burntcopper | trying to get the nessun dorma

Can someone explain the appeal of opera to me? The only times I seem to like it are when it's out of context and put in as an effect in another piece of music, like another instrument (seems to work best on soundtracks or dance music, which is another genre where the words don't often matter, the effect does). I can appreciate it the sheer technical effort and sound you can get out of it, but do *not* get it as a storytelling device. I can't imagine sitting through a musical where I'm supposed to be following a story and being provided with a translation or subtitles. Subtitles in film are one thing, but constantly having to glance down at a program and not being able to get all the vocal tricks and wordplay (let alone the fact that when I've heard amazing opera singers sing in english, their diction is kinda crap, so you don't get all the words anyway) - just no. Seriously. Does it work like mime/dance with a very specific soundtrack? (except the actors have to be static or moving slowly to produce that vocal power - no high-kicking dance sequences whilst belting out the main number here)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Does it work like mime/dance with a very specific soundtrack?

My initial thoughts about ballet were much the same. I think it takes a) a certain amount of learning and b) an inclination towards it, to understand the appeal of the artform.

Some people inherently find themselves drawn to particular forms of emotional expression; the visual to art fans, the tonal to music fans; for the rest of us, the taste can be developed, but it's not something that clicks instantly.

I've never been a great opera fan, but Channel Four did a televised Ring Cycle in the early 90s and I watched and enjoyed the whole thing.

I think ballet is essentially kinetic/visual in its appeal; whereas opera is tonal/visual - not to say that there isn't music in ballet, or visual composition in opera, but you get the point; the music in ballet is the backdrop to the dancers' expression, which is (or should be!) the focus for your attention.

Personally, I think knowing the 'official' story can detract from the enjoyment of opera. Not always, but sometimes.
As with ballet, sometimes you can fill in the gaps yourself, if you're not told everything up front.

Opera has given us some undeniably lovely pieces of music. But - and this is purely my own personal take, not being nearly cultured or educated enough in the ways of opera to have an informed opinion - for me they work better as pieces, in isolation. Especially when the words are in a language I don’t speak, thereby becoming music themselves.

However, while I could no more sit through a whole opera than I could swallow my own hands, without the opera as a whole I doubt the pieces would have ever come to be. Perhaps you should look on operas like that: as dense, impenetrable jungles, from whose fertile ground treasures occasionally sprout.

But mostly they’re just noise and rain and things killing each other.

Some things opera can be:-

It's a spectacle.
It's a chance for singers X, Y and Z to show off their vocal talents.
It's what came before musical theatre, so it's a kind of father/grandfather to the genre.
The music and performance are meant to evoke the emotions/story, even if you don't understand a word.
It's hard to sing [yes, I've performed in opera!].
Pretty frocks! [sometimes]
Fun! [I submit parts of the Marriage of Figaro as evidence]
Tragic [Aida]

Yeah, the plotlines in opera are meant to be ridiculous. Part of this is because the libretto isn't the point, it's the music and then the costuming. Part of this is because when opera began to boom, literature was already full of melodrama and ridiculous plots. Consider:

Lorenzo manages to prevent Hieronimo from seeking justice by convincing the King that Horatio is alive and well. Furthermore, Lorenzo does not allow Hieronimo to see the King, claiming that he is too busy. This, combined with his wife's suicide, which happens just prior to Hieronimo's appeal to the King, pushes Hieronimo past his limit. He rants incoherently and digs at the ground with his dagger. Lorenzo goes on to tell his uncle, the King, that Hieronimo's odd behavior is due to his inability to deal with his son Horatio's new found wealth (Balthazar's ransom from the Portuguese Viceroy), and he has gone mad with jealousy. Regaining his senses, he and Bel-Imperia feign reconciliation with the murderers and plan to put on a play together, Soliman and Perseda. Under cover of the play they stab Lorenzo and Balthazar to death in front of the King, Viceroy, and Duke of Castile (Lorenzo and Bel-Imperia's father); Bel-Imperia kills herself, and Hieronimo tells his audience of his motive behind the murders, but refuses to reveal Bel-Imperia's complicity in the plot. He then bites out his own tongue to prevent himself from talking under torture, after which he kills the Duke and then himself. Andrea and Revenge are satisfied, delivering suitable eternal punishments to the guilty parties.

That's part of The Spanish Tragedie by Thomas Kyd but would be at home in any of Verdi's operas. If all these revenge tragedies actually happened there would have been no royalty left in Europe.

Funny thing is...the plot of most Shakespeare plays, especially the comedies, are no less believable, but the writing's so good it's easy to ignore the fact that everyone seems to have a cross-dressing identical twin whom they were separated from at birth so one of them could be raised by the faeries while the other became prince of Moldavia.

Part of this is because the libretto isn't the point

I've been thinking a bit further about this...

I would say that the purpose of opera (apart from entertainment) is to showcase the singers' voices. Someone whose tastes run to the tonal end of things will quite possibly find that sufficient entertainment in itself; whereas anyone whose tastes are more kinetic or visual or literary will find it not to their taste unless:

a) it also contains elements of the kinetic/visual/literary or

b) unless it's an absolutely stonking bit of music that will stand on its own merits without any additional stimuli.

Without one of the two, I think you have something that will make music-lovers happy, but leave the visual fans a bit less than gripped.

There's any amount of operatic stuff that is frankly not for the wider market.

There's also stuff that is good, but is clearly designed to show off the voice (e.g. Der Hölle Rache from The Magic Flute).

Then again, there are things like the Overture to the Marriage of Figaro, which is one of the most bouncy and uptempo intros ever; I defy anyone to dislike it, even if the Classical period (~1750-1820) isn't their thing.

I'd say the same goes for other artforms: there's the stuff that anyone can enjoy straight off; that has such broad appeal that you could hum a few bars and people would recognise it.

(Half of Prokofiev's output fills this category, especially given John William's fondness for filing the serial numbers off and using the result for a film soundtrack.)

And then there's things like Penderecki's Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima, which most listeners would probably confuse with a malfunctioning domestic appliance.

Of course, this varies with time and audience; there are popular composers of their day who are now nearly forgotten apart from one or two pieces; and usage of a particular piece in another medium can maintain or revive interest in a piece.

Case in point; the number of people who recognise Nimrod from the television, even though they wouldn't know the Enigma Variations if it bit them.

Or the people who would recognise Ligeti's music from its usage by Stanley Kubrick (such as the Kyrie used as the 'spooky' music in 2001).

...and here is a suitably uptempo redition of the Overture mentioned above; it may not be massively authentic, but it's incredibly fun.

(And was also the exit music for our wedding!)

I could explain, but not here, as sound and gesture aren't allowed in plain text. Face to face, perhaps.

My mother-in-law really likes it and it's something I've got into recently. I agree with the person who said that it takes some learning to get into. I like it because of the beautiful music (and the subtitles don't bother me - but then I didn't remember that Crouching Tiger had subtitles until I watched the film for the third time). I do particularly like the emotion of the music - chills up my back stuff. The plots do tend to be ridiculous and I hate on particular characters (Manon Lescaut needs a good slap) but no more than in musicals. But I don't think of going to an opera the same as going to a musical for some reason. It's more like going to a classical musical concert.

I think maybe to like opera you have to actually like opera. While I have no problem suspending my disbelief enough to be absorbed for the three hours it takes the average opera production to howl out a story I'm incapable of suspending it for an hours episode of Eastenders or half an hour of Jerry Springer. This despite the fact that the storylines are probably the same.

trying to get the nessun dorma

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject