Linda Fox wrote: > > mikebarb@n... wrote: > He illustrated how you could hear > > the argument could be heard and followed in the music even though there were no > > words used. My professor used it to illustrate his thesis that some people seem > > to think in music rather than verbally. > > I think this is rather far-fetched, I'm afraid. Yes, you could well say > you can hear a quarrel in a piece of music. Particularly _after_ you > have been told there is a quarrel there! But if you tried to go into the > details of the quarrel ("Why didn't you let me know you were going to be > late?" "You don't trust me!" "And with good reason after the way you > lied last time" etc) without having already been told them, I would say > you were being fanciful; ten sensitive musicians, invited to write down > the minutiae of the quarrel in the music, (after complaining that this > was not really sensible) would come up with ten different scenarios.
I can't say I've been following this discussion closely so far, but I don't think anyone, including Professor Hanson, contends that words don't matter in opera! If that were the case, composers wouldn't bother with rhymes in their libretti and would simply set vocalese.
But, unlike lieder in my opinion, words in opera are only one of many factors, and many times they're not the most important. Bit this varies over time. As Linda noted, the original opera inentors strongly believed that music should be subordinate to text and should serve to illumniate it. But this didn't last long in its pure form - all it needed was a musical genius like Monteverdi to come along and make music more important (though he did respect text).
I think opera composers know how hard it is for singers to make the type of sounds that opera requires and make words understandable at the same time. That's why you see so much text repetition in the traditional operas (untill Puccini, I'd guess, but don't hold me to it). The composer gets the basic text out of the way in a lower tessitura, then text repeats to allow the music and vocal fireworks to attain pre-eminence.
In the 20th century, I think opera has shifted back toward text predominance, and this may be part of the reason why many traditional opera fans think 20th century opera is unmusical. It really isn't, but it doesn't revel in the sensuousness of the music and the voice the way it used to - it goes for dramatic impact.
And in the 20th century (and also in earlier times, no doubt) you also have some composers who seem to have no interest in writing operatic music for the voice that can be understood by the audience. They put important text in really high soprano notes, for example. No way anyone can make those understood, because the vowels modify and many consonants have to be glossed over to even sing the notes. I'm thinking of Nixon in China, which I otherwise like. Every production I've heard of has used surtitles, and maybe that's why Adams thought he could get away with the way he wrote the vocal parts.
> For pure instrumental music, this is fine. The details of the quarrel > are not necessary for you to get the feeling, the anger, the bitterness, > the resolution, and so on. This is the language that is conveyed in > music, the feeling, the expression. But opera needs more than this. I > feel Lloyd has been rather backed into a corner to defend his position, > and has taken a rather more extreme line than he may have done > otherwise. There are many times in opera where the minutiae _are_ > important.
I don't agree with the school of singing that says one should pay attention only to vowels and ignore consonants in order to have good legato. The school I've learned in says that good consonants enhance a legato line - they ride the line, can be understood, yet don't interrupt the line (this approach has been taught to my teachers that I know of by Peter Pears and George Shirley). Personally, I find that well-produced consonants help my legato and overall vocal effectness - they get my breath going, help add direction and energy to my phrasing, and make the music exciting. Sure, above the staff some consonants just aren't going to happen. But there's plenty of singing to be done where they can be given full value, and one can have beautiful tone, a great legato, AND understandable text.
But, to go back to an earlier point, the best opera puts the essence of the emotional ideas into the music. The best of these ideas don't replace the text, they contrast with or intensify it. For example, where the music, whether in the vocal line or in the orchestra, appears to differ from the text, that could provide a clue that the character isn't supposed to believe the words sung (or something like that).
I also love it in opera where the music shows you what's to happen on stage. Mozart does this SO well - it's all through Figaro, Cosi, Don G and Flute. When the singers and director pay attention to this, and the orchestra is playing well, it's such an incredibly exciting feeling that there's nothing in theater to match it, in my very biased opinion. Examples I've experienced have been Rosenkavelier at The Washington Opera (TWO) a few seasons back and at the Met last season, Le nozze di Figaro at the Met a few seasons ago, a Cosi at TWO a bunch of years ago, L'Italiana in Algieri and Don Giovanni at Wolf Trap last summer, Giulio Cesare at TWO last season, L'incoronazione di Poppea at Florida Grand Opera a few seasons back. That's why, as I get older, I go more and more to the opera and less and less to other things.
Peggy
-- Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA "Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile" mailto:peggyh@i...
|
| |