# Is comedy king?



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

When interviewed before the performance of the recent Met Falstaff, James Levine made a statement to the effect that comedy always brought out the best in composers. He cited Falstaff along with Mozart's da Ponte operas and others as examples that perhaps the greatest operas are comedies.
I tend to agree that a good case could be made out that the greatest operas are, in fact, comedies. 
Any thoughts?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> When interviewed before the performance of the recent Met Falstaff, James Levine made a statement to the effect that comedy always brought out the best in composers. He cited Falstaff along with Mozart's da Ponte operas and others as examples that perhaps the greatest operas are comedies.
> I tend to agree that a good case could be made out that the greatest operas are, in fact, comedies.
> Any thoughts?


I don't know. I take myself entirely too seriously; plus, if there's no tragedy, how can I laugh? Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I haven't seen enough operas to judge, but in general I find comic singing faintly off-putting. I hate being 'expected to laugh'. Of the operas I've seen, I enjoyed Handel's Agrippina but prefer Madame Butterfly, Tosca, Aida & Carmen to The Magic Flute. 'Big songs' seem to me to go better if they evoke pathos. Or could it be that Baroque Operas are better if comic, and nineteenth century ones best if not? Or should I just shut up and wait till I've seen some more examples? 

Still, in general, I prefer Shakespeare's Tragedies to his comedies, & serious films to humorous ones. Having a good laugh is fabulous, but not as powerful as experiencing *catharsis*.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

The best operas combine the comic with some pathos, too....for example the wonderful 'Marriage of Figaro!'


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

It's an interesting point. *Falstaff* is a great opera, of that there is no doubt. That Verdi could produce such a comic masterpiece so late in his career, when, up till then he had shown very little interest in the genre is a miracle in itself. Verdi's greatest and most perfect opera? Possibly, but personally I prefer a flawed masterpiece like the dark and tragic *Don Carlo*, which probably says more about me than it does about Verdi.

I'm the same with Shakespeare. I lean towards the tragedies, and, even in the comedies, I have very little time for the machinations of the mechanicals. Take, _Much Ado About Nothing_, possibly my favourite of his comedies, I love the wit and repartee of Beatrice and Benedict, but all that Dogberry stuff I find terrible irritating.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

JCarmel said:


> The best operas combine the comic with some pathos, too....for example the wonderful 'Marriage of Figaro!'


Rossini's *Il barbiere di Siviglia* is probably more faithful to the spirit of Beaumarchais than Mozart's *Le Nozze fi Figaro*. Mozart's music transcends its source, giving it a humanity and breadth scarcely even hinted at in the original.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I haven't seen enough operas to judge, but in general I find comic singing faintly off-putting. I hate being 'expected to laugh'. Of the operas I've seen, I enjoyed Handel's Agrippina but prefer Madame Butterfly, Tosca, Aida & Carmen to The Magic Flute. 'Big songs' seem to me to go better if they evoke pathos. Or could it be that Baroque Operas are better if comic, and nineteenth century ones best if not? Or should I just shut up and wait till I've seen some more examples?
> 
> Still, in general, I prefer Shakespeare's Tragedies to his comedies, & serious films to humorous ones. Having a good laugh is fabulous, but not as powerful as experiencing *catharsis*.


Me too, which is why I stay away from most Rossini. Guillermo Tell is quite another matter-Rossini's greatest opera, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Besides Mozart, _Meistersinger_, and _Falstaff_, which comedies rate as among the very greatest operas? Verdi's other masterpieces are all tragedies, Wagner's are reinterpretations of myths and legends. Monteverdi, Handel, Beethoven, Mussorgsky, Debussy, Berg - not a lot of laughs there. Rossini can be hilarious, I'll grant; _Gianni Schicchi_ is funny but not Puccini's best work; _Rosenkavalier_ is musically better in its serious moments than in its attempts at humor;_ Elektra_ and _Salome_ are campily amusing to some of us. There are some musically wonderful operettas by Strauss, Offenbach, et al. But...

No. I think not.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

I think Rossini's _Il Turco in Italia _is massively underrated.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I like l'Elisir d'amore. Dulcamara's patter song cracks me up (preferably performed by Ambrogio Maestri):
_
Udite, udite, o rustici
attenti non fiatate.

Io già suppongo e immagino
che al par di me sappiate
ch'io sono quel gran medico,
dottore enciclopedico
chiamato Dulcamara_

How can any one resist "dottore enciclopedico"?

Baroque opera is not usually known for its lightheartedness but Cavalli is a notable exception - Il Giasone, Elena, and Ercole Amante have some very funny moments.

L'amour des Trois Oranges and L'Enfant et les sortilèges also have a wonderful fantastic comedic aspect to them which I find more appealing than straight comedy of the Rossini kind.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Ingélou said:


> I haven't seen enough operas to judge, but in general I find comic singing faintly off-putting. I hate being 'expected to laugh'. Of the operas I've seen, I enjoyed Handel's Agrippina but prefer Madame Butterfly, Tosca, Aida & Carmen to The Magic Flute. 'Big songs' seem to me to go better if they evoke pathos. Or could it be that Baroque Operas are better if comic, and nineteenth century ones best if not? Or should I just shut up and wait till I've seen some more examples?
> 
> Still, in general, I prefer Shakespeare's Tragedies to his comedies, & serious films to humorous ones. Having a good laugh is fabulous, but not as powerful as experiencing *catharsis*.


Comedy really depends on the performer, I think even moreso than for tragedy. There's a huge difference between someone who is funny, and someone just singing or doing "funny" things.

Compare Natalie Dessay as Olympia to anyone else in the same production: (BTW, possibly Not Safe For Work due to simulated sex)
Ms. Dessay: 



Sumi Jo: 



Laura Aikin: 



Désirée Rancatore: 




One of these ladies is a natural comedian. The others are working very hard to do funny things. Despite Ms. Dessay getting badly off tempo a few times in the aria proper, it's still by far the funniest performance.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I think Rossini's _Il Turco in Italia _is massively underrated.


Hard to judge. My harem experience is quite limited; sad to say. It is on my bucket list, however, as are tetanus shots.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Monteverdi


hey, I remember _Poppea_ being very funny. Maybe I need to watch it again. Also I think _Der Rosenkavlier_ is hilarious and the prologue of _Ariadne_ even more so.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Hard to judge. My harem experience is quite limited; sad to say. It is on my bucket list, however, as are tetanus shots.


You won't find any harems in *Il Turco in Italia* I'm afraid. You need to travel to Algiers for *L'Italiana in Algeri*.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Besides Mozart, _Meistersinger_, and _Falstaff_, which comedies rate as among the very greatest operas? Verdi's other masterpieces are all tragedies, Wagner's are reinterpretations of myths and legends. Monteverdi, Handel, Beethoven, Mussorgsky, Debussy, Berg - not a lot of laughs there. Rossini can be hilarious, I'll grant; _Gianni Schicchi_ is funny but not Puccini's best work; _Rosenkavalier_ is musically better in its serious moments than in its attempts at humor;_ Elektra_ and _Salome_ are campily amusing to some of us. There are some musically wonderful operettas by Strauss, Offenbach, et al. But...
> 
> No. I think not.


For me the four great Mozart operas are the greatest ever written. They encompass human feeling like no other - simply amazing!
For a celebration of humanity Falstaff is tremendous. Who can hear final fugue without going away feeling better about life?
These five operas are IMO the very pinnacle of the art. That's not to say there are not other great operas as you mention. But these five are at the top.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

deggial said:


> hey, I remember _Poppea_ being very funny. Maybe I need to watch it again. Also I think _Der Rosenkavlier_ is hilarious and the prologue of _Ariadne_ even more so.


Poppea is a wonderful combination of tragic and comic. My favourite moment is Arnalta's triumphant song at the end when she knows that Poppea is victorious, which means that Arnalta will live in the lap of luxury and be flattered and adulated for the rest of her life.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> For me the four great Mozart operas are the greatest ever written. They encompass human feeling like no other - simply amazing!
> For a celebration of humanity Falstaff is tremendous. Who can hear final fugue without going away feeling better about life?
> These five operas are IMO the very pinnacle of the art. That's not to say there are not other great operas as you mention. But these five are at the top.


You are very bold in choosing the 5 "greatest" operas. I know you realize that others would choose differently, and I would suggest there may be _no such thing_ as the five greatest operas. I, unlike you, find Mozart very far from "encompassing human feeling" (not that anyone else does either, of course); if he did we wouldn't need _Fidelio_ or _Parsifal_ or _Boris_ or _Don Carlo_ or _Pelleas_ or... Nor do I get anything celebratory in the final fugue of _Falstaff_; it just never struck me as happy-sounding, perhaps partly because the "moral" ("everything is a joke") seems to me more glib and cynical than invigorating. None of which proves anything, except that all we can do here is state which, among the acknowledged masterpieces, we personally prefer.

Since you've given your preferences, I'll somewhat arbitrarily pick Parsifal, Tristan, Meistersinger, Otello, and Falstaff (the _Ring_ is four operas, alas) as works that leave me awestruck, each in its own way, but in every case because of extraordinary music. I understand the love for Mozart, for the way he offers a lively spectrum of character types and a keen observation of social relationships in characteristically inspired and beautiful music. If that's the sort of subject matter you find most interesting, then Mozart is a fine choice and your thesis is proved - for you. But I'm personally more taken with works that plumb the complexities of the individual human psyche, its outer limits of experience, and its capacity for growth and transformation, the exploration of which needs a more complex musical vocabulary than that which existed in the 18th century, one which can express subtle and extreme emotional states, create atmosphere, and simply sound fascinating, in ways Mozart never dreamed of. So your thesis doesn't hold - for me.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Hard to judge. My harem experience is quite limited; sad to say. It is on my bucket list, however, as are tetanus shots.


After checking off the harem entry in that bucket list you will probably need other shots too.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

There is no either/or here and rigidity in genre definitions can squeeze out the essence of opera and its varied and frequently complex inspiration. For example, what about a _dramma giocoso_ (sp?) like Don Giovanni or a sardonic _comedie noire_ like L'Incoronazione di Poppea?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Revenant said:


> There is no either/or here and rigidity in genre definitions can squeeze out the essence of opera and its varied and frequently complex inspiration. For example, what about a _dramma giocoso_ (sp?) like Don Giovanni or a sardonic _comedie noire_ like L'Incoronazione di Poppea?


Right. Those are two of the least categorizable, and most remarkable, operas ever written. And what is _Fidelio_? Neither comic nor tragic. Heroic, maybe? And is _Meistersinger_ fundamentally comic, when its central character (Sachs) is a melancholy philosopher coming to terms with old age and artistic innovation? Perhaps a definition of comedy is in order.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You are very bold in choosing the 5 "greatest" operas. I know you realize that others would choose differently, and I would suggest there may be _no such thing_ as the five greatest operas. I, unlike you, find Mozart very far from "encompassing human feeling" (not that anyone else does either, of course); if he did we wouldn't need _Fidelio_ or _Parsifal_ or _Boris_ or _Don Carlo_ or _Pelleas_ or... Nor do I get anything celebratory in the final fugue of _Falstaff_; it just never struck me as happy-sounding, perhaps partly because the "moral" ("everything is a joke") seems to me more glib and cynical than invigorating. None of which proves anything, except that all we can do here is state which, among the acknowledged masterpieces, we personally prefer.
> 
> Since you've given your preferences, I'll somewhat arbitrarily pick Parsifal, Tristan, Meistersinger, Otello, and Falstaff (the _Ring_ is four operas, alas) as works that leave me awestruck, each in its own way, but in every case because of extraordinary music. I understand the love for Mozart, for the way he offers a lively spectrum of character types and a keen observation of social relationships in characteristically inspired and beautiful music. If that's the sort of subject matter you find most interesting, then Mozart is a fine choice and your thesis is proved - for you. But I'm personally more taken with works that plumb the complexities of the individual human psyche, its outer limits of experience, and its capacity for growth and transformation, the exploration of which needs a more complex musical vocabulary than that which existed in the 18th century, one which can express subtle and extreme emotional states, create atmosphere, and simply sound fascinating, in ways Mozart never dreamed of. So your thesis doesn't hold - for me.


It is interesting the way we are different and see things differently. For me Wagner never plumbs the complexities of the individual human psyche and its outer limits of experience in the way you say it does, despite some undeniably great music. Verdi came far closer than Wagner in my opinion. To me Mozart operas are the upmost in sophistication in the art form. I just cannot see anything comparable in Wagner, especially Parsifal, despite some stunning music. I admire it but am not moved by it.
But then I realised that is just my opinion. It's not the one of us is right or wrong. We just have different opinions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It is interesting the way we are different and see things differently. For me Wagner never plumbs the complexities of the individual human psyche and its outer limits of experience in the way you say it does, despite some undeniably great music. Verdi came far closer than Wagner in my opinion. To me Mozart operas are the upmost in sophistication in the art form. I just cannot see anything comparable in Wagner, especially Parsifal, despite some stunning music. I admire it but am not moved by it.
> But then I realised that is just my opinion. It's not the one of us is right or wrong. We just have different opinions.


It's pretty obvious that two people whose favorite opera composers are, respectively, Mozart and Wagner are going to have major disagreements! Speaking for myself, I probably don't disagree with you about your favorite, in terms of specifics, as much as you might think. Although I don't spend much time with Mozart, I like to think that I can appreciate his musical and dramatic achievement - that is, the ways in which his operas are superior to others of his era (and other eras too), not only as pure music but in terms of the sharpness, warmth, sympathy, and, often, subtlety with which he shows people acting and reacting in life situations. Part of this is thanks to Da Ponte, of course, and even to Beaumarchais and Schikaneder, but without Mozart's genius the librettos need not have led to operas of any consequential depth at all. I confess that I haven't cared to investigate much of Mozart's operatic output beyond the half dozen or so best known ones; of those, I most enjoy, and most esteem, _Don_ _Giovanni_,_ Figaro_, and _Flute_ (_Cosi fan Tutte_ has some beautiful music but the plot seems to me too silly to deserve it). I'm sure there is plenty of fine music in his more obscure operas too. Life is short! Do I find Mozart's operas to be the absolute, untouchable, transcendent miracles of profundity you and some others do? No, but that doesn't mean I don't consider them among the great works for the lyric stage and among the high achievements of Western culture. They're the best of their kind. It's just that I can't avoid noticing that in 1791, the year Mozart died, there were kinds, astonishing kinds, of music and opera yet to be imagined and discovered.

I have to say I find it rather odd that anyone who has lived through, or inherited, the artistic, philosophical, and scientific achievements of the last two and a half centuries, could really feel that the musical theater of an eighteenth-century composer, no matter how great, could come anywhere near to saying everything essential there is to say about human nature or the human situation, or that the musical geniuses who came later did not add greatly to the possible ways in which that nature and situation can be explored and expressed. I'm not suggesting that music became "better" over time in absolute sense - no one has "improved upon" Bach or Mozart - but rather that by expanding the vocabulary of music composers learned to express things that were simply not possible, or even imaginable, to their predecessors. I don't underestimate the imagination of Bach or Mozart in discovering musical means to express the particular kinds of dramatic conceptions they were working with; I merely have to acknowledge that, given the cultures in which they lived and the musical/dramatic terms in which they worked, there are things, expressively significant things, they did not and could not do - and which they would undoubtedly have chosen not to do had they even imagined them. We are all aware of those moments when Bach, Haydn or Mozart played with highly dissonant or chromatic harmony in certain limited contexts (e.g. Haydn's shocking depiction of "chaos" in his _Creation_, with harmonies that would not be heard again until the Romantic era), and we are all aware too that these composers regarded such effects as precisely that - effects - and as departures from the "normal" harmonic idiom which their sensibilities, as inherited from their cultures, obliged them to maintain. But the fact that they sometimes felt the need to risk moving into such unexplored territory shows us plainly that they were unavoidably aware, as human beings, of regions of feeling and expression which, for whatever reasons, they normally felt disinclined to explore. Later composers, coming out of a changed cultural context and sensibility, no longer had the same sense of these "effects" being extreme, alien or outrageous, and proceeded to explore ways in which they could use them to say new things and make these new things a normal part of the aesthetic discourse of their world. In this sense, the cliche about Romanticism's "freeing" of music holds quite true, so long as we realize that when something is gained in art, something is also lost. The sensibility and beliefs of every era exhibit limitations and blind spots; new truths and values are discovered, and old ones are forgotten or transformed. No era holds a monopoly on truth or on artistic greatness, and no era's products of artistic genius can tell us everything that art is capable of telling us about ourselves and the world. Mozart, like all artists in all times and places, had his limits.

I feel pretty certain that, given all that has been said and written discussing the meanings embedded in Wagner's operas, not only here on TC but in countless volumes written by musical scholars, critics, philosophers, theologians, psychologists, record producers, and every other sort of person (including, very importantly, Wagner himself) during the past century and a half, you are not really interested in exploring the subject in any depth, having apparently decided that any so-called depth to be found in his works is either illusory, vastly overstated, or somehow disreputable. But even a cursory glance at the evidence points to a different conclusion. Those of us who think that Wagner is one of the most powerful creative figures in human history, and that his works are among the most astonishing and profound achievements in our cultural heritage, are not a small club of fanatics wearing tinfoil helmets and swords at conventions in rented gymnasiums. That a great deal of nonsense has been written about Wagner, pro and con, indicates not that his works are nonsense but that they are complex and in important ways different from most other works for the lyric stage. The nature of those differences isn't something I want even to begin to get into here; if the subject interested you, you would be exploring it without my urging. I only want to suggest that glib and generalized remarks about widely recognized artistic geniuses and their works don't help to advance anyone's understanding. I'm glad to see in your comments above words such as "for me," "in my opinion," and "I cannot see." It's a pleasant change from some previous statements on this subject. I'd like to think that whatever our personal sensibilities and tastes may be, we can all be open to the possibility that there are things in the world of real excellence and value which we simply do not find interesting or appreciate, and that, should we choose to be open to the possibility, we might learn something about from others who do.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I feel pretty certain that, given all that has been said and written discussing the meanings embedded in Wagner's operas, not only here on TC but in countless volumes written by musical scholars, critics, philosophers, theologians, psychologists, record producers, and every other sort of person (including, very importantly, Wagner himself) during the past century and a half, you are not really interested in exploring the subject in any depth, having apparently decided that any so-called depth to be found in his works is either illusory, vastly overstated, or somehow disreputable. But even a cursory glance at the evidence points to a different conclusion. Those of us who think that Wagner is one of the most powerful creative figures in human history, and that his works are among the most astonishing and profound achievements in our cultural heritage, are not a small club of fanatics wearing tinfoil helmets and swords at conventions in rented gymnasiums. That a great deal of nonsense has been written about Wagner, pro and con, indicates not that his works are nonsense but that they are complex and in important ways different from most other works for the lyric stage. The nature of those differences isn't something I want even to begin to get into here; if the subject interested you, you would be exploring it without my urging. I only want to suggest that glib and generalized remarks about widely recognized artistic geniuses and their works don't help to advance anyone's understanding. I'm glad to see in your comments above words such as "for me," "in my opinion," and "I cannot see." It's a pleasant change from some previous statements on this subject. I'd like to think that whatever our personal sensibilities and tastes may be, we can all be open to the possibility that there are things in the world of real excellence and value which we simply do not find interesting or appreciate, and that, should we choose to be open to the possibility, we might learn something about from others who do.


I think you will not find I referred to Wagner lovers as fanatics wearing tinfoil helmets, etc!

I just have to say that for me Wagner does not plumb any great human depth in the way Mozart does. One problem is that the power and sophistication of the music masks the fact that the libretto are pretty banal. The fact is that Wagner was a vastly more gifted musician than he was a librettist and philosopher. Now, of course, I know that Wagner's admirers dismiss all criticism of the great man as 'glib' and put in down to the sad fact we are people of little learning or sophistication. I am educated. I have explored Wagner. But I have come to the conclusion he offers very little insight into the human condition. When you get beyond some very powerful music there is little to enlighten. If you think differently then so be it - that's fine. Quoting how many admirers Wagner has is not really helpful as he has also many detractors!
But frankly if I want to explore the human condition I want to look beyond Wagner. And beyond opera in general!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> I think you will not find I referred to Wagner lovers as fanatics wearing tinfoil helmets, etc!
> 
> I just have to say that for me Wagner does not plumb any great human depth in the way Mozart does. One problem is that the power and sophistication of the music masks the fact that the libretto are pretty banal. The fact is that Wagner was a vastly more gifted musician than he was a librettist and philosopher. Now, of course, I know that Wagner's admirers dismiss all criticism of the great man as 'glib' and put in down to the sad fact we are people of little learning or sophistication. I am educated. I have explored Wagner. But I have come to the conclusion he offers very little insight into the human condition. When you get beyond some very powerful music there is little to enlighten. If you think differently then so be it - that's fine. Quoting how many admirers Wagner has is not really helpful as he has also many detractors!
> But frankly if I want to explore the human condition I want to look beyond Wagner. And beyond opera in general!


You make my point precisely! You don't find the value and meaning in Wagner that others find, so you come to the "conclusion" that that value and meaning aren't there at all. Well, to put it bluntly, you are not entitled to that conclusion. You are entitled only to conclude that your own taste and temperament are not much engaged by what _you think_ Wagner is saying (which is exactly what I am entitled to say, and therefore will now say, about _The__ Marriage of Figaro_). You also mischaracterize those who find more value in Wagner than you do. Although I am one of those, I have never dismissed "all criticism" of Wagner or his work. There's plenty to criticize; the man was complex and his works are complex, so ambitious and daring that flaws can inevitably be found in them. No careful students of Wagner, even among his greatest admirers, deny this. Nor have I accused you or anyone of being uneducated or unsophisticated; I have merely said that there is a mountain of literature by very thoughtful people which, if you were interested, you might investigate in order to see why Wagner has continued to inspire such intense interest and admiration. As for his detractors, the extraordinary persistence and limitless fantasy with which many of them pursue the strange goal of trying to undermine an established monument of Western culture should sow suspicion in the minds of anyone not similarly inclined. Wagner's works have accreted about them a large number of associations and biases which are only too easy to exploit for destructive ends. Responsible criticism attempts to get beyond these and back to the works themselves; there's more than enough actually contained in the operas to keep the discussion going. I would welcome such a discussion. What I don't welcome is categorical statements that his work has little to say. Such statements dismiss as trivial the perceptions and feelings of those to whom his symbolic representations of the human quest, and his unsparing musical expressions of the light and dark sides of that quest, have provided interest and enjoyment enough for a lifetime.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Right. Those are two of the least categorizable, and most remarkable, operas ever written. And what is _Fidelio_? Neither comic nor tragic. Heroic, maybe? And is _Meistersinger_ fundamentally comic, when its central character (Sachs) is a melancholy philosopher coming to terms with old age and artistic innovation? Perhaps a definition of comedy is in order.


Moliere went from farces like Le medecin malgre lui to high comedy with tragic undercurrents like Le Misanthrope. And that was in 17th century France. And there has been similar genre bending in opera since it began.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You make my point precisely! You don't find the value and meaning in Wagner that others find, so you come to the "conclusion" that that value and meaning aren't there at all. Well, to put it bluntly, you are not entitled to that conclusion. You are entitled only to conclude that your own taste and temperament are not much engaged by what _you think_ Wagner is saying (which is exactly what I am entitled to say, and therefore will now say, about _The__ Marriage of Figaro_). You also mischaracterize those who find more value in Wagner than you do. Although I am one of those, I have never dismissed "all criticism" of Wagner or his work. There's plenty to criticize; the man was complex and his works are complex, so ambitious and daring that flaws can inevitably be found in them. No careful students of Wagner, even among his greatest admirers, deny this. Nor have I accused you or anyone of being uneducated or unsophisticated; I have merely said that there is a mountain of literature by very thoughtful people which, if you were interested, you might investigate in order to see why Wagner has continued to inspire such intense interest and admiration. As for his detractors, the extraordinary persistence and limitless fantasy with which many of them pursue the strange goal of trying to undermine an established monument of Western culture should sow suspicion in the minds of anyone not similarly inclined. Wagner's works have accreted about them a large number of associations and biases which are only too easy to exploit for destructive ends. Responsible criticism attempts to get beyond these and back to the works themselves; there's more than enough actually contained in the operas to keep the discussion going. I would welcome such a discussion. What I don't welcome is categorical statements that his work has little to say. Such statements dismiss as trivial the perceptions and feelings of those to whom his symbolic representations of the human quest, and his unsparing musical expressions of the light and dark sides of that quest, have provided interest and enjoyment enough for a lifetime.


My dear sir, of course, in a free country, I am entitled to that conclusion. I do not mischaracterise Wagner fans at all as you are actually proving my point! There is almost an evangelical zeal in your writing.
Remember opera is an entertainment - an entertainment! We mustn't take it too seriously else we get our life's priorities out of order. It is a fantasy world which is perfectly unnatural as people sing instead of speaking. But one which we both find enjoyable.
You are perfectly entitled to your view of Wagner, of Mozart, of Rossini, Beethoven or any other composer. But please allow me my opinion also. 
What ever they do or do not do for us in terms of our cultural enrichment is a matter of personal taste. Your taste and my taste.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Remember opera is an entertainment - an entertainment! We mustn't take it too seriously else we get our life's priorities out of order. It is a fantasy world which is perfectly unnatural as people sing instead of speaking. But one which we both find enjoyable.


I have to disagree with you there. _Some _opera is entertainment. But you have to remember that back in the day, there were artists who really believed that an experience of certain music, poetry, painting etc. could actually give the listener, reader, viewer etc. an experience that would change them. The composers of those days attempted to impart moral character in the music itself. This is a somewhat bizarre concept to a lot of people, although I'm sure it isn't foreign to you. From Romans: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" In later opera, there is, largely thanks to Wagner, a real attempt to bring together myriad artistic creations into a whole to form the opera itself, including music, poetry, painting, dance etc. All of these are intended, by some composers, to be more than something to pass the time with.

I happen to find some of Wagner's philosophizing, shall we say, unimpressive. The value of the experience of his artistic sensibility is far more profound, in my opinion. But I think that there are valuable "philosophical" lessons to be gained _there_. Philosophy is really about figuring out how to look at life, and that's what art is all about too (as well as science). The journey towards human freedom in the Ring, despite my occasional frustration with the music/libretto (though I like a lot of it), is valuable, and interesting to think about. One also has to take into account archetypes. Carl Jung, in his recently released _Red Book_, draws on Wagner's Siegfried as a picture for a necessary psychic event (killing the Hero). This is somewhere on the border between philosophy and psychology, seeing as neither academic discipline seems to want Freud or Jung, but it's there, in the work.



Wodduck said:


> No era holds a monopoly on truth or on artistic greatness, and no era's products of artistic genius can tell us everything that art is capable of telling us about ourselves and the world. Mozart, like all artists in all times and places, had his limits.


I agree with you here, certainly. What particularly irks me is when people say that there is nothing good today, or by some people's estimate, since the start of the 20th century or earlier. We just experienced the loss of one of the great novelists of all time, Gabriel Garcia Marquez. We also recently lost a man whom Marcel Marceau called one of the great artists of the late 20th century, and this may be a difficult argument to make here but..., Michael Jackson.

My take on Mozart/Wagner: they're both great geniuses of music, whose work I love and explore with great relish. They are both great artists and profound minds. Personally, however, my imagination is fired by the music of Puccini like no other. Wagner is second, Rossini third, Mozart fourth (what a ridiculous sham it is trying to "rank" them), but I find so much in Puccini, that, coincidentally, few others seem to find.

As for comedy, I disagree. In my mind, best works combine all or several genres. Just tragedy gets a little tiring, and I think is often less tragic. That may just be my depraved, Euripidean mind talking, but that's what I think. I also have to disagree with you, Wodduck, about _Gianni Schicchi_. It isn't his best work, but in the literal sense, not as in when people say, "Hm, it's not his best work". I think it is a great work, though.


----------



## Guest (May 29, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I have to disagree with you there. _Some _opera is entertainment. But you have to remember that back in the day, there were artists who really believed that an experience of certain music, poetry, painting etc. could actually give the listener, reader, viewer etc. an experience that would change them. The composers of those days attempted to impart moral character in the music itself.


I agree. Whilst it might be a bit of leap from the claims of the artist to the reality of the impact of their work, the seriousness with which the arts are taken cannot be dismissed so lightly. The mistake is in attaching a disproportionate significance to one work or one artist, rather than to the pursuit of the arts as a whole. It may be claimed that Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist in the English language and Hamlet/King Lear his greatest play, but what is more important is that his works, and those of many other writers, painters, sculptors, composers (etc) have influenced our cultural life, our education systems and values, how our leisure time and money is spent...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> My dear sir, of course, in a free country, I am entitled to that conclusion. I do not mischaracterise Wagner fans at all as you are actually proving my point! There is almost an evangelical zeal in your writing.
> Remember opera is an entertainment - an entertainment! We mustn't take it too seriously else we get our life's priorities out of order. It is a fantasy world which is perfectly unnatural as people sing instead of speaking. But one which we both find enjoyable.
> You are perfectly entitled to your view of Wagner, of Mozart, of Rossini, Beethoven or any other composer. But please allow me my opinion also.
> What ever they do or do not do for us in terms of our cultural enrichment is a matter of personal taste. Your taste and my taste.


Taste is one thing. Constantly reiterated distaste is another.

I feel I must make clear that I had no intention of importing an argument about Wagner into this thread. I thought my mention of his operas was pertinent and simply illustrative of a point relative to the topic. I should have been more circumspect.

Your original topic here asked whether the greatest operas were comedies, and you answered "yes" because you think Mozart's operas are the "pinnacle" of the art. My response was "no," it is not possible to narrow down the "greatest" operas so severely, and most of the greatest operas are not comic, or at least not strictly so. I cited Wagner as the best example I could find of a composer of great operas whose works pursue dramatic ends very different from Mozart's, doing so through very different musical means, and I cited, in a brief and general way, what I thought some of those differences were, being careful first to state my respect for Mozart's achievement and for those who love his works. In response, you more or less skated over my remarks, showing no parallel concern to acknowledge the distinctiveness of Wagner's achievements and simply repeating that Mozart was the ultimate opera composer.

It would obviously have been wise strategy at that point to leave a dead horse unbeaten. But, seeing that the discussion I thought I had initiated had gone nowhere, and operating under the delusion that I had actually said something potentially interesting, I went on to expand a bit on the cultural and musical evolution in the years after Mozart which I contended had to be taken into account in order to understand why opera had important places to go after the eighteenth century, places to which Mozart could not have taken it. Again I made clear, and even enlarged upon, my appreciation of his contribution to the form.

Again I misjudged the likely course of things and should have let the matter lie. Instead I gave in to the feeling of annoyance that my attempts to look at questions in a thoughtful fashion had met with no more than generalized dismissals of Wagner. Had I deliberated about it, rather than forged on, I would have simply have resigned myself to the conclusion that such easy put-downs are all I'm ever likely to get on a subject you seem to enjoy only when you can toss incendiary devices in the direction of those who love a composer you do not. But, being here on this forum to have discussions about the thing that is my primary passion in life - music - I tend to get rather excited about the music and the composers who mean a lot to me, and for some inexplicable reason can't easily accept seeing them misrepresented or trivialized (a weakness of mine, I guess). So I unwisely waded into the murky waters of the Rhine, with predictable results.

You say I seem to have an "evangelical zeal" in my defense of Wagner. If zeal means "love," I plead guilty as charged; but "evangelical" is quite inaccurate, as that implies an offensive, rather than a defensive, stance. If, during the three months I have been on TC, I had seen anyone throw as many disparaging remarks at Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, or any other composer of such genius and importance as you have thrown at Wagner, you can be certain that I would have had something to say in their defense as well. You've made it clear on many occasions that you think Wagner's librettos are poor, his plots absurd, his characterizations shallow, his theatrical requirements impossible and comical in practice, his antisemitism the only philosophical, sociological or psychological issue raised by his work, his music (or the parts of it that don't bore you) the only thing about him worth bothering with, and his operas - and opera in general, perhaps music in general, perhaps indeed the arts in general - mere "entertainment" (whatever that word means to you). And all that seems to be required to provoke such remarks is for someone to praise - no, not always even to praise, but merely to mention - Wagner.

If you ever decide to offer on this forum a comment about Wagner that indicates a considered appraisal of his achievements and shows a desire for actual discussion, I might be too shocked to take you up on it! Meanwhile I guess it's my fate to try to catch whatever grenades come over the wall. At least it keeps my old brain working.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> We also recently lost a man whom Marcel Marceau called one of the great artists of the late 20th century, and this may be a difficult argument to make here but..., Michael Jackson.


Not at all: I've been feeling deprived by his loss--I used to look forward to every new beer and malt whiskey companion he authored.

I mildly disagree with your concluding paragraph, however. I think the idea that generically mixed works--those involving both comedy and tragedy--are the highest works of art is a bit too popular and unquestioned. I find that in order to celebrate a genius like Shakespeare there are too few performances of another genius like Christopher Marlowe; similarly Mozart (my favorite opera composer, admittedly) too thoroughly crowds out Gluck (who supplies pleasures I can't find anywhere else, especially in more conceptual and minimalist stagings). There are advantages in terms of clarity of idea when a composer (of whatever kind) is rigorously selective, and the more capacious composers risk producing a bit of a muddle--not to say that they do, I just wouldn't like to say that one ambition is better than the other, even if the result is unequal.

Of course, I find Mozart's "La Clemenza" to be his funniest opera, so I wouldn't dare to suggest that my tastes are objective (except, perhaps, with respect to single malts).


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Blancrocher said:


> Of course, I find Mozart's "La Clemenza" to be his funniest opera, so I wouldn't dare to suggest that my tastes are objective (except, perhaps, with respect to single malts).


Goodness I had a surreal mental picture there of Clemenza with pratfalls! Tell me how it is funny (although I have seen a good Vitellia wring a wryly comic moment out her her constant changes of mind).


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ The Ponnelle film and the latest Munich production are actually funny *if* you can get yourself in the mental place where this opera can be funny. The Munich production in particular was an eye opener as to how it _can_ be funny.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Goodness I had a surreal mental picture there of Clemenza with pratfalls! Tell me how it is funny (although I have seen a good Vitellia wring a wryly comic moment out her her constant changes of mind).


It slays me, the way Mozart makes people look ridiculous for their virtues.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Blancrocher said:


> It slays me, the way Mozart makes people look ridiculous for their virtues. In any case, I don't care to defend myself, since I admitted I'm wrong--I just ask that you don't ruin my amusement even though I'm wrong :lol:


Goodness, it was not an attack, just a genuine question.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

deggial said:


> ^ The Ponnelle film and the latest Munich production are actually funny *if* you can get yourself in the mental place where this opera can be funny. The Munich production in particular was an eye opener as to how it _can_ be funny.


Yes, the Ponnelle film is funny in a horribly creepy way. I haven't seen the Munich production, unfortunately.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I also have to disagree with you, Wodduck, about _Gianni Schicchi_. It isn't his best work, but in the literal sense, not as in when people say, "Hm, it's not his best work". I think it is a great work, though.


I meant it only as you mean it, Humphrey! I think _Gianni_ is hilarious, one of opera's most delightful comedies in fact - not, of course, musically up there with _Falstaff_, _Meistersinger_, and _Don Giovanni_ (what is?), but a real little gem of musical and dramatic wit. I actually heard it whole for the first time only a couple of years ago (my "conversion" to Puccini has been a long and painful one, but you've helped it along :lol, and I can only imagine the delight of seeing it live.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

As a novelty, I'll answer the question set:

No, not really.

I don't wish to get into a slanging match about operas or composers, but generally my taste is for tears and anguish in my opera - Les Troyens is my favourite by a very long chalk with (in no particular order) Medea, Tosca, La Somnambula, Elektra, Pelleas et Melisande, Tristan, the Ring, Peter Grimes, Norma, Fidelio and so on appearing frequently on my listening list.

Takes all sorts, I suppose!


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I agree. Whilst it might be a bit of leap from the claims of the artist to the reality of the impact of their work, the seriousness with which the arts are taken cannot be dismissed so lightly. The mistake is in attaching a disproportionate significance to one work or one artist, rather than to the pursuit of the arts as a whole. It may be claimed that Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist in the English language and Hamlet/King Lear his greatest play, but what is more important is that his works, and those of many other writers, painters, sculptors, composers (etc) have influenced our cultural life, our education systems and values, how our leisure time and money is spent...


For me, just like science is the scientific method(s- there are more than just Popper), art is the creative process. The avant-garde artist Joseph Beuys thought that art is essentially about the transformation of both the artist and the beholder. I agree. It's not so much about an elite object as it is about what the object causes to happen in its creator and its beholder. And the transformation of those two is the greatest beauty. Of course, words, and words like Shakespeare's especially, have beauty and significance on their own terms, but I personally find that to be secondary.



Blancrocher said:


> Not at all: I've been feeling deprived by his loss--I used to look forward to every new beer and malt whiskey companion he authored.


The thing about him is that it isn't just his musical ability (in my opinion, he was one of the best popular song writers there was), but also his dancing and singing abilities were simply beyond anybody else. He was like a Michelangelo sculpture in motion. Not only that, but, despite the large number of She-done-me-wrong songs that he wrote, he also wrote a lot with real substance, his "Earth Song" being a powerful artistic statement, especially when combined with its video.



Blancrocher said:


> I mildly disagree with your concluding paragraph, however. I think the idea that generically mixed works--those involving both comedy and tragedy--are the highest works of art is a bit too popular and unquestioned. I find that in order to celebrate a genius like Shakespeare there are too few performances of another genius like Christopher Marlowe; similarly Mozart (my favorite opera composer, admittedly) too thoroughly crowds out Gluck (who supplies pleasures I can't find anywhere else, especially in more conceptual and minimalist stagings). There are advantages in terms of clarity of idea when a composer (of whatever kind) is rigorously selective, and the more capacious composers risk producing a bit of a muddle--not to say that they do, I just wouldn't like to say that one ambition is better than the other, even if the result is unequal.


I think that's fair. I certainly don't mean to say that pure tragedies _can't_ be as good as dramedies, but I find some humor often not only serves to make the characters more human, but can also actually make the darkness of a dark moment darker. When someone is using humor to shield themselves from pain, you know it's bad. Certainly, this does not mean that there aren't A+ works of art sans humor. _Tristan und Isolde_ is a great work, and doesn't really have much comedy. That doesn't work against it; in fact, in that particular case, I think that it would break the spell. Dante's _Commedia_ is pretty serious. But certainly among the very great works. But I think that comedy can add, when it's appropriate, to the power of a dramatic work. Shakespeare's tragedies are full of wit, humor, and often dirty jokes at that.

In general I prefer the tragedies. There's something about the catharsis of tragedy that leaves me feeling better about life in a way that comedy doesn't. It's the empathy. Comedy is a celebration or a satire of life- both fun and fulfilling, but tragedy has an empathetic power that, for me at least, is more powerful (although often made more powerful by the addition of some comedy).



Wodduck said:


> If, during the three months I have been on TC, I had seen anyone throw as many disparaging remarks at Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, or any other composer of such genius and importance as you have thrown at Wagner, you can be certain that I would have had something to say in their defense as well.


Like Puccini, for example.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> You've made it clear on many occasions that you think Wagner's librettos are poor, his plots absurd, his characterizations shallow, his theatrical requirements impossible and comical in practice, .... his music (or the parts of it that don't bore you) the only thing about him worth bothering with
> 
> .


Yes, I plead guilty to those charges. I would add that Wagner's libretti aren't any worse than some others. Just that he did like the sound of his own voice (or pen) too much and could have done with an editor to make them more manageable. 
But I don't see why on earth we should fall out about these things. After all, we're not football supporters! We're lovers of music. 
You're entitled to your view. I have mine. My view is Wagner was a musical genius - at least we can agree on that, surely!


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> (my "conversion" to Puccini has been a long and painful one, but you've helped it along :lol, and I can only imagine the delight of seeing it live.


I'm glad I could be of assistance. :lol:

I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist the opportunity give you a little ribbing about it. Musically, the most striking feature of the opera are the incredibly refined instrumentation, the short moments of sudden bi/atonality, as well as the way he makes a family out of the Donati. _Meraviglioso!_ I must also confess that I have never heard _Meistersinger_ all the way through, only selections, so I can't compare. (I agree about _Giovanni_, however.) A friend of mine, who had seen only one or two operas in her lifetime, recently went to, and absolutely loved, _Meistersinger_. It was one of Puccini's favorites, of course, as he was as big a Wagner fan as they come, and there are many intentional allusion in his works to Meistersinger. As a young composer he was hired to create the edited, Italian version of the score for Ricordi. If you have suggestions for recordings/films, I'd love to hear them.

As an aside, this is the best _Schicchi_ I've ever seen, and I can't help but share it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Like Puccini, for example.


Well, H.A., that bait looks too tasty to swim past! I hope you've noticed that I have but one real difficulty with Puccini, and that is the matter of his poor tormented women, which really can be acutely uncomfortable for me. You may also have noticed that I find him a musical/theatrical master marksman in his emotional aim, which for me makes the "problem" worse! You won't find me harping on it though, except in threads like "the cruelest scenes in opera," where I can appropriately unload my pain (Act 2 of _Tosca_ gets my blue ribbon for now). And that thread at least provides an opportunity to direct people to Maria Callas or to Vera Galupe-Borszkh - incomparable experiences both).

I hope we're still speaking!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> I'm glad I could be of assistance. :lol:
> 
> I knew what you meant, I just couldn't resist the opportunity give you a little ribbing about it. Musically, the most striking feature of the opera are the incredibly refined instrumentation, the short moments of sudden bi/atonality, as well as the way he makes a family out of the Donati. _Meraviglioso!_ I must also confess that I have never heard _Meistersinger_ all the way through, only selections, so I can't compare. (I agree about _Giovanni_, however.) A friend of mine, who had seen only one or two operas in her lifetime, recently went to, and absolutely loved, _Meistersinger_. It was one of Puccini's favorites, of course, as he was as big a Wagner fan as they come, and there are many intentional allusion in his works to Meistersinger. As a young composer he was hired to create the edited, Italian version of the score for Ricordi. If you have suggestions for recordings/films, I'd love to hear them.
> 
> As an aside, this is the best _Schicchi_ I've ever seen, and I can't help but share it.


I see that we're still speaking. Whew!

Thanks much for the _Schicchi_ video. I'll get to it soon. I haven't heard or seen a lot of _Meistersinger_s, but I have an affection for an oldie, the mid-50's EMI recording under Rudolf Kempe. Not the latest sound (mono) but very idiomatic and affectionate, strongly cast with no really weak links and the wonderful Elisabeth Grummer as Eva.


----------



## HumphreyAppleby (Apr 11, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Well, H.A., that bait looks too tasty to swim past! I hope you've noticed that I have but one real difficulty with Puccini, and that is the matter of his poor tormented women, which really can be acutely uncomfortable for me. You may also have noticed that I find him a musical/theatrical master marksman in his emotional aim, which for me makes the "problem" worse! You won't find me harping on it though, except in threads like "the cruelest scenes in opera," where I can appropriately unload my pain (Act 2 of _Tosca_ gets my blue ribbon for now). And that thread at least provides an opportunity to direct people to Maria Callas or to Vera Galupe-Borszkh - incomparable experiences both).
> 
> I hope we're still speaking!


Well, it was a close call, but if I refused to speak to you, how could I set you straight? 

Puccini identifies with his heroines. His creative fire exalted him into the heights of artistic endeavor, but it burned him as well. He was sensitive, really. Remember, however, that it is the men that his psyche is targeting: Mimi dies in silence, but Rodolfo's screams are set to the music of her pathos; Butterfly is driven to suicide, but it is Pinkerton who must live with the image of her with a knife through her throat for the rest of his life, that last, unresolved chord burned into his mind, her child only reminding him of his crime. The men are weak, and deserve pain; the women are strong, and suffer because they can take it. Tosca kills Scarpia; Butterfly takes her destiny into her own hands in a way; Magda leaves Ruggero; Minnie saves Johnson and the whole male community. Never did Puccini write as strong and sophisticated a man as he did women.

The quote that is most illuminating about Puccini is, 'L'amore e il dolore sono nati col mondo', or "Love and suffering were born with the world". They are real forces in his world, and two sides of the same coin. His women love more deeply than his men, because his feminine, creative side hurt him more than his hedonistic, instinctual, masculine side. And because they love more deeply, they suffer more deeply. But it also means that they do something that his male characters cannot do (without a woman's help, that is): grow. Puccini grew immensely as an artist, but was always somewhat naive as an person.

Now, that may be the craziest piece of armchair psychology ever offered by the internet (a competitive title), but I think that it's supported by the facts, and I see some concurring opinions in the literature.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Yes, the Ponnelle film is funny in a horribly creepy way. I haven't seen the Munich production, unfortunately.


the Ponnelle film is a shock if you've been accustomed to more serious takes on it but it might grow on you. I made a special effort because I like Troyanos so much and I can watch it now and chuckle. But it's terribly dated.

check out *the trailer* for the Munisch production. You can glean from the costumes what the director is going for (ridiculousness). I also wrote *about it* in my blog, if you're inclined to read (beware, tl;dr alert).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HumphreyAppleby said:


> Well, it was a close call, but if I refused to speak to you, how could I set you straight?
> 
> Puccini identifies with his heroines. His creative fire exalted him into the heights of artistic endeavor, but it burned him as well. He was sensitive, really. Remember, however, that it is the men that his psyche is targeting: Mimi dies in silence, but Rodolfo's screams are set to the music of her pathos; Butterfly is driven to suicide, but it is Pinkerton who must live with the image of her with a knife through her throat for the rest of his life, that last, unresolved chord burned into his mind, her child only reminding him of his crime. The men are weak, and deserve pain; the women are strong, and suffer because they can take it. Tosca kills Scarpia; Butterfly takes her destiny into her own hands in a way; Magda leaves Ruggero; Minnie saves Johnson and the whole male community. Never did Puccini write as strong and sophisticated a man as he did women.
> 
> ...


It isn't crazy at all. I follow you. Things are clicking in my brain. It occurs to me - to my emotions as well as to my mind, which is a good indicator that something may have truth in it - that Puccini's nature is indeed quite feminine. I feel it in his musical vocabulary: in the sensuousness and warmth of his melodies, in the expressive flexibilty of rhythm that they demand, in the way they float unanchored to a bass line, in the bittersweet chromaticism of his harmony (different from the tense chromaticism of _Tristan_, closer to the soft ambiguities of _Parsifal_...). It is his women we focus on and care about, most of the men appearing, as I review them in my mind, either unsympathetic or, if sympathetic, not very commanding. I've never read a biography of Puccini, but I seem to recall that he was raised in an all-female household. I wouldn't presume to conclude anything from that, but if it's true it's interesting. Perhaps his operas were his way of living out the hypersensitive feminine soul inside his male body - not implying by that any sexual ambiguity or insecure gender identity, but perhaps not ruling it out either; sexuality and gender are delicate and ambiguous things, and resist being squeezed into the boxes where life in the world would like to put us. But be that as it may, it helps me enormously to feel a sympathy with Puccini's works to entertain such possibilities. I may still flinch at the prospect of listening to _Butterfly_ - it is honestly hard for me, I resist doing it (my feminine soul may be vulnerable too!) - but seeing her as Puccini's _anima_, his feminine alter, somehow softens my perspective on the man and his work.

Thank you.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> It isn't crazy at all. I follow you. Things are clicking in my brain. It occurs to me - to my emotions as well as to my mind, which is a good indicator that something may have truth in it - that Puccini's nature is indeed quite feminine. I feel it in his musical vocabulary: in the sensuousness and warmth of his melodies, in the expressive flexibilty of rhythm that they demand, in the way they float unanchored to a bass line, in the bittersweet chromaticism of his harmony (different from the tense chromaticism of _Tristan_, closer to the soft ambiguities of _Parsifal_...). It is his women we focus on and care about, most of the men appearing, as I review them in my mind, either unsympathetic or, if sympathetic, not very commanding. I've never read a biography of Puccini, but I seem to recall that he was raised in an all-female household. I wouldn't presume to conclude anything from that, but if it's true it's interesting. Perhaps his operas were his way of living out the hypersensitive feminine soul inside his male body - not implying by that any sexual ambiguity or insecure gender identity, but perhaps not ruling it out either; sexuality and gender are delicate and ambiguous things, and resist being squeezed into the boxes where life in the world would like to put us. But be that as it may, it helps me enormously to feel a sympathy with Puccini's works to entertain such possibilities. I may still flinch at the prospect of listening to _Butterfly_ - it is honestly hard for me, I resist doing it (my feminine soul may be vulnerable too!) - but seeing her as Puccini's _anima_, his feminine alter, somehow softens my perspective on the man and his work.
> 
> Thank you.


Great post.

_Merci beaucoup_.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Grazia mile!, Woodduck and HA - a great example of a debate within a thread that actually consists of communication between people. I have found this exchange informative and educational and it will heighten my enjoyment and appreciation of Puccini

:tiphat:


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I haven't read this whole thread, so I apologize in advance if my points have already been made.

It was the comedies of Rossini that first brought me into opera; only after I was quite familiar with _Il Barbiere di Siviglia_ and _La Cenerentola_ did I hear and love my first operatic tragedy, _Rigoletto_. So for me comedy has always felt like the more "natural" operatic genre. I don't want to overstate this, though, because if I were to make a list of my top-ten favorite operas there would be more tragedies than comedies on the list.

I think it could be argued that comedy portrays a better _balance_ of the human emotions than tragedy does, particularly in the case of the more "serious" comedies like _Cenerentola_ or _Le nozze di Figaro_. Compare these to something like _Don Carlo_, which can seem un-lifelike in its unrelenting gloom (not that I don't love _Don Carlo_, but I would say that I have to be in the right mood to hear/see it!).

But I'd also point out that even tragedies contain humorous moments. _La Boheme_ is a perfect example.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I think it could be argued that comedy portrays a better _balance_ of the human emotions than tragedy does, particularly in the case of the more "serious" comedies like _Cenerentola_ or _Le nozze di Figaro_. Compare these to something like _Don Carlo_, which can seem un-lifelike in its unrelenting gloom (not that I don't love _Don Carlo_, but I would say that I have to be in the right mood to hear/see it!).


"Balance" is, I think, the _goal_ of good comedy, where problems and conflicts are viewed in the perspective provided by humor, and in the end brought to some kind of resolution or harmonization that enables life to go on. It allows us to laugh at things in life which have the potential to do us harm, affirming our ability to rise above them, and in many cases shows how the problems of individuals and their relationships conflict with, but may ultimately be resolved within, the larger society.

Tragedy (using the word loosely to mean a story that ends unhappily, though I dislike this usage) brings us the truth that balance is often impossible, that things can go irrevocably wrong, and that we must face, and ultimately embrace, this as an inevitable aspect of life. Whereas comedy tends to bring the individual into harmony with the community, tragedy tends to isolate him and often tears the community apart. In life, disaster is not necessarily fatal, but this is often not a foregone conclusion, and the ultimate loss is always a possibility. The portrayal of such loss gives us the opportunity to experience it vicariously, to "rehearse" our own fate, and to look upon it with compassion and wisdom.

I think comedy and tragedy are both nourishing to our souls and necessary in art, and that opera is a powerful medium for the experience of both. Between the absurd hijinks of _L'Italiana in Algieri_ and the horror of _Wozzeck_ the spectrum is enormous, with many operas exhibiting various mixtures of comic and tragic elements. I want all of it.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck: Wow, that was extremely well-written, and your points really resonated with me. They sound like points one of my university literature professors would have made.

A further point regarding humor in tragedy: it's clear to me that Puccini was much more of a natural humorist than was Verdi. In the Puccini operas I'm familiar with (_La Boheme_, _Tosca_, and _Madama Butterfly_) I can list many moments of humor, whereas it's hard if not impossible for me to name even one truly funny moment in a Verdi tragedy.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Woodduck: Wow, that was extremely well-written, and your points really resonated with me. They sound like points one of my university literature professors would have made.
> 
> A further point regarding humor in tragedy: it's clear to me that Puccini was much more of a natural humorist than was Verdi. In the Puccini operas I'm familiar with (_La Boheme_, _Tosca_, and _Madama Butterfly_) I can list many moments of humor, whereas it's hard if not impossible for me to name even one truly funny moment in a Verdi tragedy.


Hmmm... That's an interesting observation. I've never thought much about humor in Verdi (which might prove your point!), except of course that _Falstaff_ comes as quite a surprise at the end of his life. I find Verdi to be a pessimist in general, and I think that comes through even in _Falstaff_; the words of that final fugue, "everything in the world is a joke," don't convey a necessarily cheerful outlook. I hope somebody better versed in Verdi's works than I will chime in here.

I know there isn't much humor in Wagner either, outside of _Die Meistersinger_, a rather surprising opera from him too. Wagner, at the end of his life, came up with a unique work, _Parsifal_, which is neither comedy nor tragedy, although it passes through some harrowingly dark emotions on its way to a blissful resolution. "Mystery play" might be a good category for it - a tale of sin and redemption, spiritual corruption and healing - yet another aspect of human life.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck: I've been wracking my brains, and the closest I can come to finding humor in a Verdi tragedy is that exchange involving the Duke, Sparafucile, and Maddelena in the last act of _Rigoletto_, where the Duke says something like, "You can sleep in the stable, or in Hell, whichever you like," and Sparafucile sarcastically replies, "Oh, thanks." It's not exactly laugh-out-loud funny, of course, but there's a sort of wry wit there. There's a bit of the same type of thing in the subsequent exchanges between Sparafucile and his sister. But on the whole, _Rigoletto_ is surprisingly short on humor -- ironic for an opera whose title character is a professional comedian!

Actually, I believe _La forza del destino_ has a comic monk in it? I hardly know the opera, so I'm not certain.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Woodduck: I've been wracking my brains, and the closest I can come to finding humor in a Verdi tragedy is that exchange involving the Duke, Sparafucile, and Maddelena in the last act of _Rigoletto_, where the Duke says something like, "You can sleep in the stable, or in Hell, whichever you like," and Sparafucile sarcastically replies, "Oh, thanks." It's not exactly laugh-out-loud funny, of course, but there's a sort of wry wit there. There's a bit of the same type of thing in the subsequent exchanges between Sparafucile and his sister. But on the whole, _Rigoletto_ is surprisingly short on humor -- ironic for an opera whose title character is a professional comedian!
> 
> Actually, I believe _La forza del destino_ has a comic monk in it? I hardly know the opera, so I'm not certain.


I'm going to contact Greg Mitchell and bring this to his attention. He's quite the Verdi buff.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Forza indeed has some comic relief in the form of a lazy grumbling monk. Un ballo in Maschera has some light-hearted moments but it's not really laugh out loud. But let's not forget Un Giorno di Regno which is a comic opera.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

mamascarlatti said:


> Forza indeed has some comic relief in the form of a lazy grumbling monk. Un ballo in Maschera has some light-hearted moments but it's not really laugh out loud. But let's not forget Un Giorno di Regno which is a comic opera.


I've never heard _Un Giorno di Regno_. Is it funny? It's early Verdi, so I'd guess there might be some Donizetti influence.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bellinilover said:


> Woodduck: Wow, that was extremely well-written, and your points really resonated with me. They sound like points one of my university literature professors would have made.
> 
> A further point regarding humor in tragedy: it's clear to me that Puccini was much more of a natural humorist than was Verdi. In the Puccini operas I'm familiar with (_La Boheme_, _Tosca_, and _Madama Butterfly_) I can list many moments of humor, whereas it's hard if not impossible for me to name even one truly funny moment in a Verdi tragedy.


The part in Rigoletto where Sparfarcile's sister tells him to kill the jester instead of the Duke and he replies indignantly, " what do you take me for? A robber? A bandit?" The assassins professional integrity has been questioned.

There is indeed very little humour in Verdi's tragedies which makes it the more amazing that when Verdi then wrote his greatest opera at the end of his life, it turned out to be a real comedy.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> I've never heard _Un Giorno di Regno_. Is it funny? It's early Verdi, so I'd guess there might be some Donizetti influence.


Pretty standard story of star crossed lovers and false kings. Not funny exactly: "dramma giocoso". I have seen it listed among others' favourite Verdi operas so I have been promising myself to give this another whirl:


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Bellinilover said:


> Compare these to something like _Don Carlo_, which can seem un-lifelike in its unrelenting gloom (not that I don't love _Don Carlo_, but I would say that I have to be in the right mood to hear/see it!).


I don't know what this says about me, but I'm pretty much _always_ in the mood to hear *Don Carlo*. I find more in this flawed masterpiece every time I hear it. Maybe I just like a good wallow.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I've never heard _Un Giorno di Regno_. Is it funny? It's early Verdi, so I'd guess there might be some Donizetti influence.


It's Donizettian comedy, with a reasonably good libretto by Romani. I guess audiences would have found it funnier back then that it is now. I can't say I find it that funny, lighthearted certainly, and really not representative of Verdi at all.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> Forza indeed has some comic relief in the form of a lazy grumbling monk. Un ballo in Maschera has some light-hearted moments but it's not really laugh out loud. But let's not forget Un Giorno di Regno which is a comic opera.


The comedy in *Ballo*. might not, as you say, be laugh out loud, but it does show Verdi the complete master of his idiom. How brilliantly Verdi juxtaposes the sardonic humour of the conspirators against Amelia's mounting panic and Renato's fury. This is great music drama.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

GregMitchell said:


> I don't know what this says about me, but I'm pretty much _always_ in the mood to hear *Don Carlo*. I find more in this flawed masterpiece every time I hear it. Maybe I just like a good wallow.


As far as I am concerned the only flaw is the ending. I'm still not sure what is going on there. But otherwise I think it is perfect, preferably in a version where I can hear every note Verdi wrote for it.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> As far as I am concerned the only flaw is the ending. I'm still not sure what is going on there. But otherwise I think it is perfect, preferably in a version where I can here every note Verdi wrote for it.


Though that is actually quite a tricky assignment. It exists in so many different versions, mots of them by Verdi himself, which add and take away bits of music. The DG Abbado recording, though it is not by any means the best recording, probably had the right idea be recording complete one of Verdi's authorised versions, then adding as an appendix all the various bits that had been cut from the score at one time. There is no definitive version of the score, which makes it really difficult to decide what to and what not to include. Whatever version you choose, you're right, the end is a mess.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

GregMitchell said:


> Though that is actually quite a tricky assignment. It exists in so many different versions, mots of them by Verdi himself, which add and take away bits of music. The DG Abbado recording, though it is not by any means the best recording, probably had the right idea be recording complete one of Verdi's authorised versions, then adding as an appendix all the various bits that had been cut from the score at one time. There is no definitive version of the score, which makes it really difficult to decide what to and what not to include. Whatever version you choose, you're right, the end is a mess.


I love that Abbado recording - when ripping it to my mp3 player I slotted the appendices into the right place so I can listen in some kind of logical order. Whatever else is left out, I am particularly insistent on the woodcutter's chorus at the beginning of Act 1 - because the poverty and despair of the ordinary people is what provides the dramatic impetus for Elisabetta to forgo her dream of happiness and agree to marry Philip and end the war.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GregMitchell said:


> Though that is actually quite a tricky assignment. It exists in so many different versions, mots of them by Verdi himself, which add and take away bits of music. The DG Abbado recording, though it is not by any means the best recording, probably had the right idea be recording complete one of Verdi's authorised versions, then adding as an appendix all the various bits that had been cut from the score at one time. There is no definitive version of the score, which makes it really difficult to decide what to and what not to include. Whatever version you choose, you're right, the end is a mess.


I was gobsmacked by the end of Don Carlo. Seems if they couldn't decide how to end it!


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

DavidA said:


> I was gobsmacked by the end of Don Carlo. Seems if they couldn't decide how to end it!


The funniest thing is seeing how directors deal with it. The last one I saw had a statue of Philip dragging Carlos away, as though the Commendatore had got lost on his way to the Don.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

mamascarlatti said:


> I love that Abbado recording - when ripping it to my mp3 player I slotted the appendices into the right place so I can listen in some kind of logical order. Whatever else is left out, I am particularly insistent on the woodcutter's chorus at the beginning of Act 1 - because the poverty and despair of the ordinary people is what provides the dramatic impetus for Elisabetta to forgo her dream of happiness and agree to marry Philip and end the war.


I know it makes for a longer performance, but I don't like it when the Fontainebleau act is cut. What happens there sets up everything else that occurs in the rest of the opera. It makes Carlo's actions (as well as Elisabetta's) far more comprehensible, and also explains why Elisabetta has his portrait in her jewel case.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

For my money, it doesn't work to have Carlo mysteriously taken into the tomb of his grandfather, or to have said grandfather put in an actual appearance (the opera really isn't about him).

Much better to have Carlo killed by Philip's soldiers, or kill himself before that can happen. The disembodied voice of Carlo V intones about finding peace only with God, while King Philip, standing over the corpse of his son, cries out in horror, "My father!" At that moment, the focus should be on Philip, finally forced to confront what a truly horrible father he himself has been.


----------

