# Elements of Opera



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I know people have struggled with defining opera, mostly by comparison with musicals, and so I thought I'd offer a preliminary list of characteristics and see what you all think, what you might add or subtract.

1 theater
2 music
3 the projected voice (not the natural in-the-throat voice)
4 classical music tradition (used to be pop, now academic)
5 no music you can dance to (no Lady Gaga opera, for example)
6 the ideal of the best possible theatrical experience
7 no microphones except for recording
8 opera superiority attitude (vs musicals)

I couldn't bring myself to include dance theater, as much as I love it (usually) when it's included; it's just not essential.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

EARTH FIRE WIND WATER HEART
s
GO CAPTAIN OPERA


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

No 5 What about Lully and Rameau? Why can't you have balletic interludes in an opera? And what about the habanera* in Carmen which is a species of Cuban contradanza? 

As to 8 - do you mean no surtitles? 

*The spell checker thinks this is from Ulster and came up with Strabane!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ #8 - I think he means opera > musicals.

there is dance music in opera, remember this?






lots of it in Baroque opera, not just French Baroque, but plenty in Handel as well (reason for which Alcina goes on for 4 hours) and in French opera even well into the 19th century.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Oh, well, where dance music is concerned I think modern technology has our ancestors beat all hollow. We have music to which you simply CANNOT refuse to dance, and that has never been true before. I think. But it's not opera.

I'm not saying opera CAN'T include dance theater; I think it should; but I don't think it's essential. Plenty of great opera doesn't have it.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

1. People getting stabby no matter the problem (themselves or others)
2. Beards that look like dead grass but still manage to fool people
3. Hearty operatic laugh
4. Whispered asides at 110dB
5. Fat ladies


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> ^ #8 - I think he means opera > musicals.
> 
> there is dance music in opera, remember this?
> 
> ...


I just received the blue ray of Giulio Cesare. McVicar discussed how he decided to infuse some Bollywood dancing into the production. This is the best Handel dvd I've seen. Sarah is incredible, and for once she is in the company of a worthy ensemble group and a stunning production, direction, etc. It shows you can divert from the traditional if you have love and respect for the original.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> We have music to which you simply CANNOT refuse to dance, and that has never been true before.


I dare you to not tap your foot to this:






mostly I'm just using this as an opportunity to post mad interpretive dances to operatic tunes, so don't take it as some sort of jab. I don't mind if there's no dancing and you _might_ be right. Certainly some _very serious operas_ wouldn't work with some dance moves thrown in. But all bravura arias do!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

deggial said:


> ^ #8 - I think he means opera > musicals.
> 
> there is dance music in opera, remember this?
> 
> ...


Fantastic singing. Pity about the inept choreography - and the dire costumes!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Like others, I'd have to disagree with the dance bit. There are many operas where dance interludes are integral and expected (Baroque and 19th century French grand opera). And I defy you not to want to dance to this:






But maybe I'm weird. When modern dance music comes on I am more likely to run out of the door with my fingers in my ears than show off my moves.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

#4 is far too subjective. Is Satyagraha "classical" music? You could change the line to orchestrated music, but that's not exclusively true either -- there are electronic music / "techno" operas.

#7 is not exclusively true. John Adams specifically writes opera that is to be amplified.

For almost all of your qualifications, there are exceptions or edge cases. For #1, oratorios wouldn't qualify but they are much more similar to opera than, say, Rent or Hair are. For #2, operettas generally have lighter orchestration more similar to most musicals (or, say, splitting the difference between the two) but there's no doubt which of the two they feel more like. For #6, there are unstaged or semi-staged performances (let alone studio-recorded cds) that don't recreate any kind of full theatrical experience, but would still fall into the opera oeuvre.
I'd say at the end of the day #3 is the most significant factor -- the classically trained voice.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I'm thinking there's been some (understandable) confusion. When I said you can't dance to it I meant the AUDIENCE can't dance to it (or won't want to, which amounts to the same thing as far as I'm concerned). Obviously there's plenty of dance music and plenty of dancing in operas.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

deggial said:


> I dare you to not tap your foot to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually something has gone wrong with my computer, so I can't hear the music in this forum. Sorry. Sorrier than you imagine, I think. I may have to get a new computer.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

rgz said:


> #4 is far too subjective. Is Satyagraha "classical" music? You could change the line to orchestrated music, but that's not exclusively true either -- there are electronic music / "techno" operas.


But do opera fans consider them operas? Personally, I've only heard one "rock opera" - Jesus Christ Superstar - and it doesn't seem like an opera to me.



> #7 is not exclusively true. John Adams specifically writes opera that is to be amplified.


See objection above. Has his "amplified opera" been at the Met?



> For almost all of your qualifications, there are exceptions or edge cases. For #1, oratorios wouldn't qualify but they are much more similar to opera than, say, Rent or Hair are.


I won't disagree, never having seen one!



> For #2, operettas generally have lighter orchestration more similar to most musicals (or, say, splitting the difference between the two) but there's no doubt which of the two they feel more like. For #6, there are unstaged or semi-staged performances (let alone studio-recorded cds) that don't recreate any kind of full theatrical experience, but would still fall into the opera oeuvre.


I would think that, as with oratorios, the fact that there's a different name for them kind of implies that most people think they're different animals. I know people do host unstaged operas - but just because you don't milk a cow doesn't mean it's a different animal. The drama is inherent. I know there are people who say they enjoy operas purely as music, but in spite of understanding all the words the phrase still doesn't make any sense to me, so I refuse to believe these people actually exist. It's a philosophical position.



> I'd say at the end of the day #3 is the most significant factor -- the classically trained voice.


Gotcha.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

guythegreg said:


> But do opera fans consider them operas? Personally, I've only heard one "rock opera" - Jesus Christ Superstar - and it doesn't seem like an opera to me.


JCS isn't an opera, as it uses amplified singing. Satyagraha definitively is, and has been at the Met.



> See objection above. Has his "amplified opera" been at the Met?


Yes - Nixon in China has been, I'm unsure about others.



> I would think that, as with oratorios, the fact that there's a different name for them kind of implies that most people think they're different animals. I know people do host unstaged operas - but just because you don't milk a cow doesn't mean it's a different animal. The drama is inherent. I know there are people who say they enjoy operas purely as music, but in spite of understanding all the words the phrase still doesn't make any sense to me, so I refuse to believe these people actually exist. It's a philosophical position.


If those people didn't exist, operas on LP and CD would not exist. Don't get me wrong -- I value the acting side very much, perhaps more than most, but there are definitely people who care primarily or even exclusively for the singing alone.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

guythegreg said:


> Oh, well, where dance music is concerned I think modern technology has our ancestors beat all hollow. We have music to which you simply CANNOT refuse to dance, and that has never been true before. I think. But it's not opera.
> 
> I'm not saying opera CAN'T include dance theater; I think it should; but I don't think it's essential. Plenty of great opera doesn't have it.


I'm presuming you mean the late great Jimmy Shand? (The old joke - how to torture a Scotsman- tie his feet down and play some Jimmy Shand!)

Only the "modern" (non-Baroque) stuff. We're just back from Handel's Agripina which ended with "Sundry Dances"!


----------

