Vocalist.org archive


From:  Margaret Harrison <peggyh@i...>
Margaret Harrison <peggyh@i...>
Date:  Fri Oct 13, 2000  1:22 am
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] opera and speech


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...

emusic.com