The difference between opera and musical theatre- Page 3

[misschung]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 2:49pm

I agree that it's hard to use the English translations of arias as an argument for their lyrics being secondary to their music. I know that some arias are definetly showcases for vocal talent but not all of them.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 2:49pm

AC,

Using an example from the Bel canto period is really not fair. The Bel Canto period was obsolutely obsessed with what youre mentioning, that the voice and music should be pretty above everything else. Its why I hate operas like Lucia di Lammermoor, on that note I totally agree wit you., but thats is just one period in the history of opera, its not fair to caregorize the entire genre by one period.

The same could be said about some of the Golden Age of Broadway shows, where the songs had little or often nothing to do with the plot. It wouln't be fair to generalize the entire genre of musical theater as fluff, as many people often do.

[gymdudeva]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 2:54pm

I have a friend/co-worker who is the quentessential opera queen. He has a whole wall of opera albums. But just mention a typical Broadway muscial and he starts foaming at the mouth and gets all snobby.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 2:59pm

And it's that blind hatred of the other genre that shows complete ignorance. Sure--we all have our tastes and maybe we don't like one end of the spectrum/extreme (that which is easily recognized as opera or musical comedy), but the lines blur in the middle and there are always exceptions to the rule. And, I think making such generalized statements is foolish. Ideally, I would hope a person would be open to things outside the box. It's just snobbish not to.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:12pm

I agree,

As a person who grew up solely on musical theater and then studied opera and now sits on the fence between them, I have to say that both genres have their snobs, and those snobs are both ignorant fools.

Some of my favorite pieces in both genres are the more experimental ones, the ones that go "outside of the box" as you say.
but I love the classics too, dont get me wrong.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:12pm

My first double post...heh

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 03:12 PM

[misschung]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:28pm

JRB - I agree with you completely. And I think that the theatre/opera border control police are partly why there is such heated discussion over how the two are different. I don't really understand how opera fans, when faced with a musical, can shake their hands and heads and do the "oh, no I couldn't possibly...never!" thing... but thats just me! :o)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 3:39pm

My feelings here were probably born in college where us musical theatre actors were always faced with snobbishness from our opera and straight play classmates who felt that we weren't possibly as good at singing and acting. I think it's ignorance and likely jealousy. Those folks often couldn't do BOTH. And, musical theatre is where the money is.

I refused to be told I couldn't do straight plays or even opera as I knew that to be a great musical theatre performer, I did need (and want) to be able to do plays and opera as well. To be the best actor and singer I could be.

And from there, I consider it all theatre--straight plays, musicals, operas, ballets. An actor uses some combination of voice and body to tell the story--depending on the piece of theatre they are in.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 4:00pm

I think that as a general statement -- and really with this issue, you can only talk in generalities because there's ALWAYS at least one exception to any statement -- it's fair to characterize opera as being more concerned with music, while musical theatre is more concerned with words. While, yes, you do have exceptions like the Mozart operas mentioned earlier, Boito's brilliant librettos for Verdi (Otello and Falstaff) and Ponchielli (La Gioconda), several of Wagner's operas and some of the librettos written for the verismo operas of the early 20th century (Tosca, Butterfly, Pagliacci), to name a few, in most operas (especially Italian bel canto and buffo ones of the 19th century) coherent plot, finely wrought storytelling within the lyric, and logical character development were all clearly quite secondary to the expression of beautiful sound. In fact several very popular and famous operas really don't make all that much sense (I can recall a very funny article from Opera News several years ago in which they asked several major divas who had been great Leonoras in their prime to explain the plot of Il Trovatore -- most just laughed and said that they couldn't possibly untangle all of those plot twists, despite having sung the role dozens of times; the opera's on-going popularity is due entirely to Verdi's incomparable score, not its libretto which few people, including Italian singers who have studied and performed it, can make sense of).

Look at the the great bel canto operas of the early to mid 19th century by composers like Bellini and Donizetti -- they featured some of the most gloriously lyrical passages in the history of music ("bel canto" literally means "beautiful singing"). They were written to fully exploit singers' florid passagework and legato line, not their diction or ability to convey some deep meaning in the words (there wasn't any). They were showpieces for divas well into the 20th century, but went out of favor for a time after versimo emerged as the popular choice due to verismo's emphasis on character and storytelling. It got to the point that many major conductors and opera houses thought the form beneath them and stopped booking those operas because they weren't considered "serious" music. It wasn't until Maria Callas (one of the most brilliant singing actress in the history of opera who had absolutely impeccable diction) single-handedly caused a bel canto revolution when she had several of them revived (Lucia, Puritani, La Sonnambula, Anna Bolena) and brought so much intensity and expression and psychological depth to her interpretations (which she achieved by emphasizing the meaning of the words and emotions over simply trying to make a beautiful sound) that she caused many to re-evaluate the merits of these operas and as a result they were brought back into to repertoire of several major opera houses.

It's ironic that the mantle of the bel canto revolution was then passed on to Joan Sutherland, who continued the process of unearthing these long-forgotten 19th century operas and having them revived as vehicles for herself. Unlike Callas, Sutherland was no actress and much like the divas of the past who had initially caused these operas to go into disfavor to begin with, she was far more concerned about using this music as an excuse to show off her impressive coloratura technique and the vocal fireworks she could generate, than about creating a complex character and paying careful attention to words to tell the story -- with possibly the mushiest diction of any singer to have a major international career, it was often difficult to determine even what language Dame Joan was caterwauling in, let alone what she was ever actually saying. But audiences love their fireworks and she could fire them off with the best of them, so she became one of the most popular singers of the latter half of the 20th century.

Generally speaking (very general), musical theatre performers are better trained and more adept at lyrical interpretation than opera singers are. Part of that is due to the incredible technical demands in opera which can in many cases make it difficult for a singer to focus on anything other than hitting and sustaining the proper notes at the proper time. Opera composers tend to write much longer lines covering a far greater range than most musical theatre composers (and also write much heavier and denser orchestral accompaniment that can make it difficult even to be heard), which makes conveying any meaning to the lyrics a real challenge. Contrast that with, say, Sondheim, for whom the lyric always takes precedence over anything else and writes his scores to compliment rather than to compete with singers (as well as having his orchestrators keep arrangements relatively spare -- other than in, say, choral moments -- so that the lyrics are always easily intelligible to the audience). It's always interesting to hear Sondheim shows done by opera companies. Oftentimes, there's a mix of opera singers and a few Broadway singers and while the Broadway people typically are better at lyric interpretation and sacrificing vocal beauty for lyric clarity, the opera singers have a tendency to extend phrases and vocal passages to make a more beautiful sound and generally aren't as precise or nuanced in their acting choices. Again, not ALWAYS, but generally, that's the difference you hear between the two.

Now, as for the complaints about opera "singing style," understand that that's a necessary evil due to the tremendous demands of the music. As orchestras expanded (beginning with Beethoven in the early 19th century and continuing with Wagner decades later), operas got longer (also due largely to Wagner) and opera houses got larger, it became necessary for singers to develop a technique which would allow them to be heard clearly and precisely over and through 80+ musicians playing in alt, for hours at a time, without damaging their voices in 3000+ seat opera houses with no amplification. That "style" which employs the diaphragm to push the sound through the vocal chords with as little stress as possible is the only way a singer can possibly perform 4+ hours in a 3,800 seat house like the Met and not hurt themselves and their instruments. It's not like singing on Broadway where every one is mic'ed up the wazoo to the point where you can literally whisper and be heard in the last row of the balcony (in a house that on Broadway has at most only about 1800 seats). Amplification allows for a completely different, more "natural" singing style (and it should be noted how different even Broadway singing styles were before the introduction of mics -- belters like Merman and Jolson and quasi-opera types like Helen Morgan, Joan Roberts, Alfred Drake and John Raitt also out of necessity had singing styles that bear little resemblance to the way most Broadway singers sound today). Now, mind you, I'm not saying that you shouldn't dislike a more operatic singing style if it doesn't suit your taste -- I'm just pointing out that under such demanding circumstances, it's not really a choice.

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 04:00 PM

[misschung]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 4:29pm

well said!

Totally agree about the bel canto, and about Joan Sutherland. I do think that in operas there has been and is still more concentration on the singing than the acting, although I think more emphasis is placed on acting and stage techniques, mantra, etc in voice education now than there was way back when.

Even if you look at the way opera scenes are traditionally performed, they are usually not in full costume, and the music definetly comes before the character development - you're absolutely right.

And the 19th century operatic demands were EXTREMELY demanding - I have no idea how those people did not lose their voice completely, before the days of amplification. Although I guess its the same reason that professional boxers were allowed to go so many rounds back then too...!

[Miss.Vanessi]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 4:29pm

"even if an opera is written in your native tongue or a language you understand, it's hard to tell what the singers are singing because of how high/low they are singing."

I don't quite understand this statement. I'm the furthest thing from an expert in any genre, but I believe that not being able to understand the words has more to do with the performer. For example, you have Jeanette MacDonald, (yes, I know she has her detractors, but I think she was phenomenal) who worked very hard on perfecting her diction so that audiences could understand her. What might be more probable, to me, as a factor for why people can't understand an opera (or any music theatre genre, for that matter) done in their first language, is that the lyrics are bent to fit the music. I mean, you don't walk up to someone and ask, "How do you like/ your e-eggs in the/ moooor-niiing?" (Real song, guarantee it.)
But that, in all actuality, has nothing to do with the topic question. Anyway.
I've had many people try to explain the difference to me, and they always lost me with all the exceptions to the rules. The only one that really made sense to me was when Kathryn Grayson said that opera is far more challenging to the voice than musical theatre. That's sort of a given when you listen to The Bell Song from Lakme compared to I Hate Men from Kiss Me Kate, but I guess it's just got to be the simplest explanations that make the most sense to me, haha.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 4:44pm

First, I just have to say I'm always honored when Margo posts in my threads, but I'm extremely honored that he just made such a long post

Interesting, I'm not sure if I'm learning about bel canto operas...or if I've learned them differently, or if we just haven't gotten there yet. We've done Monteverdi's Orfeo, which I'm going to put in the genre of "bizarre," Handel's Julius Caesar, which I know is a baroque piece, then 2 opera buffers--Marriage of Figaro and Barber of Seville. We just did Wagner's Tristan and Isolde and La Traviata, which seem to be classified as romantic operas...then we're doing Carmen and Pirates of Penzance (whose genre I know). Is Carmen an example of bel canto, is one of the others an example, or are we likely not studying any from that genre?

Jerby, I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's fine and normal for people to have a preference (mine is musical theatre), but the two genres are so blurred it's hard to imagine someone loving all aspects of one and none of the other. I suppose if you like more of the modern/pop musicals and none of the more classic ones, I suppose that's very different from opera, but I don't think you can even consider yourself a huge fan of musical theatre if your taste is that condensed.

Again, I still say it's so interesting that opera was intended to be an art form that focused and valued lyrics over music. Go figure.

Maybe that's a reason some of Bernstein's musicals are considered more operatic--they definitely favor music over the words I think.

It's funny though, I hope everyone who claims to like one but not the other was open and gave different aspects a chance. I always wanted to go to an opera, learn about it, but I just always ended up at a musical instead. That's why I'm so glad I'm taking this opera class in college. Even last night, I was excited to go to the opera, but a little...unsure of how much I would really like it, thinking maybe I'd be sitting there wishing I was at a musical, but it surprised me how much I truly loved it.

The audiences for both, especially today, seem to be a huge difference. Broadway is attracting a younger audience, while opera...from last night, doesn't seem to be. I think that very much affects productions and all, as others have said audience expectations dictate.

Once again, thank you everyone for this riveting discussion. I'm pretty sure I learn as much from BWW as I do some of my classes

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 4:50pm

Miss Vanessi, it's hard to explain. I understand a lot of different languages (and speak German fluently) because of my training, and I sometimes cannot understand what's being sung even though I know the language, and know the words. It does vary from performer to performer, such as Renee Fleming is famous for having awful diction, while Angela Gheorghiu's is crystal clear. Maybe a general rule doesn't work here, but it seems to happen more often than not, which is why I made the statement. Hope that helps.

ETA: WRQ, I think the opera audience is turning, thanks in part to Peter Gelb at the Met and the new $20 orchestra rush policy they've instituted. In my mind, the Met is the best deal in town. My subscription (8 operas a season) costs $105, or roughly $13 a ticket. It's really a steal.

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 04:50 PM

[misschung]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 4:57pm

Not to mention the Flower Song from Lakme being hard to understand.

I think it was Jennifer Larmore who said that she thinks that Carmen is an example of Chanson, and that is the way she performs it. As for bel canto - bel canto originated in Italy and is more associated with Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini, etc, so I don't know if would classify Carmen. But Maria Callas is a well known bel canto singer and is known for her portrayal of Carmen.

But now we are getting away from the original topic of the thread :o)

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 5:34pm

From your list, it dosn't appear that you will be studying any true bel canto operas -- though Traviata bears several earmarks of that style and historically the most successful singers to tackle Violetta and the other roles in that opera had very solid bel canto technique (which emphasizes singing with a very clean and even legato line, perfect balance between the registers, a rich timbre, a flawless agility in coloratura, and perfection in scales in passagework -- singers and teachers trained in the traditional bel canto school will tell you that that technique when perfected allows a singer to excel at performing everything from Mozart to Verdi to Wagner). The bel canto period in opera reigned for several decades in the early 19th century and its primary exponents were Bellini, Donizetti and Rossini. The librettos were mostly old-fashioned melodramas focused on a central heroine who falls in love early in the opera, then suffers some "tragedy" (her lover is killed or her family forces her to marry another or somehow or another she can't be with the man she loves) which causes her to lose her mind and go mad -- many of these operas culminated in "mad scenes" in which the insane heroine sings an extended solo (15-20 minutes) in which she relates her sad little tale, laments her plight, and then drops dead -- usually on the last sustained high E-flat. I'm not joking. These are tour de force showpieces with cadenza after condenza, incredibly fast, difficult and complicated passagework employing scales over several octaves and sometimes features a duet with a single mournful-sounding flute or other instrument. Sopranos who can pull them off used to become opera legends overnight.

It's not surprising you're not studying any of these -- they're more soprano vehicles than the sorts of influential, genre-transcending works like the ones you list from Mozart, Wagner, Bizet and Verdi. But, when you get a chance, the music is absolutely gorgeous and its worth listening to Callas' recordings of Lucia (the live Berlin recording w/ von Karajan is extraordinary), Puritani, Sonnambula and some of the others.

And also, while the operas as a whole may not be the landmarks that some of the others are, it's still worth noting that Verdi was very heavily influenced by both Donizetti and Bellini and you can hear echoes of their style in all of his early and mid-career work (including Traviata, especially in Violetta's arias in Act I and II which display a lot of bel canto-esque bravura coloratura writing). It wasn't until later in his career with operas like La Forza and Aida that it can be said that he developed a style that bore little obvious reflection to Donizetti's work. He abandoned the lighter, florid coloratura sound and heavily melodramatic plots and began to write denser, richer and more serious works -- in part due to the influence of his contemporary Wagner, who married aria and recitative into a seemless whole with epic storytelling, wall-to-wall music, no self-contained showpieces and no applause breaks. Check out Verdi's Otello and especially his last opera Falstaff which are total departures from his earlier work and the influence of Wagner can clearly be heard.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 5:49pm

Wow Margo, a part of me wants to quote you for my brief 2-page paper on Tristen and Isolde and La Traviata.

I'm certainly not versed in specific techniques, but especially the aria Violetta sang at the end of act 1--damn! Whatever technique she used, I pretty much sat there in amazement.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 5:54pm

Who did you see singing Violetta last night?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 6:00pm

Yeah, "Sempre libera" is definitely a prime example bel canto singing and requires flawless coloratura technique from any soprano who attempts it. Funny thing is, it's child's play compared to some of the longer even more difficult arias that Donizetti, Bellini and Rossini wrote a few decades earlier (or pieces like The Bell Song from Lakme or certain arias from Handel).

Posted: 3/17/07 at 6:25pm

"Not to mention the Flower Song from Lakme being hard to understand."

I thought it was The Bell Song in Lakme and the Flower Song in Carmen.

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 6:29pm

Yes, "The Flower Song" is from CARMEN. LAKME has "The Flower Duet".

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 06:29 PM

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 6:33pm

Margo?

When did I say anything about a Flower Song from Lakme?

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 6:47pm

Sorry! I thought you said that. Read the wrong post and will edit. It was the post right above yours...maybe I need new glasses!

Updated On: 3/17/07 at 06:47 PM

[gymdudeva]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 6:58pm

Yeah....I kinda got my feelings hurt...I saw ACL and SA and was all excited to tell my opera queen friend about them, but he just made faces. WTF?!?!?

[lesmisforever]

Posted: 3/17/07 at 7:14pm

Thanks :)

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 3/18/07 at 2:01am

I think everyone lost me

I saw Krassimira Stoyanova as Violetta.

It's weird to me that you all keep mentioning Rossini with these kind of composers, since all I learned from his reportoire was Barber of Seville. Interesting that he composed for such different types of operas.