> So insightful.
> 
> Fortunately, good opera doing it's intended job is nothing like a comic book. Or are you referring only to "good" opera - whatever _that_ is. Something "like a comic book," presumably? Or maybe just something to make a derogatory remark about about


It's already been observed that opera "is not Shakespeare," and that its main reason is music, not plot, as long as it "works as theatre" and has "dramatic integrity." That sounds like the equivalent of a comic book or graphic novel (or even cinema), in which literary content is secondary to visuals. In opera's case, literary content is also secondary to visuals and to the music, according to you.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Opera without music would be a play and judged accordingly with entirely different expectations.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Larkenfield said:


> Opera without music would be a play and judged accordingly with entirely different expectations.


Exactly!!! By comic book standards!

The main reason I listen to opera, besides the overtures, is for the music which accompanies the dialogue-like singing: without rhythm, floating, directionless...very ambient. It has abrupt changes, too; just like Carl Stalling's music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> It's already been observed that opera "is not Shakespeare," and that its main reason is music, not plot, as long as it "works as theatre" and has "dramatic integrity." That sounds like the equivalent of a comic book or graphic novel (or even cinema), in which literary content is secondary to visuals. In opera's case, literary content is also secondary to visuals and to the music, according to you.


You're changing your original point. The statement to which I responded was:

_"'good' opera, if it's doing its intended job, is like a comic book. It has familiar clichés which make us feel comfortable, because of their comforting simple-minded nature."_

That statement misunderstands, and certainly diminishes, opera as art. Opera is less a species of literature than are comic books; in fact, an opera may be scarcely more literary than a ballet. A comic book actually is, primarily, literature, whether its artistic value as literature is substantial or negligible; its graphic content is there to tell a story, and it easily accommodates complex plotting and sophisticated dialogue. Opera is a variable combination of several arts, all of which are subordinate to and directed by music: literary values are generally best kept to a minimum so that music can achieve its best effect. That doesn't mean that it can't incorporate substantial literary content;_ Pelleas et Melisande,_ for example, is exceptional in setting Maeterlinck's symbolist play word for word. But, in general, it's best if opera plots provide easily intelligible situations and dialogue is minimized, with both elements tailored to facilitate, and stay out of the way of, musical expression. There's such a thing as the art of the librettist, and it isn't the mere pursuit of "simple-minded cliches."

The business about "familiar cliches" and our "simple-minded comfort" is just a slam against an art form, and has nothing to do with its essential nature, its artistic potential, or my enjoyment of it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You're changing your original point. The statement to which I responded was:
> 
> _"'good' opera, if it's doing its intended job, is like a comic book. It has familiar clichés which make us feel comfortable, because of their comforting simple-minded nature."_
> 
> That statement misunderstands, and certainly diminishes, opera as art. The business about "familiar cliches" and our "simple-minded comfort" is just a slam against an art form, and has nothing to do with its essential nature, its artistic potential, or my enjoyment of it.


I certainly don't see my statement that way. Perhaps a little more direct, refreshing simplicity would do opera lovers some good.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I certainly don't see my statement that way. Perhaps a little more direct, refreshing simplicity would do opera lovers some good.


Well of course. Refreshing simplicity. Sort of like Donald, Hughey, Dewey, Louie and Uncle Scrooge.

I'll need them next time I listen to _Wozzeck_ or _Parsifal._


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

what irks me is that some folks just won't understand that libretti do make sense and the music works tightly with them, and it was opera that contributed most to the development of music, it was opera hidden messages that lead to music gradually become more complicated and rich in sound.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> what irks me is that some folks just won't understand that libretti do make sense and the music works tightly with them, and *it was opera that contributed most to the development of music, it was opera hidden messages that lead to music gradually become more complicated and rich in sound.*


Thank you for that observation. Consider the operas of Monteverdi, Handel, Gluck, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss, et al., in which the requirements of musical drama were a tremendous stimulus to musical originality. Ideas thus inspired have greatly enriched the art of music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Well of course. Refreshing simplicity. Sort of like Donald, Hughey, Dewey, Louie and Uncle Scrooge.
> 
> I'll need them next time I listen to _Wozzeck_ or _Parsifal._


As usual: exaggerations, exceptions, gross distortions, errors.

CORRECTION: Huey, not "Hughey."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> what irks me is that some folks just won't understand that libretti do make sense and the music works tightly with them, and it was opera that contributed most to the development of music, it was opera hidden messages that lead to music gradually become more complicated and rich in sound.


That irks _me_. It was because of the _Greeks_ that music was used exclusively with dramatic action, not just opera.




Woodduck said:


> Thank you for that observation. Consider the operas of Monteverdi, Handel, Gluck, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Strauss, et al., in which the requirements of musical drama were a tremendous stimulus to musical originality. Ideas thus inspired have greatly enriched the art of music.


It was always "all together," starting with the Greeks. Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound. You act as if opera started it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> what irks me is that some folks just won't understand that libretti do make sense and the music works tightly with them, and it was opera that contributed most to the development of music, it was opera hidden messages that lead to music gradually become more complicated and rich in sound.


Proof of this sweeping statement please?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That irks _me_. It was because of the _Greeks_ that music was used exclusively with dramatic action, not just opera.
> 
> 
> It was always "all together," starting with the Greeks. Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound. You act as if opera started it.


Zhdanov makes a good point. It's obvious that he's talking about music in the modern West. Greek drama inspired the idea of opera from the Florentine Camerata to Wagner (his _Gesamtkunstwerk_), but that's not what's meant here.

Music is not all "dramatic gestures." Expressiveness is not drama.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> As usual: exaggerations, exceptions, gross distortions, errors.
> 
> CORRECTION: Huey, not "Hughey."


As usual, humorless pedantry.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Music is unique in the arts in that it's capable of bypassing the parts of our brain that are involved in processing reality as-it-is and goes straight towards stimulating the areas that are about pattern-finding, surprise, and all the emotions that can be elicited from that abstract process. As such, being untethered from direct representational reality, it also easily stirs our imaginations, which are similarly untethered from reality (or, at best, are distortions of our memories, reflections, and representations of reality). So when it comes to pairing music with a representational medium like drama, as in opera, it makes sense that the form that drama takes has much in common with imagination's distortions of reality rather than actual reality, especially when the music is still guiding us towards the underlying emotions of anything that might be happening in that drama. This is essentially saying that the only reason opera is "stupid" as drama is because human imagination and music is "stupid" as a means of accurately representing reality, namely in that neither does that at all. Rather, they're more about representing how reality feels to us, and the best opera captures in music and drama the way these situations feel, no matter how far removed they are from reality as-it-is. 

I've often heard the criticism of black-and-white films from average moviegoers that, well, we see in color, so why would you want to watch a film in black-and-white? The implication being that black-and-white lacks the ability to represent reality as it is. That may be so, but however much we see the world in color, we FEEL it in black-and-white. Why? Because black-and-white masterfully represents two polar opposites that combine to create a rich, gradated middle-ground between; and how much of life can be summed up as being two polar opposites connected by a mixed, middle ground? Opera is to reality as black-and-white films are to reality; both are about how we experience reality, rather than how reality factually is. Of course, there's also a tremendous artistry in being able to bring that aspect out, both in the realm of opera as musical drama, and in the realm of film direction and cinematography. It's not enough to merely present the situation in the drama itself--the libretto, the script--without the artistry that galvanizes it. 

The problem with most reality TV shows (I haven't seen the one in question, but I've seen similar) are that they are utterly lacking on both sides of the reality as-it-is and reality as-it-feels spectrum, as well as utterly bankrupt on the artistic spectrum. For one, they're marketed as "reality as-it-is," but as anyone who knows a bit about how such shows are actually put together, it's mostly manufactured drama that's simply not scripted the way traditional TV is. Producers put these situations together that they feel will naturally lead to the kind of hyped-up superficial dramas that are common in many people's lives. However, they're also not interested in "reality as-it-feels" either. There's no level of imagination or abstraction. So despite the fact that it's not realistic, it's not imaginative either. Artistry? There is none. The formula is that you get a group of volatile (often stupid, angry, jealous, selfish, etc.) people together, and then watch them fight with each other. Unlike opera or film, it triggers the parts of our brains that are obsessed with our (and others') tribal status: who's with whom, who's betraying whom, who's angry with whom, who's the alpha, who's the follower. It's the same kind of reason some people care about who celebrities are dating, or care about the latest gossip from neighbors. None of this has any of the abstract universality that the best opera or film can have. 

That opera (or film, or comics, or anything else) can have superficial similarities with reality TV means relatively little. At the most abstract, a good chunk of all of them are just about human relationships and people behaving badly. People who only notice such superficialities are the same kind of people who complain about a film having an unoriginal plot while ignoring that there's only a handful of basic "stories" to be told in all the arts. The issue, rather, is always about whether the actual art is able to bring out something more in whatever superficial material it's dealing with. The best opera does this. Reality TV has no artistry, at least none that I've ever seen. This doesn't mean reality TV can't be entertaining, and, at the end of the day, most operas and films are "just entertaining" too; but the best of the latter can be much more, and have been much more for many people. I've never heard of anyone say "my life was changed by a Reality TV show" (except maybe the stars of such shows), but people have spoken of opera and film that's had profound impacts on their life. If you want to be cynical and dismiss such people and their experiences, that's your prerogative, but nonetheless they exist, while reality TV just has its horde of mindless masses soaking up empty drama.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

In fact, there's nothing to prevent opera from being intellectually sophisticated. It can provoke deep thought, although not so much while we're watching and listening as afterward. Wagner, whose operas have provoked endless explorations of their meaning, said that he wanted his audiences to understand them through feeling, and called his operas "deeds of music made visible."

Where music is the dominant art, sensual and emotional responses dominate intellectual ones, but feelings have cognitive sources and implications which may be quite profound. Great musical drama is the product of a high form of intelligence. However, the nice thing about opera is that it can be enjoyed "stupidly" as well, which is fortunate since I haven't figured out what sort of intelligence is required to make sense of _Il Trovatore._


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> _Impeachment: the Opera_
> Act 1: Miraculous Birth
> Act 2: Trump Towers
> Act 3: Election & Scandals
> ...


While great, this post leaves out the perfect ending to this farce. A Götterdämmerung style, cataclysmic, all out WWIII, mushroom clouds everywhere, ending.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

lextune said:


> While great, this post leaves out the perfect ending to this farce. A Götterdämmerung style, cataclysmic, all out WWIII, mushroom clouds everywhere, ending.


Somewhere in this work I would like to see DT in mariachi gear singing _La Cucaracha_.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Zhdanov makes a good point. It's obvious that he's talking about music in the modern West. Greek drama inspired the idea of opera from the Florentine Camerata to Wagner (his _Gesamtkunstwerk_), but that's not what's meant here.
> 
> Music is not all "dramatic gestures." Expressiveness is not drama.


That irks me. It was because of the Greeks that music was used exclusively with dramatic action, not just opera.

It was always "all together," starting with the Greeks. Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound. You act as if opera started it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That irks me.


Don't be irked.



> It was because of the Greeks that music was used exclusively with dramatic action, not just opera.


Music was never used "exclusively" with dramatic action. People have danced and sung songs around the fire, at home and in the streets.



> It was always "all together," starting with the Greeks.


No it wasn't.



> Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound.


No it hasn't. It still isn't. It can be, that's all.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Don't be irked. No it wasn't. No it hasn't. It still isn't. It can be, that's all.


 It was because of the Greeks that music was used exclusively with dramatic action, not just opera. It was always "all together," starting with the Greeks. Music has not always been "dramatic gesture" in sound. The instrumental period came later, after the fires went out and Western music developed.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

PlaySalieri said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/09/opera-love-island-english-national-opera
> 
> just read this stuff
> 
> ...


I think that the suggestion that pop culture should take its cues from opera is unlikely to be taken up.

Also, "Fleabag" is a decent show--especially Season 2.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound.





millionrainbows said:


> Music has not always been "dramatic gesture" in sound.


I can't argue with that.

A most original strategy for always being right.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2019)

Previously, I read _The Guardian _article, but not the one from the _Evening Standard _on which it was based. Jeffries (Guardian) made more out of what Murphy had said than was necessary. Murphy's main point was that ENO are advertising for a new artistic director, and they will be searching for someone



> who clocks how outward-facing opera, and ENO, needs to be.Someone who watches Sky Arts and BBC4, and knows theatre, opera and dance? Sure. But it's healthy that they also watch or are aware of the pull of _I'm A Celebrity..._ and the Marvel films. Appointing the right person is essential to ensure that people will continue to talk about our work with the same passion, obsession and love as they do with _Fleabag_, _The Inheritance _and _Black Panther_. Get your applications in early.


Quite why he's advertising the vacancy in the _Evening Standard _I'm not quite sure, so perhaps all he really wanted to say is that



> It's beholden on the company, and on me as ENO's relatively new chief executive, to justify our public subsidy by reaching out to new people, young and old, of every background, to share the joy of opera. Last season 47 per cent of ENO's audience were first-time bookers. ENO's balancing act is to ensure that longstanding opera fans understand we also have to help newcomers feel at home.


Anyone getting their knickers in a twist about what either Murphy or Jeffries wrote might consider their hyperbolic response as somewhat operatic in itself.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Glitch.........


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I can't argue with that.
> 
> A most original strategy for always being right.


Out of context distortion.

"_Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound."--- referring to Western music since the Greeks.
_
"_Music has not always been "dramatic gesture" in sound."---referring to the rise of instrumental music in the concert hall, symphonic music, etc.
_
Woodduck once again demonstrates disinterest in serious discussion; only pranks like this.

Why don't you think about what you're saying before you reel off these condescending, inaccurate, out-of-context posts?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Out of context distortion.
> 
> Woodduck once again demonstrates disinterest in serious discussion; only pranks like this.
> 
> Why don't you think about what you're saying before you reel off these condescending, inaccurate, out-of-context posts?


Folks who can't laugh at their own foibles sometimes need a little help.

You're welcome.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> "_Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound."--- referring to Western music since the Greeks.
> _
> "_Music has not always been "dramatic gesture" in sound."---referring to the rise of instrumental music in the concert hall, symphonic music, etc.
> _


_"Music has always been 'dramatic gesture' in sound"_ is simply an untrue statement, either in the literal sense of "dramatic" (pertaining to the theater) or in the figurative sense of highly demonstrative expression.

Was that serious enough for you?


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Out of context distortion.
> 
> "_Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound."--- referring to Western music since the Greeks.
> _
> ...


I'm confused here, since "instrumental music in the concert hall, symphonic music etc." is a subset of "western music since the Greeks" how can the former not always have been something which the latter has always been. What am I missing?

N.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Conte said:


> I'm confused here, since "instrumental music in the concert hall, symphonic music etc." is a subset of "western music since the Greeks" how can the former not always have been something which the latter has always been. What am I missing?
> 
> N.


That's very logical! Too bad you can't acknowledge what I said. But you're not interested in discussing anything, are you? That "subset" idea is very clever!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> That's very logical! Too bad you can't acknowledge what I said. But you're not interested in discussing anything, are you? That "subset" idea is very clever!


The Conte has wittily outwitted you! Too bad _you_ can't acknowledge that what you said is incoherent and wrong.

You entered this thread, not to respond to the OP, but to troll people:



> Perhaps an oblique point may be that "opera takes itself too seriously," as evidenced by die-hard Wagnerites who have zero tolerance for any criticism of it.


Care to name names and give evidence?

This was followed by another unsupported statement:



> Opera, when it takes itself too seriously, is much like a person: they become tedious and predictable after a while.


Which "too serious" operas are tedious and predictable?

Then we have:



> So basically, what I take away from this, is that most "good" opera, if it's doing its intended job, is like a comic book. It has familiar clichés which make us feel comfortable, because of their comforting simple-minded nature.


No need to rehash how absurd - and insulting to both the art form and those who love it - that is.

Then:



> Perhaps a little more direct, refreshing simplicity would do opera lovers some good.


"Perhaps" is a classic way of putting lipstick on a pig.

Next:



> It was because of the Greeks that music was used exclusively with dramatic action, not just opera.


Of course music has never been used exclusively with dramatic action, by the Greeks or any other culture.

Then:



> Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound.


Of course it hasn't. After this was pointed out, you admitted nothing and repeated yourself exactly, post #78 being a duplication of post #70. Exposed, you repeated yourself exactly again in post #80, merely slipping the word "not" into "Music has not always been 'dramatic gesture' in sound," apparently hoping that no one would notice! Unfortunately, we noticed.

Exposed twice, and still unwilling to admit you're wrong, all you can do now is accuse people of playing "pranks" and "demonstrating disinterest in serious discussion" and "reeling off condescending, inaccurate, out-of-context posts."

Fine examples of "serious discussion," rainbows.

Maybe the following (post #63) is a good indication that opera isn't your forte:



> The main reason I listen to opera, besides the overtures, is for the music which accompanies the dialogue-like singing: without rhythm, floating, directionless...very ambient. It has abrupt changes, too; just like Carl Stalling's music.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> That's very logical! Too bad you can't acknowledge what I said. But you're not interested in discussing anything, are you? That "subset" idea is very clever!


No, I'm honestly trying to understand what you said. I agree it's too bad that I can't acknowledge it, but is it possible to acknowledge something you don't understand in the first place?

N.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Greeks used music exclusively as accompaniment to drama. In the nineteenth century, instrumental music was on the rise, played in the same stages, and people just sat there. Is that so hard to understand? Stop being so "blonde."


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Stop being so "blonde."


Stop being so sexist.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The Greeks used music exclusively as accompaniment to drama.


"The music of ancient Greece was almost universally present in ancient Greek society, from marriages, funerals, and religious ceremonies to theatre, folk music, and the ballad-like reciting of epic poetry. It thus played an integral role in the lives of ancient Greeks. There are significant fragments of actual Greek musical notation, as well as many literary references to ancient Greek music, such that some things can be known-or reasonably surmised-about what the music sounded like, the general role of music in society, the economics of music, the importance of a professional caste of musicians, etc. Even archaeological remains reveal an abundance of depictions on ceramics, for example, of music being performed. " (Wikipedia)

The ancient Greeks made music for all sorts of occasions and functions. Wiki states this in summary fashion, but more detailed information is available.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Drama" as I use it means any kind of action which music can accompany, which also includes ceremonies, etc. But aren't we talking about the "classical" forms? Your WIK description could include informal "folk" music, wandering lyre players, almost anything. How does that pertain to opera?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> "Drama" as I use it means any kind of action which music can accompany . . .


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." --Lewis Carroll, _Through the Looking-Glass_


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

It's not drama, it's diorama, meaning "two rama", and a rama is clearly anything, so music is 1 and anything is 1 so that means drama = anything accompanied by music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> The Greeks used music exclusively as accompaniment to drama.


But not to anything else...



> "Drama" as I use it means any kind of action which music can accompany.


Right. It doesn't mean actions that music _can't_ accompany, such as ...uh...um...ah...



> Music has always been "dramatic gesture" in sound.
> 
> Music has _*not*_ always been "dramatic gesture" in sound.


And don't you forget it!



> Woodduck once again demonstrates disinterest in serious discussion; only pranks like this.
> 
> Why don't you think about what you're saying before you reel off these condescending, inaccurate, out-of-context posts?


OK, I'm thinking about saying this before reeling it off...

"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Every opera we see / hear requires a willing suspension of disbelief more or less:

That people do the illogical thing of singing conversations rather than speaking them
That they are accompanied by an orchestra
That they are actually often a lot older than the part they are playing and sadly sometimes look nothing like we would imagine
Often operas go on far longer than even music loving people can take.

These are the challenges opera makes on us and is why quite a few of my friends can't get on with it as an art form. Can you blame them? They are logical people after all!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Every opera we see / hear requires a willing suspension of disbelief more or less:
> 
> That people do the illogical thing of singing conversations rather than speaking them
> That they are accompanied by an orchestra
> ...


All of these so-called arguments for the illogicality of opera are incorrect and, in fact, illogical. *Logic is the study and practice of the principles of correct thinking.* Artistic stylization has nothing to do with logic. Your fallacious assertion that it has, does.

Singing, as stylized speech, is not a violation of logic. 
Orchestral accompaniment of singing is not a violation of logic.
Casting a singer who looks older than the character he plays is not a violation of logic.
The length of an opera is not a violation of logic. If you're tired before act four, that's just too bad.

Your friends may be logical people, but based on this post, you are not.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Opera _should_ be stupid, as this Rameau piece demonstrates. The more absurd, illogical, and unrealistic, the better.











See it on mushrooms, definitely!


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Every opera we see / hear requires a willing suspension of disbelief more or less:
> 
> That people do the illogical thing of singing conversations rather than speaking them
> That they are accompanied by an orchestra
> ...


Could we not say the same thing about any artform?

Every painting we see requires a willing suspension of disbelief more or less:

That time stops and stands still rather than continuing and at some point there being a change.

Every book we read, every play we see:

That I know the intimate thoughts of Mrs Dalloway, Elizabeth Bennet and Hamlet and yet I can't phone them to have a chat.

Etc. etc.

N.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Opera _should_ be stupid, as this Rameau piece demonstrates. The more absurd, illogical, and unrealistic, the better.
> 
> See it on mushrooms, definitely!


The Rameau excerpt you posted only demonstrates that opera _can_ be stupid, however it can quite clearly also be tragic, dramatic, convincing, amazing, serious, hilarious, philosophical, funny, moving, touching, awe inspiring and/or thought inducing not to mention a whole host of other things. (You Tube excerpts to demonstrate that this is so are available on reasonable request.)

N.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Conte said:


> The Rameau excerpt you posted only demonstrates that opera _can_ be stupid, however it can quite clearly also be tragic, dramatic, convincing, amazing, serious, hilarious, philosophical, funny, moving, touching, awe inspiring and/or thought inducing not to mention a whole host of other things. (You Tube excerpts to demonstrate that this is so are available on reasonable request.)
> 
> N.


Art: artifice

I understand what you're saying, but I'm concentrating on the absurd and illogical, i.e. "stupid" in deference to the thread title...Maderna's Satyricon is a modern example. Glass?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Every opera we see / hear requires a willing suspension of disbelief more or less:
> That people do the illogical thing of singing conversations rather than speaking them
> That they are accompanied by an orchestra
> That they are actually often a lot older than the part they are playing and sadly sometimes look nothing like we would imagine
> Often operas go on far longer than even music loving people can take.


negligible.



DavidA said:


> people do the illogical thing of singing conversations rather than speaking them


singing is more relevant for music theatre.



DavidA said:


> they are accompanied by an orchestra


and what's wrong about it?



DavidA said:


> they are actually often a lot older than the part they are playing


acceptable, as long as the vocals sound youthful.



DavidA said:


> sadly sometimes look nothing like we would imagine


same about so many things in the world...



DavidA said:


> operas go on far longer than even music loving people can take.


even life can go on longer than some can take...



DavidA said:


> Can you blame them?


yes, i can.



DavidA said:


> They are logical people after all!


unenlightened, to put it straight.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Opera _should_ be stupid, as this Rameau piece demonstrates.


his opera 'Platee' demonstrates only that one of its characters being stupid, namely Platee.

but if we take his 'Les Indes Gallantes' - everyone is intelligent in there.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> his opera 'Platee' demonstrates only that one of its characters being stupid, namely Platee.
> 
> but if we take his 'Les Indes Gallantes' - everyone is intelligent in there.


So you found an exception. I guess that proves that my statements are not definitive, but only examples. All in all, I think opera is taken too seriously.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> So you found an exception. I guess that proves that my statements are not definitive, but only examples. All in all, I think opera is taken too seriously.


As if an exception to a falsehood were needed to prove that your statements are not definitive... 

How is anyone's seriousness about opera, or anything else, any concern of yours? Who are you to judge anyone else's level of interest? You ought to get together with DavidA, who's been spouting the same horse manure here for years.

I consider opera a serious art form. So did Beethoven, Verdi, Wagner, Strauss, Berg, Britten, et al. I'm sure that if you told them that opera was taken too seriously they would say things to you that I'm not permitted to say on this forum.

Consider those things said.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I consider opera a serious art form. So did Beethoven, Verdi, Wagner, Strauss, Berg, Britten, et al. I'm sure that if you told them that opera was taken too seriously they would say things to you that I'm not permitted to say on this forum.


I suspect they wouldn't have replied at all. They were too busy . . . you know . . . taking opera seriously.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

amfortas said:


> I suspect they wouldn't have replied at all. They were too busy . . . you know . . . taking opera seriously.


Oh, I think Wagner would have had a lot to say in response, he usually did! 

Or perhaps he would have written an opera about it!

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> I suspect they wouldn't have replied at all. They were too busy . . . you know . . . taking opera seriously.


Of course they were taking it seriously. They were composing it. And selling it to people who thought it was serious! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Oh, I think Wagner would have had a lot to say in response, he usually did!
> 
> Or perhaps he would have written an opera about it!
> 
> N.


I believe he used to bang his stick on the floor if he felt he wasn't being paid enough attention to in a conversation! I must try it some time with my wife. She might hit me over the head with it! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Just listening to Don Giovanni. Hands up if you take Leporello’s catalogue aria seriously?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Just listening to Don Giovanni. Hands up if you take Leporello's catalogue aria seriously?


Ummm... It's a comedy, David.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Just listening to Don Giovanni. Hands up if you take Leporello's catalogue aria seriously?


Since I have studied the aria as a singer my hand goes up. It's a difficult sing and not easy to make interesting without overplaying the irony. There are some interesting questions one might ask about that moment in the opera as well. Is Leporello trying to turn Elvira off Giovanni? Is he exaggerating the Don's exploits? Does he admire his behaviour (envy him, perhaps?) Or is he explaining what a dog he is to her? Is it just one long chat up line to her?

By the way, it seems odd for someone who has been very appreciative of the way Mozart's music expresses the thoughts and feelings of the characters in his operas now saying that we shouldn't take his work so seriously.

If you laugh at Leporello's one liners does it mean you aren't taking the opera seriously? Surely taking it seriously on one level includes investing in the theatrical nature of the work, whether that be comic or tragic.

N.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Just listening to Don Giovanni.


by coincedence, just finished, this production -








DavidA said:


> Hands up if you take Leporello's catalogue aria seriously?


i do, and the matters presented in there are truly serious, for the talk is about someone who treats maids no different than noble ladies, so promiscuous he is (an offensive thing to declare, by the standards of the time).

and lest we forget the finale -


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> Since I have studied the aria as a singer my hand goes up. It's a difficult sing and not easy to make interesting without overplaying the irony. There are some interesting questions one might ask about that moment in the opera as well. Is Leporello trying to turn Elvira off Giovanni? Is he exaggerating the Don's exploits? Does he admire his behaviour (envy him, perhaps?) Or is he explaining what a dog he is to her? Is it just one long chat up line to her?
> 
> By the way, it seems odd for someone who has been very appreciative of the way Mozart's music expresses the thoughts and feelings of the characters in his operas now saying that we shouldn't take his work so seriously.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that David doesn't even have a working definition of "serious," much less a recognition that words have various definitions. Whatever you or I say, it will fly right past him and he'll just go on yakking. Maybe his wife will read post #112 and give that stick thing a try.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Since I have studied the aria as a singer my hand goes up. It's a difficult sing and not easy to make interesting without overplaying the irony. There are some interesting questions one might ask about that moment in the opera as well. Is Leporello trying to turn Elvira off Giovanni? Is he exaggerating the Don's exploits? Does he admire his behaviour (envy him, perhaps?) Or is he explaining what a dog he is to her? Is it just one long chat up line to her?
> 
> By the way, it seems odd for someone who has been very appreciative of the way Mozart's music expresses the thoughts and feelings of the characters in his operas now saying that we shouldn't take his work so seriously.
> 
> ...


You are completely missing the point of course that I was making. Da Ponte's libretto was billed as a dramma giocoso, a common designation of its time that denotes a mixing of serious and comic action. Mozart entered the work into his catalogue as an opera buffa. Although sometimes classified as comic, it blends comedy, melodrama and supernatural elements. The catalogue aria is a brilliant composition but is clearly not meant to be taken seriously in a po-faced fashion as if it had some great philosophical meaning. Opera is wonderful entertainment - Mozart meant it as nothing else.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The catalogue aria is a brilliant composition but is *clearly* not meant to be taken seriously in a po-faced fashion as if it had some great philosophical meaning.


So clearly, in fact, that you could not possibly have thought that anyone would hear it po-faced or attribute great philosophical meaning to it. Why, then, ask for a show of hands by those who would take it seriously?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Zhdanov said:


> by coincedence, just finished, this production -


Hmmm, why is that in color but my DVD is black-and-white?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Hmmm, why is that in color but my DVD is black-and-white?


I've no idea. I remember seeing it in the cinema when I was young and it was definitely in colour.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Just listening to Don Giovanni. Hands up if you take Leporello's catalogue aria seriously?


Just listening to Wozzeck. Hands up if you think the whole thing is a jolly romp.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Just listening to Wozzeck. Hands up if you think the whole thing is a jolly romp.


I would say it is a bit light on gags! :lol:

On the other hand I feel it is a bit light on entertainment as well. Rather like lying on a bed of nails! Reminds me of how a friend of mine took his wife to the theatre to see Miller's "Death of a Salesman" for their wedding anniversary treat. She said when she came out she felt like throwing herself into the river! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I've no idea. I remember seeing it in the cinema when I was young and it was definitely in colour.


It will have been coloured after it was made.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Hmmm, why is that in color but my DVD is black-and-white?


According to IMDB, it was shot in colour.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0186968/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_52


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> It will have been coloured after it was made.


But would it? It's not as if colour film was something new in 1954. Anyway I would have only been around 13 when I saw it in the cinema, which would have been in the 1960s. I don't think they were colourising black and white movies back then.

Just seen MacLeod's post above. It was shot in colour, as I suspected.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I would say it is a bit light on gags! :lol:
> 
> On the other hand I feel it is a bit light on entertainment as well. Rather like lying on a bed of nails! Reminds me of how a friend of mine took his wife to the theatre to see Miller's "Death of a Salesman" for their wedding anniversary treat. She said when she came out she felt like throwing herself into the river! :lol:


At least it got a reaction! :lol:

Incidentally, haven't you just contradicted your own assertion here that the performing arts are mere entertainment?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> At least it got a reaction! :lol:
> 
> Incidentally, haven't you just contradicted your own assertion here that the performing arts are mere entertainment?


I didn't say mere entertainment. Please don't make things up. I consider a Mozart opera a very high level of entertainment that I am privileged to hear. I didn't go and see the broadcast of Lulu from the Met as i doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I didn't say mere entertainment. Please don't make things up. I consider a Mozart opera a very high level of entertainment that I am privileged to hear. I didn't go and see the broadcast of Lulu from the Met as i doesn't appeal to me.


Maybe you didn't use the word "mere" but the inference has been pretty evident from many of your posts. Maybe we are all misunderstanding you, but you quite often make statements to the effect that opera should not be taken seriously.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> Maybe you didn't use the word "mere" but the inference has been pretty evident from many of your posts. Maybe we are all misunderstanding you, but you quite often make statements to the effect that opera should not be taken seriously.


Sorry mate, but the inference is entirely yours. You need to take statements as read not the inference you put on them.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate, but the inference is entirely yours. You need to take statements as read not the inference you put on them.


I am not your "mate", so it is wrong for you to imply that I am. I doubt the inference is entirely mine though. Maybe others can back me up?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I am not your "mate", so it is wrong for you to imply that I am. I doubt the inference is entirely mine though. Maybe others can back me up?


Great! I see the spirit of friendship is abroad in TC. :lol:

They can back you up all they like. I know what I meant! For goodness sake, what are you trying to prove? What are you so insecure about`?


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Great! I see the spirit of friendship is abroad in TC. :lol:
> 
> They can back you up all they like. I know what I meant! For goodness sake, what are you trying to prove? What are you so insecure about`?


I'm not insecure about anything, David. Amused if anything.


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Opera is wonderful entertainment - Mozart meant it as nothing else.


Well...what else could he have meant it to be? What else might some of his audience have taken it to be?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think opera, generally speaking, is skewed towards the "serious" and "Tragic" side of things. Wagner's operas are the best examples. Wagner took himself so seriously that it becomes suspect. Why does he take himself so seriously?

"Entertainment" must contain some element of comedy for it to be palatable to a large, normal audience. When it's too serious, as in Wagner, it begins to attract fanatics, flies, and weirdo-specialists.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I'm not insecure about anything, David. Amused if anything.


Not half so amused as I am!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Not half so amused as I am!


At this point in this stupid conversation - far stupider than any opera, even _Cosi fan tutte_ ut: - I'm so amused, it isn't even funny.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I think opera, generally speaking, is skewed towards the "serious" and "Tragic" side of things.


and that's why we love it.



millionrainbows said:


> Why does he take himself so seriously?


does have a right to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Leave it to Verdi

Or Leoncavallo


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I've no idea. I remember seeing it in the cinema when I was young and it was definitely in colour.





MacLeod said:


> According to IMDB, it was shot in colour.
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0186968/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_52


Very curious indeed. It makes almost no sense why something shot in color would be released on DVD in black-and-white, and it makes slightly less sense why they would've bothered coloring an opera concert (of all things!) back in the 60s. I'm tempted to start a new thread about this and see if anyone else can shed light on this, especially given that's probably my favorite performance of the work (well, it's up there with a handful of others; for such a popular opera, I don't feel Don G. has a great track record on DVD or CD).


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Very curious indeed. It makes almost no sense why something shot in color would be released on DVD in black-and-white, and it makes slightly less sense why they would've bothered coloring an opera concert (of all things!) back in the 60s. I'm tempted to start a new thread about this and see if anyone else can shed light on this, especially given that's probably my favorite performance of the work (well, it's up there with a handful of others; for such a popular opera, I don't feel Don G. has a great track record on DVD or CD).


It might have something to do with the edition you have. I'm not very technically minded but I seem to remember French SECAM editions playing in black and white on a Pal TV/DVD player.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Tsaraslondon said:


> It might have something to do with the edition you have. I'm not very technically minded but I seem to remember French SECAM editions playing in black and white on a Pal TV/DVD player.


That could very well be it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Entertainment" must contain some element of comedy for it to be palatable to a large, normal audience. When it's too serious, as in Wagner, it begins to fail.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> "Entertainment" must contain some element of comedy for it to be palatable to a large, normal audience. When it's too serious, as in Wagner, it begins to fail.


The VERY large audiences who sell out opera houses worldwide when Wagner's works are mounted are perfectly "normal."

Perhaps you're thinking of normal TV audiences?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> "Entertainment" must contain some element of comedy for it to be palatable to a large, normal audience. When it's too serious, as in Wagner, it begins to fail.


"I love Italian opera - it's so reckless. Damn Wagner and his bellowing at Fate and death.....I like the Italians who run all on impulse, and don't care about their immortal souls, and don't worry about the ultimate." (D H Lawrence)


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> "I love Italian opera - it's so reckless. Damn Wagner and his bellowing at Fate and death.....I like the Italians who run all on impulse, and don't care about their immortal souls, and don't worry about the ultimate." (D H Lawrence)


_"...because i'm stupid."_


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> "Entertainment" must contain some element of comedy for it to be palatable to a large, normal audience. When it's too serious, as in Wagner, it begins to fail.


Odd. I don't remember too much comedy in _Titanic_, _Dr Zhivago, Avatar, Gone With The Wind_...

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> _"...because i'm stupid."_


Well, you said it yourself!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Odd. I don't remember too much comedy in _Titanic_, _Dr Zhivago, Avatar, Gone With The Wind_...
> 
> https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm


I don't remember too much entertainment in Any of them apart from Gone with the Wind!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The VERY large audiences who sell out opera houses worldwide when Wagner's works are mounted are perfectly "normal." Perhaps you're thinking of normal TV audiences?


I disagree. They're not "normal." They're Wagnerites. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> I don't remember too much entertainment in Any of them apart from Gone with the Wind!


Yeah, where he said "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!":lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree. They're not "normal." They're Wagnerites. :lol:


If thinkers the calibre of you and DavidA are judges of what's "normal," abnormality looks all the more attractive.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> If thinkers the calibre of you and DavidA are judges of what's "normal," abnormality looks all the more attractive.


If entertainment is what it is all about (otherwise you are 'taking it too seriously') and you need jokes to be entertaining, then I'm not being entertained by DavidA and Millionrainbows. Are they taking this thread too seriously?

N.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> If entertainment is what it is all about (otherwise you are 'taking it too seriously') and you need jokes to be entertaining, then I'm not being entertained by DavidA and Millionrainbows. Are they taking this thread too seriously?
> 
> N.


Nah. They just like to annoy people. Especially people who appreciate Wagner. Especially me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2019)

DavidA said:


> I don't remember too much entertainment in Any of them apart from Gone with the Wind!


Hoho.  Fortunately the validity of my point doesn't depend on what you find entertaining.



millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, where he said "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!":lol:


Just acknowledge that the general public doesn't require "entertainment" to contain comedy. Thank you.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

'If thinkers the calibre of you and DavidA are judges of what's "normal," abnormality looks all the more attractive.'

So you are saying that opera - where people sing instead of speak - is normal? What a funny world you live in! No wonder you take a long time to have a conversation! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Hoho.  Fortunately the validity of my point doesn't depend on what you find entertaining.
> 
> Just acknowledge that the *general public doesn't require "entertainment" to contain comedy.* Thank you.


Like the line in Rosencransz and Guildrenstern and dead: "Of course not. All they want is lust, sex and violence - and no jokes!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> 'If thinkers the calibre of you and DavidA are judges of what's "normal," abnormality looks all the more attractive.'
> 
> So you are saying that opera - where people sing instead of speak - is normal? What a funny world you live in! No wonder you take a long time to have a conversation! :lol:


Of course opera is normal. It's art. Art is a normal human activity. It always has been. It's no more abnormal for dialogue to be sung than for two-dimensional hunters to chase buffaloes and gazelles across the walls of dark underground caves where they can be seen only by torchlight.

I can just imagine a stone age DavidA looking at the exquisite animal renderings by his fellow troglodytes and giggling that the whole business was unnatural because animals painted on rock were inedible.

That's not hard to imagine, actually...


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> So you are saying that opera - where people sing instead of speak - is normal?


perfectly normal, and why should they speak in a music domain?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

So we have to invoke Stone Age troglodytes to try and justify ourselves! Now I’ve heard everything!:lol:

The fact is if our troglodytes had any sense of humour they would know that opera should be able to laugh at itself. Have a look at the book Great Operatic Disasters so we all learn not to take it (and ourselves) too seriously .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> So we have to invoke Stone Age troglodytes to try and justify ourselves! Now I've heard everything!:lol:
> 
> The fact is if our troglodytes had any sense of humour they would know that opera should be able to laugh at itself. Have a look at the book Great Operatic Disasters so we all learn not to take it (and ourselves) too seriously .


Well, no one here is going to take YOU seriously, so I do hope you're finding some satisfaction in that. Meanwhile, we will all take opera however we wish, so you may as well stop flooding this forum with nonsense.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Of course opera is normal. It's art. Art is a normal human activity. It always has been. It's no more abnormal for dialogue to be sung than for two-dimensional hunters to chase buffaloes and gazelles across the walls of dark underground caves where they can be seen only by torchlight.
> 
> I can just imagine a stone age DavidA looking at the exquisite animal renderings by his fellow troglodytes and giggling that the whole business was unnatural because animals painted on rock were inedible.
> 
> That's not hard to imagine, actually...


Stone age DavidA would probably be complaining that they weren't entertaining like the hilarious painted phalluses on the opposite wall.

N.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Conte said:


> Stone age DavidA would probably be complaining that they weren't entertaining like the hilarious *painted phalluses on the opposite wall*.
> 
> N.


Oh dear, have we became that desperate of things to say? You are soooo predictable! You ought to direct Regietheatre! (Together with dear old Wooduck of course!) :lol:


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Well, no one here is going to take YOU seriously, so I do hope you're finding some satisfaction in that. Meanwhile, we will all take opera however we wish, so you may as well stop flooding this forum with nonsense.


You were forgetting to add this smiley......:lol:

I find much hidden agression in many posts here,not particular in yours.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bourdon said:


> You were forgetting to add this smiley......:lol:
> 
> I find much hidden agression in many posts here,not particular in yours.


Hidden aggression? Mine is overt! I don't play games. "One may smile and smile and be a troll." (Shakespeare: _Hamlet_ [ed. Woodduck])


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Hidden aggression? Mine is overt! I don't play games. "One may smile and smile and be a troll." (Shakespeare: _Hamlet_ [ed. Woodduck])


You are right but the remark was not meant for you .I think you misunderstood me, what I was trying to say was meant to be sarcastic. There are many spiky remarks here with a strong aggressive undertone.
Read through the posts and you will see what I mean. Add a smiley and you can behave in an uncivilized way, well that is my opinion and one of the reasons that I stay away from this kind of exchanges whether intentionally funny or not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bourdon said:


> You are right but the remark was not meant for you .I think you misunderstood me, what I was trying to say was meant to be sarcastic. There are many spiky remarks here with a strong aggressive undertone.
> Read through the posts and you will see what I mean. Add a smiley and you can behave in an uncivilized way, well that is my opinion and one of the reasons that I stay away from this kind of exchanges whether intentionally funny or not.


Hidden aggression? None so subtle! Expert unintentional humour though!:lol:

Does remind me of a review I read of Andre Chernier with Corelli: "All the subtlety of a pneumatic drill!" So good company! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bourdon said:


> You are right but the remark was not meant for you .I think you misunderstood me, what I was trying to say was meant to be sarcastic. There are many spiky remarks here with a strong aggressive undertone.
> Read through the posts and you will see what I mean. Add a smiley and you can behave in an uncivilized way, well that is my opinion and one of the reasons that I stay away from this kind of exchanges whether intentionally funny or not.


There's plenty of "spikiness" on the forum. Unfortunately, in the case of this thread the very title of it is an irresistible invitation to those who get their kicks out of dropping "subversive" opinions and sewing mayhem. What's most frustrating is that some of these professional disruptors won't back off even when their illogic and their manipulative games have been exposed, but return again and again to spout the same horse pucky behind a wall of evasions, coy insinuations, and smiley faces. Why they're allowed to corrupt discussion after discussion with their foolery when a majority of members would be happy to see them gone is an eternal mystery. How much of it we can tolerate, and whether we choose to ignore it or fight back, is your choice and mine.


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

DavidA said:


> Hidden aggression? None so subtle! Expert unintentional humour though!:lol:
> 
> Does remind me of a review I read of Andre Chernier with Corelli: "All the subtlety of a pneumatic drill!" So good company! :lol:


Well,some remarks may have the same effect as a pneumatic drill,let's leave it to that.:lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bourdon said:


> Well,some remarks may have the same effect as a pneumatic drill,let's leave it to that.:lol:


Just do the sensible thing and put the mufflers on! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> There's plenty of "spikiness" on the forum. Unfortunately, in the case of this thread the very title of it is an irresistible invitation to those who get their kicks out of dropping "subversive" opinions and sewing mayhem. What's most frustrating is that some of these professional disruptors won't back off even when their illogic and their manipulative games have been exposed, but return again and again to spout the same horse pucky behind a wall of evasions, coy insinuations, and smiley faces. Why they're allowed to corrupt discussion after discussion with their foolery when a majority of members would be happy to see them gone is an eternal mystery. How much of it we can tolerate, and whether we choose to ignore it or fight back, is your choice and mine.


Well, I'm sorry if I've offended you, Woodduck.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> So you are saying that opera - where people sing instead of speak - is normal? What a funny world you live in! No wonder you take a long time to have a conversation! :lol:


So you're saying Greek tragedies -- where gods involved themselves directly in the lives of men -- is normal? So you're saying poetry/classic drama -- where people speak in rhyme and/or meter -- is normal? So you're saying film -- where we see characters through a camera that they never acknowledge exists -- is normal? So you're saying painting -- where images of people and events are frozen eternally in time -- is normal?

No art is "normal" if this is the ludicrous standard you're using for normalcy.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So you're saying Greek tragedies -- where gods involved themselves directly in the lives of men -- is normal?


According to this well-known book, it was not only "normal" in the times of the Greeks, it was a literal truth. Julian Jaynes founded a whole school of historical supposition as well as a cottage industry of impenetrable books on his theories.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> According to this well-known book, it was not only "normal" in the times of the Greeks, it was a literal truth. Julian Jaynes founded a whole school of historical supposition as well as a cottage industry of impenetrable books on his theories.


I think it's a trend that's coming back around.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So you're saying Greek tragedies -- where gods involved themselves directly in the lives of men -- is normal? So you're saying poetry/classic drama -- where people speak in rhyme and/or meter -- is normal? So you're saying film -- where we see characters through a camera that they never acknowledge exists -- is normal? So you're saying painting -- where images of people and events are frozen eternally in time -- is normal?
> 
> No art is "normal" if this is the ludicrous standard you're using for normalcy.


Where did I say art was normal? You have a talent for misquoting. The fact we love it is because it takes us out of the normal.


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

This thread is stupid...

N.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Where did I say art was normal? You have a talent for misquoting. The fact we love it is because it takes us out of the normal.


OK, so all art is abnormal (according to you). So doesn't it seem strange to call such a common and universal human endeavor "abnormal?" Further, even if it is "abnormal," why should that prevent us from taking it seriously?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Conte said:


> This thread is stupid...
> 
> N.


And abnormal. Or is it normal, and everything else abnormal? Or are we too abnormal, or normal, to tell the difference? If there is a difference...

It all makes me want to go live in Montsalvat or Nibelheim, where the music never stops and everyone sings everything and life makes sense.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> OK, so all art is abnormal (according to you). So doesn't it seem strange to call such a common and universal human endeavor "abnormal?" Further, even if it is "abnormal," why should that prevent us from taking it seriously?


You can take it seriously if you like. There are other things in my life I take seriously - my family, friends, job, faith, etc.. Opera is just a relaxation. If I start taking it seriously then the enjoyment does. I let the people who produce it take it seriously. The paintings that hang from my wall I enjoy - I don't take them seriously. That was the job of the artist. His job was to produce art for my enjoyment. Like cricket. I enjoy watching it but don't take it seriously. That is for the players. If people want to take things like this seriously then fine. But I have far more important things in life.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You can take it seriously if you like. There are other things in my life I take seriously - my family, friends, job, faith, etc.. Opera is just a relaxation. If I start taking it seriously then the enjoyment does. I let the people who produce it take it seriously. The paintings that hang from my wall I enjoy - I don't take them seriously. That was the job of the artist. His job was to produce art for my enjoyment. Like cricket. I enjoy watching it but don't take it seriously. That is for the players. If people want to take things like this seriously then fine. But I have far more important things in life.


From your persistence and repetitiousness in telling people what you're not serious about, you seem on a serious mission to ensure that others know that you don't take seriously subjects in which they have a serious interest. Why you'd take so much time out of your day hanging out here, arguing strenuously about things you don't take seriously, is a serious head-scratcher. Seriously now, don't you need to attend to more serious concerns?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Like cricket. I enjoy watching it but don't take it seriously. That is for the players. If people want to take things like this seriously then fine. But I have far more important things in life.


In all seriousness, for your personal safety you might want to be careful about the company you keep when voicing such ideas--I worry that many cricket aficionados wouldn't take kindly to this sort of comment.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> In all seriousness, for your personal safety you might want to be careful about the company you keep when voicing such ideas--I worry that many cricket aficionados wouldn't take kindly to this sort of comment.


At least he hasn't said he doesn't take crossbow hunting seriously.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> You can take it seriously if you like. There are other things in my life I take seriously - my family, friends, job, faith, etc.. Opera is just a relaxation. If I start taking it seriously then the enjoyment does. I let the people who produce it take it seriously. The paintings that hang from my wall I enjoy - I don't take them seriously. That was the job of the artist. His job was to produce art for my enjoyment. Like cricket. I enjoy watching it but don't take it seriously. That is for the players. If people want to take things like this seriously then fine. But I have far more important things in life.


If you start taking opera seriously, the enjoyment dies? But you take your family, friends, faith, etc. seriously. Does that prevent you from enjoying *them*?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> From your persistence and repetitiousness in telling people what you're not serious about, you seem on a serious mission to ensure that others know that you don't take seriously subjects in which they have a serious interest. Why you'd take so much time out of your day hanging out here, arguing strenuously about things you don't take seriously, is a serious head-scratcher. Seriously now, don't you need to attend to more serious concerns?


It's impossible to read all these "seriousness"es without hearing Heath Ledger's Joker in my head:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> You can take it seriously if you like. There are other things in my life I take seriously - my family, friends, job, faith, etc.. Opera is just a relaxation. If I start taking it seriously then the enjoyment does. I let the people who produce it take it seriously. The paintings that hang from my wall I enjoy - I don't take them seriously. That was the job of the artist. His job was to produce art for my enjoyment. Like cricket. I enjoy watching it but don't take it seriously. That is for the players. If people want to take things like this seriously then fine. But I have far more important things in life.


I take my family and friends more seriously than opera, as does any sane person. I take my job less seriously because I only do it in order to survive and fund my passions. Faith I can't take seriously at all; if anything, it's rather comical that grown people take mythology so seriously they think it's literally true. Most faith is just the world's most serious book club. At least opera lovers realize that what they're taking seriously isn't literally real/true.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> At least opera lovers realize that what they're taking seriously isn't literally real/true.


A decidedly serious opera composer on literalness: "One might say that where religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for art to save the spirit of religion by recognizing the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth."


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I take my family and friends more seriously than opera, as does any sane person. I take my job less seriously because I only do it in order to survive and fund my passions. *Faith I can't take seriously at all; if anything, it's rather comical that grown people take mythology so seriously they think it's literally true.* Most faith is just the world's most serious book club. At least opera lovers realize that what they're taking seriously isn't literally real/true.


I always think it comical that people like you can make uninformed value judgments about other people's faith without knowing anything about it. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I always think it comical that people like you can make uninformed value judgments about other people's faith without knowing anything about it. :lol:


I always find the expression "people like you" comical. It's brimming with uninformed judgments of people one knows nothing about.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> In all seriousness, for your personal safety you might want to be careful about the company you keep when voicing such ideas--I worry that many cricket aficionados wouldn't take kindly to this sort of comment.


That's fine for them. If cricket means that much to them. Whatever rocks your boat. Who am I to judge? I'm just saying what is right for me!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I always think it comical that people like you can make uninformed value judgments about other people's faith without knowing anything about it. :lol:


You've made an uninformed judgment that I'm uninformed on this issue. On the contrary, I've studied it a great deal. To begin with, I was raised by two very Christian parents who constantly stressed the importance of faith and I had great faith myself. I grew up around it in my family and community. As I grew older and learned more, and questioned more, I read more about my faith and the faiths of others; I encountered/talk with many people of many other faiths. By the time I switched my attention to philosophy, rationality, science, and even mythology (briefly)--not to mention various artists who've written on this subject--I had a much broader, and even deeper, perspective than the vast majority of people of faith I talked to or read. All people of faith have one thing in common, and that's a belief in something(s) for which there is either no evidence or weak evidence. Thanks to what I've read in cognitive science I also understand how this irrationality arises and persists.

So, yes, I know a great deal about faith, from many perspectives, including the one in which I used to have faith myself. The value judgment I'm making is that it's wrong to believe things without good evidence, of which there is none for any faiths.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You've made an uninformed judgment that I'm uninformed on this issue. On the contrary, I've studied it a great deal. To begin with, I was raised by two very Christian parents who constantly stressed the importance of faith and I had great faith myself. I grew up around it in my family and community. As I grew older and learned more, and questioned more, I read more about my faith and the faiths of others; I encountered/talk with many people of many other faiths. By the time I switched my attention to philosophy, rationality, science, and even mythology (briefly)--not to mention various artists who've written on this subject--I had a much broader, and even deeper, perspective than the vast majority of people of faith I talked to or read. All people of faith have one thing in common, and that's a belief in something(s) for which there is either no evidence or weak evidence. *Thanks to what I've read in cognitive science I also understand how this irrationality arises and persists.
> *
> So, yes, I know a great deal about faith, from many perspectives, including the one in which I used to have faith myself. The value judgment I'm making is that it's wrong to believe things without good evidence, *of which there is none for any faiths*.


One thing I've learned is not to take this sort of so-called 'reasoning' too seriously. Sorry I've heard it all before - been there, done that! :lol:

But can I point out that this is a thread about opera not a thread to discuss faith. So let's please get back to the subject in hand.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> One thing I've learned is not to take this sort of so-called 'reasoning' too seriously. Sorry I've heard it all before - been there, done that! :lol:
> 
> But can I point out that this is a thread about opera not a thread to discuss faith. So let's please get back to the subject in hand.


So you've learned not to take science seriously. Interesting.

But, yes, we're off topic, though I wonder why there's no sub-forums for such OT discussions. Most all forums of this size have them as members ultimately form communities and enjoy discussing other subjects with that community.


----------



## Guest (Oct 3, 2019)

DavidA said:


> But can I point out that this is a thread about opera not a thread to discuss faith. So let's please get back to the subject in hand.


I think you were the first to bring faith into the thread, in the list of things you take seriously.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

^ And with the implication that it's worth taking seriously as opposed to opera. The irony being, of course, that most faith is just art that some people take far more seriously than anyone takes opera.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I think you were the first to bring faith into the thread, in the list of things you take seriously.


Asan aside. Not to have cheap shots taken at it. Any more than I wanted cheap shots to be taken at other things


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So you've learned not to take science seriously. Interesting.
> 
> But, yes, we're off topic, though I wonder why there's no sub-forums for such OT discussions. Most all forums of this size have them as members ultimately form communities and enjoy discussing other subjects with that community.


Learned not to take pseudo-science seriously! :lol:

But sorry, this thread is about opera as I pointed out. Please do not divert the thread.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Learned not to take pseudo-science seriously! :lol:
> 
> But sorry, this thread is about opera as I pointed out. Please do not divert the thread.


Cognitive science is not pseudo-science. Biases are easy to demonstrate in peer-reviewed studies. I suggest reading Kahneman on the subject (who won a National Academy of Sciences award for his work).

It takes two to divert.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Asan aside. Not to have cheap shots taken at it. Any more than I wanted cheap shots to be taken at other things


But you constantly take "cheap shots" at opera and those who take it seriously. When you post what you take seriously, why would you not expect others to return the favor?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Cognitive science is not pseudo-science. Biases are easy to demonstrate in peer-reviewed studies. I suggest reading Kahneman on the subject (who won a National Academy of Sciences award for his work).
> 
> It takes two to divert.


Funny when I did scientific research we actually had to have some data, results and analysis. You had no data yet the nerve to produce some psycho-babble based on two words knowing nothing else. If that is not pseudoscience what is? :lol:

Now as the theme is opera could you please return to the subject in hand.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> But you constantly take "cheap shots" at opera and those who take it seriously. When you post what you take seriously, why would you not expect others to return the favor?


You can take as many 'cheap shots' as you like about my operatic tastes if it pleases you! Just return to the theme of the thread!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> You can take as many 'cheap shots' as you like about my operatic tastes if it pleases you! Just return to the theme of the thread!


What is "the theme of the thread"? That opera is stupid? Well, since opera is not stupid, what's left to say about it?

No one has taken shots, cheap or otherwise, at your operatic tastes. However, your weird compulsion to tell people, over and over, in this thread and many others, that what they have a great love for is not worthy of your "serious" interest, is another matter.

If anything is stupid, or at least astoundingly immature, it's behavior like that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> What is "the theme of the thread"? That opera is stupid? Well, since opera is not stupid, what's left to say about it?


You're off-topic. Refer to the thread title. :lol: Besides, _some_ opera _is _stupid. Not all.

DavidA was referring to some "thread themes" which emerged during the discussion. I think it would be more interesting if we let "thread themes" arise organically; but I've always thought that.



> ...your weird compulsion to tell people, over and over, in this thread and many others, that what they have a great love for is not worthy of your "serious" interest, is another matter.


But if that's his view, he has the right to say so. I found out a long time ago that what I hold _absolutely precious_ may not matter _one whit_ to other people.



> If anything is stupid, or at least astoundingly immature, it's behavior like that.


That seems pretty ad-hominem to me. Why can't DavidA state his opinion, especially on a thread with such a "leading" title? It's not like he's barging-in on an "I Love Rossini" thread. Maybe threads like this will teach opera buffs to question opera a bit more, at a very basic level.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You're off-topic. Refer to the thread title. :lol: Besides, _some_ opera _is _stupid. Not all.
> 
> DavidA was referring to some "thread themes" which emerged during the discussion. I think it would be more interesting if we let "thread themes" arise organically; but I've always thought that.
> 
> ...


It always amuses me the people who bang on about others being 'immature'! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You're off-topic. Refer to the thread title. :lol: Besides, _some_ opera _is _stupid. Not all.
> 
> DavidA was referring to some "thread themes" which emerged during the discussion. I think it would be more interesting if we let "thread themes" arise organically; but I've always thought that.
> 
> ...


Thanks! It always amuses me the people who bang on about others being 'astoundingly immature'! :lol:

But the thread is about opera!!


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Maybe threads like this will teach opera buffs to question opera a bit more, at a very basic level.


If the topic were, say, traumatic head injuries in professional football, I could see the point of urging fans to reflect and reassess.

Given the actual topic, not so much.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> But if that's his view, he has the right to say so. I found out a long time ago that what I hold _absolutely precious_ may not matter _one whit_ to other people.
> 
> That seems pretty ad-hominem to me. Why can't DavidA state his opinion, especially on a thread with such a "leading" title? It's not like he's barging-in on an "I Love Rossini" thread. Maybe threads like this will teach opera buffs to question opera a bit more, at a very basic level.


Obviously you have not frequented the opera forum enough to be aware that DavidA's "opinion" that opera is not to be taken seriously has been stated on so many threads over such a long period of time - years, in fact - that it has to be taken as a deliberate provocation. A goodly number of us here are sick of hearing him pronounce his value judgments on what we value.

No mature person saunters into a room where people are having a sincere and enjoyable conversation on a subject and announces that he, unlike all of them, doesn't think the subject is worthy of serious interest. Even to do that once is offensive, childish, and stupid. To do it over and over is appalling.

I can assure you that "opera buffs" here "question opera" every bit as much as they want or need to, and for you to barge in here suggesting changes in their attitudes and activities is extremely presumptuous. One troll in this forum is more than enough.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Refer to the thread title.


and its not supported by the subject that states to be stupid the very attempts to see opera as stupid.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> It always amuses me the people who bang on about others being 'immature'! :lol:


Yes, me too. That's why I responded.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

amfortas said:


> If the topic were, say, traumatic head injuries in professional football, I could see the point of urging fans to reflect and reassess.
> 
> Given the actual topic, not so much.


What "actual topic?" This is one of those "what's your reaction" threads without a real "question"; it asks for a general response, not a "tight, on-topic" reply.




Zhdanov said:


> ...and it's not supported by the subject that states to be stupid the _very attempts_ to see opera as stupid.


You don't have to agree with the article to respond.

Some "thread themes" emerged during the discussion. I've always thought that it is more interesting to let "thread themes" arise organically.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Obviously you have not frequented the opera forum enough to be aware that DavidA's "opinion" that opera is not to be taken seriously has been stated on so many threads over such a long period of time - years, in fact - that it has to be taken as a deliberate provocation. A goodly number of us here are sick of hearing him pronounce his value judgments on what we value.
> 
> No mature person saunters into a room where people are having a sincere and enjoyable conversation on a subject and announces that he, unlike all of them, doesn't think the subject is worthy of serious interest. Even to do that once is offensive, childish, and stupid. To do it over and over is appalling.
> 
> I can assure you that "opera buffs" here "question opera" every bit as much as they want or need to, and for you to barge in here suggesting changes in their attitudes and activities is extremely presumptuous. One troll in this forum is more than enough.


A clear case of a "pecking order" territorial response. It's perfectly reasonable for _some_ people to see _some _opera as a "ridiculous" art form, just like some people don't like abstract paintings or soup-can art.

This wasn't an "I Love Opera" thread to begin with; the thread itself is the provocation, on some level.

It is not his task to try to lead-that would only make him lose the way-but to let himself be led. If he knows how to meet fate with an attitude of acceptance, he is sure to find the right guidance. The superior man lets himself be guided; he does not go ahead blindly, but learns from the situation what is demanded of him and then follows this intimation from fate.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> A clear case of a "pecking order" territorial response. It's perfectly reasonable for _some_ people to see _some _opera as a "ridiculous" art form, just like some people don't like abstract paintings or soup-can art.
> 
> This wasn't an "I Love Opera" thread to begin with; the thread itself is the provocation, on some level.


This is a lesson in how to write a make-believe response to a post you're refusing to acknowledge.

Let me try to put it more simply to help you out. DavidA makes a sport out of repeating to people who take opera seriously that he does not, and that opera, as such - not SOME opera - is "just entertainment" which he compares to cricket. Evidently he's proud of having a value system superior to that of other people, who are just wasting their time concerning themselves with an art form which doesn't warrant serious discussion. He has been repeating this in thread after thread on this forum for YEARS.

What this thread is "about" is not yours to say, and doesn't change the obnoxiousness of DavidA's behavior. If you can't grasp this, try this: don't complain the next time someone tells you outright that something YOU value is not to be taken seriously. It WILL happen, and you won't wait to hear it a dozen times before you start whining about being persecuted, yelling at people in giant red letters, and starting threads in Area 51 trying to justify yourself.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> What "actual topic?" This is one of those "what's your reaction" threads without a real "question"; it asks for a general response, not a "tight, on-topic" reply.


I'm pretty sure the topic is opera. Beyond that, I agree the responses have been all over the place.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Funny when I did scientific research we actually had to have some data, results and analysis. You had no data yet the nerve to produce some psycho-babble based on two words knowing nothing else.


What in the wide blue world are you talking about? If you want "data, results and analysis" then you would have to read those who publish in the field; I provided you with one such individual. So now because I mentioned the name of the field but provided no data myself that makes the field pseudoscience? So if I say "quantum physics" but provide no data that makes that field pseudoscience too? What a ridiculous attitude!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> ...don't complain the next time someone tells you outright that something YOU value is not to be taken seriously. It WILL happen, and you won't wait to hear it a dozen times before you start whining about being persecuted, yelling at people in giant red letters, and starting threads in Area 51 trying to justify yourself.


By any means necessary, I will defend my values if they are attacked, as I see necessary, exactly the same way you are reacting. My tastes and values are an extension of my identity, just like yours.



Woodduck said:


> ...DavidA makes a sport out of repeating to people who take opera seriously that he does not, and that opera, as such - not SOME opera - is "just entertainment" which he compares to cricket. Evidently he's proud of having a value system superior to that of other people, who are just wasting their time concerning themselves with an art form which doesn't warrant serious discussion. He has been repeating this in thread after thread on this forum for YEARS.


Okay, that's his right.

If we focus instead on YOUR reaction to this, then you are no better than DavidA. You're saying the same thing, in the same way.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What in the wide blue world are you talking about? If you want "data, results and analysis" then you would have to read those who publish in the field; I provided you with one such individual. So now because I mentioned the name of the field but provided no data myself that makes the field pseudoscience? So if I say "quantum physics" but provide no data that makes that field pseudoscience too? What a ridiculous attitude!


 I was actually referring to your rather ridiculous attempts in trying to do an analysis of my faith while knowing nothing about it while calling it 'science'. You had no data to work on whatsoever as you knew nothing about me. I think your own attitude might be termed ridiculous too. At least when I researched into quantum physics I had some data. I didn't just quote the name of Albert Einstein on my thesis? I'm afraid just quoting names is not science even though people like you might think it is.

But as I have said before the theme of this thread is opera so I don't know why people like you try and bang on and try and improve your points. For goodness sake just let the thing go and if you want to debate religion move to another thread


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> I'm pretty sure the topic is opera. Beyond that, I agree the responses have been all over the place.


 The topic is: 'Opera is Stupid'
To that there are surely two extreme responses :
Firstly that people singing instead of speaking during a drama is rather stupid. Overweight middle-aged people trying to play young dashing heroes and heroines can look rather stupid. And so it requires a certain suspension of disbelief. Therefore, 'sorry mate, I can't go in for this Because I am wired to be logical in my life.' Now incredible though it might seem to the opera addicts in our world, I have many friends who enjoy music and are also highly intelligent who take this view . Some are even practising musicians. They think that as an art form opera is stupid so they can't get on with it. You know what- they are entitled to their point of view!
On the other extreme there are those who almost look on opera as a religion and worship at the shrine of Bayreuth and other opera houses. For them opera has some form of mystical philosophical meaning whereby life is interpreted. Great and noble books are written on the theme of the meaning of Wagner's ring, etc, at great length although to most of the population at large opera remains a fiction . These people get very indignant when one says you should take these works less than seriously.
Of course there are other people like me who come sort of midway between the two and believe opera, though ridiculous, is just to be enjoyed as an entertainment, A blend of music and words put together by genius . Wonderful as an evening's entertainment! I was listening to Handel's Alcina last night with unabated pleasure. I also listen to the other great masters like Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, eat al. And even old Wagner comes in for a listen As I can listen to him and not take his philosophies seriously. 
Of course there are some who then start immediately complaining in massively strident tones of vituperative language about my 'flippant' attitude, but I am not telling anybody else what to do but just explaining my own philosophy towards opera. I love opera and have a large collection of cds and plan to attend the seasons broadcasts. 
And you know what, I reckon Mozart and Verdi might just have been on my side too - as long as the customers were happy and the money was rolling in!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> By any means necessary, I will defend my values if they are attacked, as I see necessary, exactly the same way you are reacting. My tastes and values are an extension of my identity, just like yours.
> 
> Okay, that's his right.
> 
> If we focus instead on YOUR reaction to this, then you are no better than DavidA. You're saying the same thing, in the same way.


Yes, it's David's "right," and also your "right," to be rude and thoughtless. There are no laws forbidding it. But "having a right" is not the same as being right or doing right.

There's so much - so very much - that needs to be explained to you. Over and over again.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Of course there are other people like me who come sort of midway between the two and believe opera, though ridiculous, is just like to be enjoyed as an entertainment.


Interesting that you see this as a "midway" position.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

amfortas said:


> Interesting that you see this as a "midway" position.


 I do realise that it is an extreme position compared to some of the folks here. I was actually talking about music lovers in general, of whom I know a pretty broad range. It's funny though I hardly ever see any of them at the opera. I think to most people I'd be classed as an opera fanatic! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2019)

DavidA said:


> The topic is: 'Opera is Stupid'
> To that there are surely two responses :


The title of this thread is "Opera is stupid - The Guardian" but the topic set by the OP was to comment _The Guardian _article that prompted it. To that there are many responses.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The title of this thread is "Opera is stupid - The Guardian" but the topic set by the OP was to comment _The Guardian _article that prompted it. To that there are many responses.


Thanks! I meant two responses from opposite ends of spectrum.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2019)

Can we dispense with the discussion about 'stupid' (we've done it to death) and think about some of the other points raised in the article?



> popular culture should be aware of the pull of opera, and consider plundering it for material rather than miring itself in franchise remakes of the same old rubbish (Fast and Furious 9 - really?). In particular, I suggest that creatively drained Hollywood should do a reverse takeover of opera. Instead of ENO making Love Island: The Opera, what the world is crying out for is Der Ring Des Niebelungen, the movie franchise. It has three built-in sequels for starters and could be readily cast with Russell Crowe as Wotan, Margot Robbie as Brunnhilde, Tom Hiddleston as Loge and someone who really knows how to play dumb (Channing Tatum?) as Siegfried. Hollywood more than ENO needs to be creatively revived.


Whilst I wouldn't necessarily agree with the casting choices (so let's not get too distracted by Russell Crowe), there is some truth in the last assertion that Hollywood needs to be creatively revived. At least, we need to hear more about those films that don't involve a superhero, fun tho Marvel can be. Is there any mileage in taking stories from opera and turning them into quality cinema?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I was actually referring to your rather ridiculous attempts in trying to do an analysis of my faith while knowing nothing about it while calling it 'science'.


Well that's patently not what I did, so have fun continuing to skewer that strawman.



DavidA said:


> At least when I researched into quantum physics I had some data. I didn't just quote the name of Albert Einstein on my thesis? I'm afraid just quoting names is not science even though people like you might think it is.


I never claimed what I was doing was science either so again you're attacking a figment of your imagination. I said when I turned to (reading/studying) science I came to understand why people believe things without (good) evidence.



DavidA said:


> I don't know why people like you try and bang on and try and improve your points. For goodness sake just let the thing go and if you want to debate religion move to another thread


Again, it takes two to divert, and who wants to debate religion? I'm more interested in how you turned "I read science" into "you're doing pseudoscience." I hope your reading comprehension was better when you were studying!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The title of this thread is "Opera is stupid - The Guardian" but the topic set by the OP was to comment _The Guardian _article that prompted it. To that there are many responses.


What "topic set by the OP?" This is one of those "what's your reaction" threads without a real "topic"; it asks for a general response, not a "tight, on-topic" reply.

You don't have to agree with the Guardian article to respond.

Some "thread themes" emerged during the discussion. I've always thought that it is more interesting to let "thread themes" arise organically.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> What "topic set by the OP?" This is one of those "what's your reaction" threads without a real "topic"; it asks for a general response, not a "tight, on-topic" reply.
> 
> You don't have to agree with the Guardian article to respond.
> 
> Some "thread themes" emerged during the discussion. I've always thought that it is more interesting to let "thread themes" arise organically.


The "topic" set by the OP was to comment on the article. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

And no, of course you don't have to "agree" with the article. But then, the article said so many things, it wouldn't be a simple matter of agreeing anyway.

Why not respond to the main part of my post...give an opinion on the idea of Hollywood doing opera, instead of retreading finicky points about what is and isn't the topic.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Why not respond to the main part of my post...give an opinion on the idea of Hollywood doing opera, instead of retreading finicky points about what is and isn't the topic.


I'm not concerned with what "the topic" is. Some "thread themes" emerged during the discussion. I've always thought that it is more interesting to let "thread themes" arise organically.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2019)

That's all right. My post about the topic wasn't addressed to you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I've always thought that it is more interesting to let "thread themes" arise organically.


What does "organically" mean?


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I think that thread themes may arise organically with benefit. I also think that when a thread on TalkClassical (where opera has a significant and justified presence) has the OP titled "Opera is Stupid - The Guardian," the organic may be of the foul type.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Well that's patently not what I did, so have fun continuing to skewer that strawman.
> 
> I never claimed what I was doing was science either so again *you're attacking a figment of your imagination. I said when I turned to (reading/studying) science I came to understand why people believe things without (good) evidence.
> *
> Again, it takes two to divert, and who wants to debate religion? I'm more interested in how you turned "I read science" into "you're doing pseudoscience." I hope your reading comprehension was better when you were studying!


Sorry but you're attacking a figment of your imagination as what I believe is based on good evidence. The straw man is entirely yours :lol:

I'm glad you never claimed what you were doing was science because it certainly wasn't. I also know why people come to believe in things without good evidence like judging another person's beliefs without knowing anything about it.

I can assure you my comprehension is fine and appears to be a lot better than yours and you once again have failed to comprehend that this thread is about opera and have again failed to do the courtesy asked by at least one other member of abandoning this and returning to the subject in hand. I would be grateful if you would do this.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The "topic" set by the OP was to comment on the article. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.
> 
> And no, of course you don't have to "agree" with the article. But then, the article said so many things, it wouldn't be a simple matter of agreeing anyway.
> 
> Why not respond to the main part of my post...give an opinion on the idea of Hollywood doing opera, instead of retreading finicky points about what is and isn't the topic.


I remember seeing a filmed production of Aida many years ago as a young man (that is many years ago! :lol where Aida was played by Sophia Loren and sung by Tebaldi. Of course, because most movie d=singing is dubbed anyway they sorta got away with it but I'm not sure it convinced. Was that the sort of thing you had in mind? Of course there was the famous Rosenkavelier conducted by Karajan but that was staged. And Karajan did a film of Rheingold but it was not thought well of probably because Karajan produced it and he was not a film producer. Other than those I can't think of any filmed productions as such. The problem is that opera is a stage animal. Of course Wagner Ring stands out as something that needs filming badly.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

> Opera is stupid - The Guardian


I don't care what the Guardian thinks. But if opera is stupid, then I am stupid for opera!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Is there any mileage in taking stories from opera and turning them into quality cinema?


Probably--many of them are great stories (though it should be noted that many opera librettos are adaptations of preexisting material).

Just curious: has anyone seen any good films based on operas that have already been made? I'm not sure I've seen any.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> Probably--many of them are great stories (though it should be noted that many opera librettos are adaptations of preexisting material).
> 
> Just curious: has anyone seen any good films based on operas that have already been made? I'm not sure I've seen any.


I remember this adaptation of _Carmen_ as very enjoyable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_(1983_film)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I remember this adaptation of _Carmen_ as very enjoyable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_(1983_film)


I saw Saura's Carmen at the theater when I was living in Hong Kong. Quite a good movie. It's conceit is a modern dance troupe staging a dance version of Carmen and living the story (up to and including the murder) in their own lives as they rehearse.

There's a DVD available but the US format may be hard to find. I got mine some time back on eBay.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Articles talking about the stupidity of opera plots are stupider than opera plots, as well as unredeemed by musical genius.
> 
> And the Guardian web site has the nerve to ask me to subscribe.


They're just desperate because their undergrad readership hasn't got any money and cannot be used to prop up their agitprop.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Sorry but you're attacking a figment of your imagination as what I believe is based on good evidence. The straw man is entirely yours


Except there is no straw man of mine as I was addressing the faiths that I had encountered and was generalizing about them, not addressing yours specifically. Perhaps yours is entirely different than every other kind of faith I've encountered, but it's much more probable that it's not. Feel free to offer any "good evidence" you think you possess; though I have to wonder why anyone would need faith at all if they possessed genuinely good evidence.



DavidA said:


> I can assure you my comprehension is fine and appears to be a lot better than yours and you once again have failed to comprehend that this thread is about opera and have again failed to do the courtesy asked by at least one other member of abandoning this and returning to the subject in hand. I would be grateful if you would do this.


You can continue with the hypocrisy of criticizing me for doing what you're also doing, or you can actually be the one to stop responding and thus stop the diversion yourself. I've already said my piece on the thread's subject.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> Just curious: has anyone seen any good films based on operas that have already been made? I'm not sure I've seen any.


I don't know about "good," but I know Godard did a very loose adaptation of Carmen called Prenom: Carmen. It's typical of his 80s work in being extremely elliptical and confusing, and doesn't have the virtue of being as beautiful or poetic as his best from the era. It's not bad, but not great either. David Cronenberg adapted the play M. Butterfly, which was a play based on the Puccini opera. I didn't care for the film despite the interesting subject matter; I can imagine a well-directed play being much better. La Traviata was adapted from La Dame aux Camélias and there have been many film versions of it, including Cukor's 1936 film Camille. This is probably the best of the films I've mentioned here.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Except there is no straw man of mine as I was addressing the faiths that I had encountered and was generalizing about them, not addressing yours specifically. Perhaps yours is entirely different than every other kind of faith I've encountered, but it's much more probable that it's not. Feel free to offer any "good evidence" you think you possess; though I have to wonder why anyone would need faith at all if they possessed genuinely good evidence.
> 
> You can continue with the hypocrisy of criticizing me for doing what you're also doing, or you can actually be the one to stop responding and thus stop the diversion yourself. I've already said my piece on the thread's subject.


When are you going to just do myself and other members of TC the courtesy of stopping this pointless name calling and getting back to the subject of the thread itself as I and others have requested?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> When are you going to just do myself and other members of TC the courtesy of stopping this pointless name calling and getting back to the subject of the thread itself as I and others have requested?


Hmmmm....There just seems to be something about you, David, that inspires irritation and acrimony in other people and pushes discussions off topic. Any clue as to what it could be?


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> When are you going to just do myself and other members of TC the courtesy of stopping this pointless *name calling *and getting back to the subject of the thread itself as I and others have requested?


I didn't see any name calling.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I didn't see any name calling.


You missed it! But don't let it worry you. The subject is opera! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I don't care what the Guardian thinks. But if opera is stupid, then I am stupid for opera!


So you didnt read the article?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> So you didnt read the article?


Afraid not. Was just reacting to the title and a few of the first posts. I should have looked on to post #6, which would have clued me in that the title misleading since it is not opera that is stupid, but some of the productions that are stupid.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Opera is stupid, especially when it's part of Warner Brothers cartoons. I mean, come on, a singing rabbit?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DavidA said:


> When are you going to just do myself and other members of TC the courtesy of stopping this pointless name calling and getting back to the subject of the thread itself as I and others have requested?


I didn't call you a name, but since you chose to ignore everything I actually said, I guess this is as good a place to stop as any.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I didn't call you a name, but since you chose to ignore everything I actually said, I guess this is as good a place to stop as any.


Glad you've finally decided that ! :lol:


----------

