The score of Les Miz...- Page 2

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:31pm

Again, tell me how Les Mis is like an opera, aside from the fact that both have singing and minimal dialogue.

And what keeps, say, Phantom of the Opera from being an opera, considering that it also has minimal spoken dialogue? Or RENT, for that matter?

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 04:31 PM

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:45pm

Well, seeing as Lloyd Webber was accused of ripping off Puccini while writing Phantom, I would say its even closer to an opera than Les Mis. Again, many times the ultimate deciding factor of what is opera and what is musical theatre is where the piece premiered, in an opera house or on a Broadway/West End stage.

Opera, in its simplest and most basic definition, is not defined by the style of the music or the singing. It is simply a piece where the music (no matter the style, either sung or orchestral) is a major element of conveying its drama. All the other "necessary elements" people try to say opera has/needs, can not be applied to every opera out there, so you can't even truly call them necessary.

Les Mis, and yes, even Phantom, fit the core, essential definition of opera, wether the opera world is willing to admit it or not.

And remember, one of the world's most popular opera's, Carmen, was considered an absolute failure upon its premiere and took quite some time to gain the respect it now has and its slot at the top of the repertoire. In addition, many of the bel canto era pieces also fell out of favor for quite a long period before regaining the popularity they now hold once again. So clearly sometimes you have to wait a bit for a work to be recognized for what it truly is.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:48pm

I always thought that opera is basically a story told through music, whereas a musical is theatre with music. In MT, the theatre takes the top priority--in opera, the music does.

I think of it like this:, in opera, the music conveys the drama for you, whereas in musical theatre you infuse drama into the music through your acting and singing. You know how Colm Wilkinson shouts sometimes during "What Have I Done" to show his anguish? That wouldn't happen in opera because, in opera, the music would "shout" for him.

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 04:48 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:51pm

Spork, I consider Les Miserables an opera, not because it is sung, but because the music is VERY intricate when it comes to moving the story along. There are several different themes that are played for different kinds of characters and for different main characters. And, what is good about something like Les Miserables is that you have trouble noticing it at first listen. Some of it was stuff that took me literally 14 times to finally realize.

Also, I have seen people write peaces online that analyze the music of Les Miserables and what is going on when each bit of music is playing and they talk about why each bit of music is playing when it is etc. I have never seen anyone do that with any other musical other then your basic run off the mill operas.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:54pm

A lot of musical scores have that feature. Have you never read the musical analyses of Sweeney Todd and West Side Story?

[winston89]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:56pm

Your right, however, if you totally disregard the bottom part of what I wrote, you would see from the top as to why Les Miserables is an opera.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:57pm

But, again, a lot of musicals have themes and musical intricacies like that as well.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 4:59pm

I'm getting the impression (and I could be misreading it) that you seem to think the singers don't act in opera, which is a very misconceived perception people often have about opera, I think partly because they get caught up in the fact that they don't understand what is being sung due to the language.

Yes, some opera singers don't act and just let the music carry them through, but the best opera singers are indeed incredible actors. The music is not always going to carry the entire emotional weight of the scene. If this were true then Lucia's mad scene would not make any sense whatsoever. The music is very soft and gentle, an almost lulling lullaby. However, the singer performing the role has to convey the fact to the audience that she is now completely unhinged and her mind is gone. After all, she is singing this stunningly beautiful aria moments after viciously murdering her husband and now stands in front of a large crowd covered in his blood.

ETA - Thanks to everyone for carrying on what is, so far, a very intelligent conversation. We don't get many of these around here without it devolving into childish name-calling and immature mud-slinging. Updated On: 3/17/09 at 04:59 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 5:04pm

I don't mean that they don't act, it's just... different. Again, I have trouble explaining. :/ Lucia acts in "Il dolce suono" but she doesn't take away from the vocal quality of the piece to do so. In MT you can speak-sing, shout, whisper, etc to convey emotion--in opera, the "integrity" of the voice is the most important.

Though, I disagree--I think that the music conveys her madness. It's very "up and down," very jarring and uneven feeling. The part with "fantasma" especially has the music show her psychosis.

Updated On: 3/17/09 at 05:04 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 3/17/09 at 11:47pm

Spork, I would venture to say that it is the style of the singing that prevents the singers from doing any sort of subtle screaming or anything like that. While I do disagree with you when it comes to Colm singing What Have I Done, I feel that it could have just been a character choice. I have seen other actors play the role who do in fact sing the song the whole way through without any sort of screaming.

If you were to look at a song like Javert's Suicide, I would say that that would be a better example with him screaming at the end when he is jumping off the bridge.

However, just because one style of singing prevents you from being able to doing something that you can in another style doesn't make or break it from being an opera.

I would consider something like Rent to be an opera because the music moves the plot of the story along. Yes, there is some screaming or things that can be thought of as screaming. But, that is because the genre of music that that opera is in allows for that sort of thing to happen. Whereas, classical singing doesn't really allow nor does it have room for it.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 12:07am

I think that if you take the classical component away from opera, you can consider anything an opera. So then there really isn't any need to call something musical theatre.

In all musicals, music moves the story along. Except for Spring Awakening, I suppose.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 12:17am

But, that is saying that something MUST be classical in order for it to be opera when that isn't the case. It is just like you talked about before. In opera, the music moves the story along and moves the story along. in musical theatre, it is the theatre aspect that is the top priority. If you take away the music aspect of musical theatre you would jsut have a play.

In an opera, if you take away the music, you have nothing.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 12:49am

Not necessarily--a lot of operas have spoken recit.

I looked up people's definitions of opera earlier today in lieu of our conversation, and a lot of them believe that the classical component is necessary to define one.

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 1:30am

The problem with trying to define opera is that the form has now existed for so long and gone through so many iterations that it can only be defined in very broad, generic terms. Even saying that it must contain a "classical" component to its music is a very broad term, as classical in itself is generic and very all encompassing. Mozart, Beethoven, Strauss, and Stravinsky are all considered now to be "classical" composers, yet their works vary widely in form and style. Or take something like Rhapsody in Blue, also very much established now as a piece of "classical" music, but it very clearly integrates and owes its genesis to the popular music of its era.

Most musicals are very clearly pieces of the musical theatre canon, as most operas are very clearly part of the operatic repertoire. However there will always be some which blur that line of where opera ends and musical theatre begins, creating pieces that can be performed as part of either repertoire without much eyebrow raising.

The ultimate result is that the answer to "what is opera?" is much like the attempts to define pornography. "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." Or hear it in this case.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 5:16am

I personally find that the people who are saying that opera must be classical for it to be considered an opera are opera purists. People who are persistent that the art form must stay one way and that it can't be done or that it can't evolve to be something else and still stay that art form.

Look at the roots of theatre. Sure, it has gone a long way from being performed on a raked stage out in the open with masks. But, do people complain that what one would see on Broadway isn't theatre because it isn't done in the traditional way? No, they don't, they have embraced the changes over the years to the art form. Something that I feel opera purists are unable to do. They have to realize that the art form must change otherwise it will die.

Posted: 3/18/09 at 6:50am

Wicked and Hairspray use pop but not in an even pseudo operatic way. Les Miz is through sung so it's operatic in that way but not in how it approchaes recit.aria. Still I think it classifies as a "popera" in the JCS tradtiion it was afterall composed in

[winston89]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 11:24am

Yes, but the difference is is that Jesus Christ Superstar's score is rock for the most part. Not real rock, mostly watered down rock for theatregoers. But, it is still rock none the less. I could see, without a problem, songs from Superstar being played on the radio back when the show was new. The problem is, is that I would have trouble fathoming, in the 80's that a pop radio station would play The Safety Dance after One Day More.

The point that I am trying to make is that a "Popera" has music that is written in a style that is considered to be popular. Something that doesn't happen with Les Miserables but does with Superstar.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 12:54pm

Byron: Well said; I agree.

Winston: Some would rather opera die out than compromise its musical integrity like that.

And JCS is real rock--remember it was written in the 70s. My dad is a hardcore 1970s rock fan who hates musicals, and he loves JCS.

Maybe not "One Day More," but I could see "On My Own" getting played. Or "I Dreamed a Dream." Schmaltzy ballads were a key part of 80s music.

Updated On: 3/18/09 at 12:54 PM

[winston89]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 1:34pm

I would still have trouble seeing any song that is part of the Les Miserables score being played on the radio back in the day.

Both my father and I are big classic rock fans and fans of rock that came out of that time period. In fact, my dad's views on Superstar when he herd me listening to it one day was that he felt that they (Webber) had to sugarcoat the rock sound for theatre audiences. He remembers going to see The Who's Tommy on Broadway. Keep in mind that if there ever was a "concept album" for a show (which is a phraise I hate using for Tommy because they jus took the story on the original album that came out in 69 and put it on stage. But, I digress. He was saying hat he had felt that the new orchestrations totally changed the sound of the music and made it more of a light rock and roll sound, rather then the typical loud rock sound that The Who is known for. That lead us into a long conversation about Rock in musical theatre ( a topic that I was surprised that he knew more about then I, due to the fact that when it comes to anything musical or theatre realted he turns to me for info). We had agreed that the first musical to use real rock music was Hair.

The last time I was at The Met was when I did the rush line for La Rondine. I remember, when we got to the box office, they had a TV showing clips of different operas that they were producing that season. One of them was Taymore's production of The Magic Fluit. An elderly gentleman standing behind me in line saw that and said that that was something that didn't belong at The Met, and that it was more apporpriate for Broadway then at The Met. The elderly woman that he was with said that they have to change. If they don't make opera more accessable for the younger generation then it will die out. She commented that people like us ( elderly people who enjoy tridational operas) can't last forever and she commented that she thought that the art form was changing for the better and that she disagreed with him. I commented during this conversation that I agreed with her more then him. And, that got into a friendly debate.

When I was there earlier for a performance of Boheme, I remember talking to a guy in his forties who clearly wasn't that old. He was surprised that someone my age was at the opera and was enjoying what they were seeing. We talked about how it is changing and he agreed with me that it was a good thing. He pointed out that there are subtle changes all around. Singers having to look the part etc, and having to actually act rather then just strut around the stage and just stand there and sing.

I can see that there are people who feel that they don't want the art form to change and rathe that it simply die out. However, I find that if people are in fact like that then I would consider them to be ignorant and stubborn.

As for rock music in musical theatre, I just listened to bits of Superstar (something that I hadn't listened to in a VERY long time) prior to making this post. And I feel that it isn't real rock. It is rock however, it is non tridatonal rock. I feel like if they used more of a tridational rock sound at that time, then they wouldn't have been able to sell tickets and make it accessable for older people. I guess, it is all a matter of opinion and might not be something that you and I see eye to eye, Spork. Ah well, such is life.

I remember reading an article when Rent came to Broadway with Pascal and he was talking about how Rent is the first real rock musical in a long time. He did comment about Tommy. But, he said, that he felt that they sugarcoated the sound with the new orchastrations and that pervented it from haiving the hard rock edge that the original album has. This is a statment that I agree with after having listened to The Who perform the work. Two albums that I have have the opera being done live and one is the studio recording. Both of which have a much different sound then the Broadway show. I do feel that if they wanted to, they could have kept the same orchestrations that the band used originally and used them on Broadway without a problem.

Also, one last thing that I would like to add Spork, is this. I don't see how changing the kind of music that is used in an opera is going to get in the way of the musical intagrity. Keep in mind, it was mentioned here earlier in the thread, that tirdational operas were wirtten useing the popular music of their time. What would drastically change the art form if people started writing them with pouplar music of this time?

Updated On: 3/18/09 at 01:34 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 2:02pm

Because then, again, there would eventually be no difference between opera and musical theatre. Opera would die out in the sense that it would be absorbed into the existing form.

But, yeah, we're just not going to agree on this and I'm tired of saying the same thing over again, so... truce?

[Scripps2]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 5:30pm

Perhaps the Youtube poster was being deliberately stupid?

Howard Goodall did a perceptive analysis of the difference between musical theatre and opera in his TV series by writing the same scene in both a musical style and an operatic style. This was then performed by the same cast on the same set and gave what, to me at least, was the best illustration of the difference between the two genres.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 3/18/09 at 6:18pm

Oh, cool! I'd love to have seen that. Was it recorded on video?