# Regarding Opera As Pure Music



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Greetings opera lovers,

I am new here and would be very interested in hearing your responses to the following 3 questions.

1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.

2) Have you ever met anyone who generally (and I stress the word generally) prefers to experience opera at home via audio recordings as opposed to hearing it live at the opera house?

3) Have you ever seen this type of opera lover shake his head while looking on with total bemusement at other opera lovers, critics and directors who constantly fuss about productions and all stage business?

Thanks,

Nigel


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Yes, I think you will find opera lovers like you described on this forum.

I look at them in total bemusement.


----------



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

Hi Nigel.

1) Not in the flesh.

2) Yes - me. I am an armchair music fan and as regards opera I like to envisage the action in my mind's eye when listening to it.

3) Not quite sure I totally grasp the third question but personally speaking I am the kind of person who would whinge if I thought stage settings/costumes etc. for older operas were beyond the pale in the arty-farty/pretentiousness stakes (i.e Wotan lumbering about in shirt and braces looking like a redundant nightclub bouncer).


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Hi elgar,



elgars ghost said:


> 3) Not quite sure I totally grasp the third question


What I meant is that since that type of opera lover generally views opera production as a sort of frill they can't understand why so much space is devoted to discussing it.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

NigelKesteren said:


> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals?


Never to my knowledge.



> 2) Have you ever met anyone who generally prefers to experience opera at home?


Kind of a complex question. There are good reasons to listen at home - it's comfy, the beer is right there in the fridge, you can watch or hear the best that ever were recorded, the sound is better, nobody in the next seat will refuse to shut up or stop unwrapping the sweet they've been unwrapping for the last twenty minutes, and it doesn't cost $100 a seat. And there are good reasons to listen at the opera house - the immediacy, the stage brings a different experience, the community of the audience, the ability to say you were there when. All these factors and others have to be balanced out. It's all economics, really.



> 3) Have you ever seen this type of opera lover shake his head while looking on with total bemusement at other opera lovers, critics and directors who constantly fuss about productions and all stage business?


Never.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I certainly fall into the 2nd category. I wish to know no more of the plot than the synopsis provides, do not wish to understand the words, and avoid seeing any stage action. All this qualifies me for the 3rd category, except that I don't feel bemusement, it's _amusement_. I sometimes express my amusement, which causes Natalie bemusement.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I certainly prefer the music over and above the visuals and plot of an opera. I'm certainly no purist but Mozart was known for his musical skills and not his set design skills, Rossini wasn't a costume designer (I don't think) and Wagner may have written his libretti but it is the music setting which is the essential part I think. Watching an opera usually makes me switch off from the visuals after a while unless they are particularly remarkable.

Ideally listening at home is preferable, but even for a squillionaire like me it is difficult to get the cast at La Scala over on a wendesday week so rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi becomes a necessity but I might well close my eyes and enjoy the music if nothing dramatic is happening.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

quack said:


> I certainly prefer the music over and above the visuals and plot of an opera. I'm certainly no purist but *Mozart was known for his musical skills and not his set design skills, Rossini wasn't a costume designer (I don't think) and Wagner may have written his libretti but it is the music setting which is the essential part I think*. Watching an opera usually makes me switch off from the visuals after a while unless they are particularly remarkable.


I don't feel this argument holds water, although I'm not trying to deny your right to enjoy listening rather than watching. Mozart was intimately involved in the stagings of his operas, and Wagner went to the trouble of designing and building a theatre (not a concert hall) to put on his works, and left copious stage directions. So they both had a vision and took pains to ensure that the staging reflected this (not sure about Rossini though, maybe he was more laissez-faire).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

No

No

No


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I am one of those who first and foremost regards any and all music from that perspective of its being 'absolute' music. Any vocal music, to me, must first make some complete sense without regard to its textual content, or I find it 'meaningless,' regardless of the import of the text.

Only after the music having said something to me of and by itself will I then begin to consider the text.

That is the same for me when I listen to a supposed 'tone poem' or 'program music.' The program is the last thing I think about when listening, again only giving it a cursory thought if the music has spoken directly to me in sheer musical terms.

It seems I have always listened this way, and 'I just can't help it.'


----------



## AndyS (Dec 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I am one of those who first and foremost regards any and all music from that perspective of its being 'absolute' music. Any vocal music, to me, must first make some complete sense without regard to its textual content, or I find it 'meaningless,' regardless of the import of the text.
> 
> Only after the music having said something to me of and by itself will I then begin to consider the text.
> 
> ...


Im like this to an extent too, I have to feel a connection to the music before I can bother with getting involved more than superficially with the plot.

Saying that I definitely love to experience it live, which is something I don't get the chance to do often


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Well I wouldn't deny that some composers have a very distinct vision that they wish to fulfill with their operas right down to every aspect of the stagings, just that Mozart isn't remembered today for his set designing skills, his operas live on primarily due to the music. Although some people will complain, a re-staging of Wagner's work with a change of setting will still be regarded as a Wagner opera without his staging notes being followed.

It is the same with Shakespeare, a great dramatist, but also an actor who was probably involved with all aspects of the theatre. Seeing his work staged or filmed is pretty essential to understanding and appreciating it but it is still his mainly his words that have lived on after him.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

quack said:


> just that Mozart isn't remembered today for his set designing skills, his operas live on primarily due to the music. Although some people will complain, a re-staging of Wagner's work with a change of setting will still be regarded as a Wagner opera without his staging notes being followed.
> 
> It is the same with Shakespeare, a great dramatist, but also an actor who was probably involved with all aspects of the theatre. Seeing his work staged or filmed is pretty essential to understanding and appreciating it but it is still his mainly his words that have lived on after him.


Yes, that's true, and a poor plot with great music lives on whereas a great plot with poor music will probably not (wonder how long Previn's _A Streetcar Named Desire_ will last).


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

NigelKesteren said:


> I am new here and would be very interested in hearing your responses to the following 3 questions.
> 
> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.
> 
> ...


Good question.

1 No, I've never met anyone like that.

Since composers of operas write the music to illuminate the text and the plot - and expect listeners to expect that to be the case - a listener who cuts themselves off from that dimension of the performance is, at best, denying themselves the experience of that interplay between libretto/action and music. But you confuse the issue in the way you word the question. How is it possible to be "solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web" and not have a "regard at all to the words..."?

2 Yes.

I prefer to listen to opera at home on audio (not video) recordings. But this isn't because I don't want to see them staged, it's because the live operas I have attended and the many videos I've watched, either in full or excerpted, have almost invariably received productions which are crap. (See the thread on this forum about Regietheater.) I'm not a big fan of opera - I am certainly not asking for traditional, conservative, old fashioned productions. I would just like to see a few productions in which the ego of the director did not obscure the stage.

3 No.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Jeremy:



Jeremy Marchant said:


> How is it possible to be "solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web" and not have a "regard at all to the words..."?


How? Very simple.

The sophisticated opera lover listens differently by always focusing on the *form, line and shape* of the sounds while completely ignoring the text/drama.

Music succeeds or fails on purely musical terms, including opera. No opera has ever remained in the repertory because it has a great libretto. It remains because the music is great.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

NigelKesteren said:


> The sophisticated opera lover listens differently by always focusing on the *form, line and shape* of the sounds while completely ignoring the text/drama.
> 
> Music succeeds or fails on purely musical terms, including opera. No opera has ever remained in the repertory because it has a great libretto. It remains because the music is great.


Even if I agreed with you (which perhaps I do) these are opinions and not the absolute facts which, I sense, you would like them to be.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

NigelKesteren said:


> The sophisticated opera lover listens differently by always focusing on the *form, line and shape* of the sounds while completely ignoring the text/drama.


We can all define "_The sophisticated opera lover_" to validate our own preferences.

"The sophisticated opera listener listens differently by focusing on the interplay between the form, line and shape of the music and the dramatic and emotional developments of the libretto and plot".

There. Now I'M the sophisticated one:lol:.



> No opera has ever remained in the repertory because it has a great libretto. It remains because the music is great.


I won't argue with that one. But for us sophisticated opera listeners a good libretto (eg Dialogues des Carmelites, Turn of the Screw) can add immensely to the pleasure of an opera, which is *by definition* not purely music but music theatre.

Some definitions of opera:



> A dramatic work in one or more acts, set to music for singers and instrumentalists.





> A theatrical presentation in which a dramatic performance is set to music





> a drama set to music and made up of vocal pieces with orchestral accompaniment and orchestral overtures and interludes


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Natalie,



mamascarlatti said:


> We can all define "_The sophisticated opera lover_" to validate our own preferences.


Well the less sophisticated opera lover often needs the 'prop' of libretto and staging. I have nothing against theater but the opera score has a life of its own and should be appreciated on its own terms.

I stand by my belief that that the hardcore / elite opera lover derives intense pleasure from the glow and
richness of the musical fabric alone. It is simply evidence of that person's great aesthetic sensibility and rich inner emotional life.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

^ Know who disagrees? RICHARD WAGNER.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

That seems like ridiculous elitism to me, with little basis in fact of the varying ways people appreciate opera. If being a sophisticated opera lover means not being allowed to eat popcorn during O mio babbino caro then I don't wanna be sophisticated.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

NigelKesteren said:


> Well the less sophisticated opera lover often needs the 'prop' of libretto and staging. I have nothing against theater but the opera score has a life of its own and should be appreciated on its own terms.
> 
> I stand by my belief that that the hardcore / elite opera lover derives intense pleasure from the glow and
> richness of the musical fabric alone. It is simply evidence of that person's great aesthetic sensibility and rich inner emotional life.


It's not a prop, it's an integral part of the experience. And many hardcore opera lovers (what does that mean anyway?) would disagree. And so would comppsers who wrote opera. Until the advent of recording technology, the thought of opera being available as the music alone would have been deeply surprising.

It doesn't mean that one can't get great pleasure from the music alone. I certainly do that as well, and I'm sure that most other opera lovers on the forum listen as well as watch, and even go to concert versions of operas (Die Walküre in Auckland next week, woohoo).

But knowing what is being sung about, and appreciating the interplay between music and words and (to use a baroque word, "affects"), is not the sign of an unsophisticated mind, but rather a rich and linguistically and emotionally aware one. In fact I would say the opposite, if you can't appreciate this, you have an impoverished understanding of opera.

I'll post Couchie's favourite composer (not really an intellectual lightweight, even one doesn't like the man much) to support my love of the intertwining of words and music. Knowing that this is an aria about nascent, incandescent love mingled with joy at the departure of winter, as well as the poetry of the alliterating language, makes this aria even richer than the gorgeous music alone.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Couchie said:


> ^ Know who disagrees? RICHARD WAGNER.


And just for the record I am a diehard Wagner nut. But Wagner's intentions are irrelevant.

Anyway, Wagner's libretti are not worthy of their music. The music is far deeper and more profound than the literary, political and philosophical ideas the composer was trying to express. He DOES express his views and ideas, and he DOES tell his stories, and he DOES use myths interestingly, but the music far surpasses these stories, plots and and ideas. As a literary artist he would have sunk out of sight long ago. I am grateful to his literary imagination for stimulating the musical ideas of the operas. There is ample evidence he could not write great music without literary ideas to fuel it. But I would no more highly honor the finished literary aspects of these works than I would eat the frying pan along with the omelette.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

NigelKesteren said:


> And just for the record I am a diehard Wagner nut. But Wagner's intentions are irrelevant.
> 
> Anyway, Wagner's libretti are not worthy of their music. The music is far deeper and more profound than the literary, political and philosophical ideas the composer was trying to express. He DOES express his views and ideas, and he DOES tell his stories, and he DOES use myths interestingly, but the music far surpasses these stories, plots and and ideas. As a literary artist he would have sunk out of sight long ago. I am grateful to his literary imagination for stimulating the musical ideas of the operas. There is ample evidence he could not write great music without literary ideas to fuel it. But I would no more highly honor the finished literary aspects of these works than I would eat the frying pan along with the omelette.


Good, I can agree with that! The music IS why I love opera so much and am much less interested in stage plays.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> But knowing what is being sung about, and appreciating the interplay between music and words and (to use a baroque word, "affects"), is not the sign of an unsophisticated mind, but rather a rich and linguistically and emotionally aware one.


Please understand I did not say they were 'unsophisticated'. My point is that the score should be appreciated independently.



> I'll post Couchie's favourite composer (not really an intellectual lightweight, even one doesn't like the man much) to support my love of the intertwining of words and music. Knowing that this is an aria about nascent, incandescent love mingled with joy at the departure of winter, as well as the poetry of the alliterating language, makes this aria even richer than the gorgeous music alone.


Oh dear, did you have to choose such an obvious bleeding chunk? 

I have my own test for the true Wagnerian:

If he or she loves _Siegfried_ (ALL 270 minutes of it) AS MUCH as the other operas and prefers to listen to it on CD....

Someone who adores the raspy voice of the Mime (Gerhard Stolze), Siegfried, The Wanderer, Erda and those wonderful anvils, etc and so on.... cranked up at a nice volume.

That, ladies and gentleman, is a hardcore Wagnerian.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Oh, I make no claims at all to be a true Wagnerian of the ilk of yourself or Couchie. Wagner is only one of many composers I love. (though Erda, oh yeah baby)

I am a bit of a Handelian.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> I am a bit of a Handelian.


I love Julius Caesar and Rodelinda but in general I find most baroque opera overly repetitive, dull, clinical, some sort of academic exercise. It's the only era I struggle with.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

It requires quite a lot of investment of time and effort to appreciate the sublime beauty of Baroque opera and Handel in particular. A bit like Wagner.

EDIT: It's quite funny because a lot of the time I approach Baroque operas purely through repeated listening of the CD, with no reference to the plot or libretto:lol:.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well the less sophisticated opera lover often needs the 'prop' of libretto and staging. I have nothing against theater but the opera score has a life of its own and should be appreciated on its own terms.

I stand by my belief that that the hardcore / elite opera lover derives intense pleasure from the glow and
richness of the musical fabric alone. It is simply evidence of that person's great aesthetic sensibility and rich inner emotional life.

Well that's just a bunch of pretentious twaddle.

Perhaps we might also suggest that the "sophisticated" film lover only looks at film for the flow of the forms and colors across the screen... fully ignoring the narrative, actors, music, etc...?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Anyway, Wagner's libretti are not worthy of their music. The music is far deeper and more profound than the literary, political and philosophical ideas the composer was trying to express. He DOES express his views and ideas, and he DOES tell his stories, and he DOES use myths interestingly, but the music far surpasses these stories, plots and and ideas. As a literary artist he would have sunk out of sight long ago.

Well... as much as you would have us all accept just how sophisticated you are as an opera listener, you clearly have a less than solid mastery of literature. Wagner's librettos are among the only librettos that have been acknowledged as worthy works of literature by literary critics.

What you fail to grasp is that any attempt to tear down an art form into separate elements is not only wrong-headed, but doomed to failure. Many librettos as well as the texts of choral works, lieder, songs, etc... are not the most original... and quite often are rather bad taken solely as a text. Franz Schubert's _Winterreise_ famously set a cycle of poems by Wilhelm Müller to music. The poems on their own are but mediocre examples of German Romantic poetry. They most certainly are not upon the level of Goethe, Schiller, Holderlin, or many others whom he might have set (and did on other occasions). The musical accompaniment, however... the piano and the vocal... reinforce... expand... or even contrast with the actual lyrics making the end result far more profound that the lyrics standing upon their own.

The same can be said of Mahler's great symphonic cycle, _Das Lied von der Erde_ (the Song of the Earth). This work was built upon a German translation (mediocre at best) by Hans Bethge of Chinese poetry from the Tang Dynasty. Yet the resulting work... especially the closing _Der Abschied_ or "Farewell" is among the most profoundly moving in the whole of orchestral lieder and powerfully conveys the composer's own feelings of the transience of life and his own impending death. Sung by the inimitable Kathleen Ferrier who was dying at the time the resulting work ii almost unbearable. The music and the lyrics intertwine in order to create something greater than the sum of the parts.

By the same token, just because a film works brilliantly, in no way should we assume that if we dissect it we will find that each individual element will work brilliantly and stand independent of the whole... that the screen play will stand as great literature, the cinematography as great photography, the musical score as worthy of standing along side Beethoven, etc... The whole in a work of art is not necessarily simply defined as a sum of the parts.

Opera... like film and song... is an art form that involves the merger of multiple art forms into a greater whole. The very history of opera involved the development of a musical theater that could clearly convey the poetry or narrative of the writer better that the complex polyphonic music of the Baroque. From the very start opera was intended as musical theater.

Personally, I begin exploring every opera that is new to me by reading synopsis... and then listening to the music without any attention paid to the libretto. But after that initial approach to the work... almost exclusively as music... I listen again while following the libretto. The ideal, of course, is found in the live performance... or the video-taped performance... in which all of the elements are present: the music, the text, the acting, the staging, the costumes, the visuals... the whole of opera as musical theater.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No
> 
> No
> 
> No


Of what value is that reply to this thread?

0 explanation. You might as well not have bothered.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

It's really impossible to divorce drama and music in opera, because they are so closely intertwined .
I can understand Jeremy's frustration with the way many operas are staged today, but by no means all of them have had "crappy" productions . 
The visual element in opera is very important, but not absolutely essential to enjoy opera . Over the years, I've gained enormous pleasure from countless complete operas on CD and LP , as well as the Metropolitan opera's radio broadcasts, which I began listening to as a teenager , as well as other radio broadcasts taped at other operas houses around the world .
But it's still great to attend live performances in the opera house , and watch DVDs and telecasts, such as those from the Met on PBS . I particularly like these , because unlike a live performance you attend , you can see the singers up close and watch how they interact , unlike in a large opera house where you tend to be too far away to see this .
But with recordings and radio broadcasts, you can use your inner imagination to see an idealized production in your own head ,unlike live performances, which can have flaws such as singers who are not physically attractive and believable ,or sets which you consider ugly , or arbitrary staging gimmicks which you find annoying .


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> It requires quite a lot of investment of time and effort to appreciate the sublime beauty of Baroque opera and Handel in particular. A bit like Wagner.


Sorry Natalie but I just don't buy it.

Much baroque opera contains too many clichees and musical fireworks often at the expense of art. I'm also happy to remain outside the realm of those fans who think opera ended with Gluck. (I've met a good number yes) Those creatures who think that early and baroque opera is the bees knees.

Opera is not only damnably difficult to mount, it is also a genre which has thrown up only a relatively small number of truly great masterpieces.

My principal opera gods are Debussy (Pelleas et Melisande is still perhaps my favorite opera), Wagner, Schoenberg, Strauss, late Verdi and Pfitzner.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Well that's just a bunch of pretentious twaddle.
> 
> Perhaps we might also suggest that the "sophisticated" film lover only looks at film for the flow of the forms and colors across the screen... fully ignoring the narrative, actors, music, etc...?


No it is not pretentious twaddle.

Opera is defined by music. You can strip away the dramatic/visual element and still have an opera. Movies - now there's a medium that is first and foremost a dramatic/visual art form. Opera, not even close. The fact that so many directors take so many liberties with opera simply serves to underscore how relatively unimportant the dramatic/visual element is. What conductor, at least today, would suggest fundamentally reworking the music of Debussy or Wagner or Verdi?

It is the composer - that is, the person who wrote the music - that is most important and discussed the most.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I probably have a unique opinion on this. My answer would have been totally different two years ago.

I have a hidef projection system with a ten foot screen and 5:1 sound. It has totally changed the way I approach opera and ballet. On a normal sized TV, opera on video always seemed stagebound and small. But on a screen the size of a wall, it's an immersive experience. The ability to cut to close ups enhances my appreciation of great acting, and subtitles mean no libretto on my lap.

At this point, I have a very hard time listening to opera on CD as anything other than pure music. For drama, bluray is so much better... Better even than being in the opera house.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

^ How do DVDs look at that size?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

NigelKesteren said:


> Sorry Natalie but I just don't buy it.


I don't need you to buy it. I just KNOW. As do William Christie, Alan Curtis, Marc Minkowski, Diego Fasolis, Harry Bicket, Emmanuelle Haïm, René Jacobs, Ivor Bolton, Paul McCreesh, Christopher Rousset, Hervé Niquet and the countless singers who invest their time and efforts to bring me great pleasure with their recordings of Baroque opera.

But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy later opera. You seem to me to be a bit of an all or nothing person, I'm not. I have too many opera gods to mention, from Monteverdi to Birtwistle.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Couchie said:


> ^ How do DVDs look at that size?


Fantastic. Video upscaling technology is very good. Blurays look like the best a movie can look in a theater though.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

bigshot said:


> Fantastic. Video upscaling technology is very good. Blurays look like the best a movie can look in a theater though.


Envious. I have to watch on a small screen with headphones so as not to upset my family.

But I'd still rather be IN a theatre.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

1) By and large, I appreciate opera "primarily" as pure music. When I started listening to opera it was 100% for the music. I do fine this way listening to highlights-only or aria albums. I hit some dead ends when I try to listen to a full opera. I simply don't find most recicatives beautiful (though there are exceptions). Watching opera on video has been hit or miss for me, but it definitely helped me appreciate The Magic Flute more, for example.


2) No-though I don't know many people who follow opera at all, outside of people on this board. I've never been to a live opera performance, and I think I would quite enjoy going sometime. No opportunities to yet.


3) I could see a casual listener having that bemusement, but it would seem strange to me for a self acclaimed opera lover to shove all the other things that make an opera an opera aside. Not NEEDING it is one thing, but to scoff at it strikes me as a little strange. So, while I MOSTLY fall in the "opera mostly as music" appreciator, I completely understand why others have the desire to have all the other stuff.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

NigelKesteren said:


> No it is not pretentious twaddle.
> 
> Opera is defined by music. You can strip away the dramatic/visual element and still have an opera. Movies - now there's a medium that is first and foremost a dramatic/visual art form. Opera, not even close. The fact that so many directors take so many liberties with opera simply serves to underscore how relatively unimportant the dramatic/visual element is. What conductor, at least today, would suggest fundamentally reworking the music of Debussy or Wagner or Verdi?
> 
> It is the composer - that is, the person who wrote the music - that is most important and discussed the most.


Would I go to a concert hall to hear a purely musical rendition of an opera? Probably so, and I would probably enjoy it.

Would that enjoyment be more interesting and compelling than seeing a live dramatic rendition of an opera? No.

Also, your definition of "dramatic" seems quite limited. You feel that opera is not as dramatic as film because you think the music is more important than the words, costumes, acting, etc. Personally I feel that a good opera is more dramatic than a film, because it explores the range of human emotion more deeply than film usually does. Most films to me just feel like people walking around saying things. Operas have characters who sing about things in a more emotionally open way, and to me, that feels more dramatic. It makes me care about the characters more. It feels like their psyches are more deeply explored, especially when (as in Wagner or Mussorgsky) each line of the text is accompanied by music that comments on what the character is singing about.


----------



## SepticFlesh (Jul 16, 2012)

For me, I need to enjoy the music of the opera first; otherwise I wouldn't care about the other aspects like the story.


----------



## Bas (Jul 24, 2012)

NigelKesteren said:


> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.


I am such a person I think. I can enjoy the visual production when I attend an opera, but I'd regard it as equally good if it would have been an oratorio - with just soloists and a chorus, and musicians.



NigelKesteren said:


> 2) Have you ever met anyone who generally (and I stress the word generally) prefers to experience opera at home via audio recordings as opposed to hearing it live at the opera house?


I've double feeling sregarding this: I do like the show, sometimes, but I think that in general I'd rather listen in my chair, without reading along the text, on non -dvd records, purely for the audio.



NigelKesteren said:


> 3) Have you ever seen this type of opera lover shake his head while looking on with total bemusement at other opera lovers, critics and directors who constantly fuss about productions and all stage business?


No.


----------



## Bas (Jul 24, 2012)

Sonata said:


> I completely understand why others have the desire to have all the other stuff.


This is very true. An opera has to have the things that make it an opera, yet I don't particullary enjoy them.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I will say......if I had more access to live opera rather than just videos, I know I would really enjoy it. I've always had a great time at the theater, plays or musicals live. As it is on video, I have come to enjoy watching the videos, but even then it's a means to an end to me. I've found it beneficial to hearing the music in context with the action. But largely because it helps me connect with some of the music more. Watching the Magic Flute was fun, but what I take away from it wasn't that experience, but the increased pleasure I've gotten from the music as an END result.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

I only fully enjoy listening to recordings of operas without visuals once I know everything that they're saying at every point.

Even before I get to that point of familiarity though, I'll take a great DVD over a live performance any day. The screen is right there, the sound is right there, there are close ups... it's just a more immediate experience.


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

macgeek2005 said:


> Even before I get to that point of familiarity though, I'll take a great DVD over a live performance any day. The screen is right there, the sound is right there, there are close ups... it's just a more immediate experience.


I have to agree with that. DVDs have really made it so much easier to get into opera nowadays.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Wow I would not agree at all. There is just no comparison with being in the same space as unamplified singers performing in real time.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> Wow I would not agree at all. There is just no comparison with being in the same space as unamplified singers performing in real time.


Would you say the same is true for non-operatic music?


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

Hi Nigel.



NigelKesteren said:


> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.


When I got to listen Il barbiere di Siviglia and Madama Butterfly for the first time, I couldn't understand even a word in italian, only the summary plots of both opears, but after several times of hearing I'd say that I couldn't put anything else instead of what I hear through the words in (both) recitatives and arias. That was a unique experience for me even for now which I can understand the words, I surely enjoyed a pure vocal/orchestral musical combination.



> 2) Have you ever met anyone who generally (and I stress the word generally) prefers to experience opera at home via audio recordings as opposed to hearing it live at the opera house?


I don't prefer to experience operas via audio/video recordings, but there's no other chance for me as there's no opera house or even a good concert society in my country and I can't (though wish to) travel easily only to watch operas! 
And since you stressed generally, have seen nobody else...



> 3) Have you ever seen this type of opera lover shake his head while looking on with total bemusement at other opera lovers, critics and directors who constantly fuss about productions and all stage business?


Hehe... no one except me!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Xavier, music drama is music drama, not absolute music. Get over it.

*Wagner, Totality, and Armature Theory. *

I follow the theory that the text of Wagner's works are an *armature* for the music, a plinth for a bust, the lynchpin of the music; essentially unessential and not the heart of the work but still necessary just as an armature is for a statue. _*As philosophy qua philosophy*_ I believe it worthless.* As armature, as lynchpin,* excellent, superb, and absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of the essence of his work. Wagner alloys music and text to make what would be weak separately into something very strong. Reduce stainless steel to its raw molecular components and what you have will have is something rusty and brittle. This is why any attempts to analyze Wagner's work in terms of the music alone or as a poem along will do absolute injustice to the works and fail to capture the essence of the works. The pseudo-philosophy that music and words are somehow on fundamentally different fields acts as an invulnerable granite wall that blinds the listener from the magnificence of Wagner's works and allows for theories that pervert Wagner's modulations as a precursor to Schoenberg's mutilations of music.

There is no need to compartmentalize the music and the text and bifurcate them, as if they were polar molecules, as if they were oil and water. Wagner's music dramas are *a totality* where the whole is more than the sum of its parts, *not an aggregate. * Synthesis is all about totality, not aggregation, and Wagner's late music dramas are the superlative examples of the synthesis of sound and words in history.

*The truth of the matter is that opera - genuine opera; opera as dramma per musica - is NOT about the music,* nor is it about the singers (and we here exclude bel canto opera as that genre of opera is, by and large, not genuine opera at all but merely an elaborate showcase for singers). In the minds of opera composers, opera producers, and sophisticated operagoers, opera is first and foremost about the drama - or more correctly, about the music-drama; about dramma per musica; drama where the drama is made sensible or articulated through music supported by the armature of the text which armature provides those narrative and concrete details that music alone is incapable of providing, the whole or gestalt made visible by its acting out onstage. Wagner may have made all of that explicit both in his theoretical writings and in his stageworks the mature examples of which are a veritable apotheosis of opera as dramma per musica, but it is not his invention. Dramma per musica has been the ideal and the goal of opera from opera's very beginnings as a distinct artform in the late-16th, early-17th century the first fully developed example of which is usually attributed to Monteverdi and his L'Orfeo of 1607. That that ideal became corrupted early on and seemingly forever by 17th-century Italian theater owners and producers who, in their commercial greed, wantonly pandered to the sensibilities and appetites of the opera-going groundlings who couldn't have cared less about opera as dramma per musica and which opera-going groundlings, then as now, are always in the vast majority, doesn't alter the ideal one whit. And that's why "want[ing] all the music" is rarely the first consideration. Sometimes, when the dramma per musica has gone off-track by becoming bloated or obscured for reasons having little to do with the realization of the dramma per musica per se (we omit here those cases where the creator's own dramatic sense is defective or wanting as that's another discussion entirely), judicious cuts become necessary to free the work to be realized as its creator envisioned it in its ideal form absent all commercial or other compromise. Needless to say, the aesthetic judgment and operatic knowledge of the cutter is here paramount when the creator of the opera is no longer available for consultation or to do the work himself. Too often cuts are made for reasons commercial or practical which are compromises just as pernicious as the compromises which resulted in the dramma per musica going off-track by becoming bloated or obscured in the first place, and in such cases artistic disaster is almost certain to result, not to speak of a betrayal of the creator of the opera and of his creation.

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2011/07/a-rationale-for-making-cuts-in-opera.html

Informed native German speakers tell me that, *as stand-alone text, the libretti for Wagner's music-dramas (which Wagner in fact referred to as "poems") are fairly dreadful both poetically and dramatically.* But given how Wagner worked, that's *precisely* what one would expect them to be as stand-alone texts.* They're merely the armature about which the drama is constructed -- an armature designed to provide the concrete narrative and factual detail which music alone is incapable of expressing, and which armature never competes poetically or dramatically with the music which is the principal carrier and transmitter of the music-drama's poetic and dramatic core.* Wagner, who originally thought his "poems" to be first-rate as poetry and dramatic text in themselves, discovered that for himself after completing the first music for the _Ring_: the music for _Das Rheingold_, his first music-drama. Wrote Wagner in a letter to his confidant August Röckel, "I have now come to realize just how much there is, owing to the whole nature of my poetic aim, that becomes clear only through the music. I now simply cannot bear to look at the text [of _Das Rheingold_] by itself anymore."

While it's true that the texts of the music-dramas were written complete prior to Wagner writing the music, it's NOT correct to say that Wagner wrote the music to match that finished text, which is the usual process, more or less, when composer and librettist are two separate individuals. As Wagner was writing his texts ("poems"), he, line by line, heard always in his inner ear the shape and sense of the music that would belong to those lines even though he'd not written so much as even a single measure of the actual music. It's no surprise, then, and not for nothing, that the text and music of Wagner's music-dramas are, more than the text and music of any other opera of my experience,* so fundamentally and organically intertwined, and therefore cannot be separated and be expected [each on its own] to still make their unified original sense.* As to Wagner as dramatist -- or, rather, as music-dramatist -- he is absolutely nonpareil with the single exception of Mozart who, it's a deeply-felt conceit of mine, would have outstripped Wagner as music-dramatist had he lived long enough to write the music he longed to write but refrained from writing in order to ensure his earning his daily bread and cheese. And far from Wagner's music-dramas being "long winded, inflated and loud ," as Mr. AI would have it, Wagner was perhaps the most economical composer of _drammas per musica_ who ever lived, the length of his works dictated by the depth and complexity of their musico-dramaturgy, and "loud" only when loud was dictated by the musico-dramatic context of the drama itself.

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2010/07/wagners-poems.html


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Listening/loving opera as pure music is like...i don't know what it is like. Such concept does not existe for me.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

NigelKesteren said:


> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.
> 
> 2) Have you ever met anyone who generally (and I stress the word generally) prefers to experience opera at home via audio recordings as opposed to hearing it live at the opera house?
> 
> 3) Have you ever seen this type of opera lover shake his head while looking on with total bemusement at other opera lovers, critics and directors who constantly fuss about productions and all stage business?


#1. As usual, I am listening to an Opera right now that I have never heard before. I have absolutely no idea what is being said. I am listening to it solely for the music and voices. That said, I also like to watch Opera DVD's to see what is being said and what the story is actually about. In the end, music is more important to me than the story in opera.

#2. I generally prefer to stay at home, not because I don't enjoy live performances, but because I have to drive a few hours away, sit next to people who are hacking and coughing in a seat that leaves no room for my broad shoulders to be relaxed. I don't like sitting with my hands in my lap trying to make my shoulder width smaller for 3 hours. If there was an Opera in my town, and I could seat in a proper size seat without being crammed in like a Sardine, I would definitely go.

#3. I don't shake my head at anyone who enjoys opera. Mostly because I don't know anybody else in person who has ever seen or heard one. If I did know someone who was fussy about stage productions, etc. it wouldn't bother me because they obviously enjoy the theater aspect more and there's nothing wrong with that.

Edit: I should have added though that if I do see an opera that is set in a Church for example and the story is talking about the Church and whatnot yet the staging was set in an Airport I would be a little annoyed.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

I'm not sure whether this one-hit-wonder thread originator is to be taken seriously, but.... I kind of had the same approach when I first started attending opera. Somehow the music was supposed to carry it all, the words superfluous, and supertitles a distraction. It was all sort of a concert with costumes. With that approach though, it became a matter of dutifully sitting through the more "dramatic" parts and waiting for the more "musical" parts (arias, etc.). Sure, overall I enjoyed it, but after encountering the term _dramma per musica_ and viewing opera as just that, my enjoyment went up many fold.

Several years ago, I started studying original language librettos and my enjoyment went up three times more. Supertitles became a distraction again because now I had an idea how much they often shortchanged or misrepresented the text. I was just reviewing Act I of La Boheme last night. Sure the music is lovely on its own, astoundingly so. But so is the text, and precisely - really perfectly - crafted. It occurred to me that "che gelida manina" is one the most important seduction/romantic scenes in theater, with music or without. To ignore it is to shortchange your experience.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

NigelKesteren said:


> Greetings opera lovers,
> 
> I am new here and would be very interested in hearing your responses to the following 3 questions.
> 
> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.


No.


NigelKesteren said:


> 2) Have you ever met anyone who generally (and I stress the word generally) prefers to experience opera at home via audio recordings as opposed to hearing it live at the opera house?


No.


NigelKesteren said:


> 3) Have you ever seen this type of opera lover shake his head while looking on with total bemusement at other opera lovers, critics and directors who constantly fuss about productions and all stage business?


N/A.


NigelKesteren said:


> Thanks,
> 
> Nigel


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

NigelKesteren said:


> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.
> 
> 2) Have you ever met anyone who generally (and I stress the word generally) prefers to experience opera at home via audio recordings as opposed to hearing it live at the opera house?
> 
> 3) Have you ever seen this type of opera lover shake his head while looking on with total bemusement at other opera lovers, critics and directors who constantly fuss about productions and all stage business?


For one, yes. I listen to the _paralanguage_ of arias or accompagnatos (and skip the rest).

For two, yes and no. I mostly like to listen to operatic music outside during exercise.

For three, no. I can understand why people would be entertained by it (I think it is funny to watch). Although I would sooner create my own story based on an aria than seek out a stage performance (my blog features such notions).


----------



## BeatOven (May 23, 2012)

NigelKesteren said:


> Greetings opera lovers,
> 1) Have you ever met anyone who regards opera as pure music without any regard at all to the words, drama and visuals? In other words someone who adores opera solely for the aesthetic value of the orchestral and vocal sounds? Or to put it another way: someone who is solely interested in exploring the expressive qualities of the vocal and orchestral web.


I have only listened to 10 or so Opera's so far but i listen only to the music - i don't know any of the language. It might sound silly but i get a lot of satisfaction from this. I'm sure soon ill find an english translation and explore the story but for now the music is good enough!


----------

