Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 06:58 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - larry13 10:32 am EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think Sweeney is an opera either. BUT just cause 1960s Sondheim had no interest in writing one doesn't mean late 1970s Sondheim didn't... I think Passion is the only musical he wrote that I'd consider verging on being opera. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:10 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Chazwaza 06:58 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I don't think Sweeney is an opera either. BUT just cause 1960s Sondheim had no interest in writing one doesn't mean late 1970s Sondheim didn't... " And on that note, I seem to remember it was reported that he was going to write, or was at least considering writing, a musical of SUNSET BLVD. for Lansbury some time before the Lloyd Webber one came to me. How much of that was just P.R. content and not based in truth, I of course cannot say. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: larry13 08:43 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Chazwaza 06:58 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with what you write about Sondheim in 1960 vs. late '70s in THEORY but...He wrote LOOK, I MADE A HAT in 2011 and there has never been any indication he ever changed his inclination towards writing an opera nor, really, his attitude towards opera, PORGY or his own PASSION or SWEENEY notwithstanding. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - larry13 08:43 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Has Sondheim ever explained in any detail what exactly he means when he says he has no interest in writing an "opera," or in what way(s) exactly he doesn't consider SWEENEY TODD to be an opera? For those who would argue that the amount of spoken dialogue in SWEENEY makes it a musical rather than an opera, the fact is that several classic operas in French and German (if not so much in Italian) have a quite a lot of spoken dialogue, including CARMEN and THE MAGIC FLUTE, to name only two that come immediately to mind. Some have argued, and I understand the opinion, that the only way in which SWEENEY TODD is not a 100 percent, full-fledged opera is that the role of Mrs. Lovett is written for a type of voice that is never or almost never heard in operas that were written to be performed in opera houses. So maybe that's it? And/or maybe what Sondheim meant, at least in part, was that some people feel that, in traditional operas, the importance of the text is secondary to that of the music, and I guess it's easy to understand why Sondheim wouldn't want to write any work of which that could be said. I find it a fascinating and worthwhile discussion, even if I do think sometimes people get too caught up in semantics and the need for labels. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Last Edit: Chazwaza 03:24 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 03:14 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't really think any of the roles in Sweeney are written for opera voices... just because opera voices CAN do them doesn't mean they are meant for that kind of voice, or, more to the point, the kind of singing that singers trained in opera bring to whatever role they do. And the best performances of the show I've seen and/or heard never had opera singers in the roles. At least something like Candide is written for or complimented by that kind of singing and ability and in many sections requires singers to do that kind of singing whether they are "opera singers" or not (ex: Barbara Cook). And even that isn't full defined as an opera! (And frankly I think in almost every single case I've seen, including the most recent example of Renee Fleming in Piazza, but also all the opera Sweeney's I've heard, when opera singers do roles like this their training and instinct block their ability to act the lyrics fully/appropriately and/or make it too difficult to properly hear the words that are much more important in these kinds of musicals. As wonderful as Bryn Terfel sounds doing some sections of some of those songs, I would trade him out for Cariou or even Hearn any day) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:51 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Chazwaza 03:14 pm EDT 04/20/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree with every word of your post immediately above, and I think it's likely that your excellent points are very much along the lines of what Sondheim may be thinking in terms of opera vs. musical. Whether or not it's primariy due to training, it does seem that relatively few opera singers have been effective in musical theater roles -- even in the sung sections, let alone the dialogue. For example, Terfel and Fleming are both considered in the first rank of acting ability in opera, but certainly not in musicals. Of course, there have been some notable exceptions, like Robert Weede :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: larry13 10:24 am EDT 04/20/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, Sondheim has explained his attitude toward opera in general and SWEENEY as not being one. On page 332 of FINISHING THE HAT, wherein he makes the aforementioned argument that "opera is something that is performed in an opera house in front of an opera audience," he opts for SWEENEY as being a "dark operetta," "the closest I can come" to labelling it. "'Opera' implies stentorian singing." It's worth reading all his references to opera: see the indexes to both volumes of his Collected Lyrics. The page 332 references I've excerpted are actually called "Sondheim's distaste for" in the index. On page 334 he states "a chance to sing excuses everything, even dramatic logic." Page 150 of FINISHING THE HAT has been cited in the index as "bombast and lack of clarity in opera." Page 146: "I have successfully avoided enjoying opera all my life." Page 147: he acknowledges his "condescension toward opera." There's much more, of course, on all these pages as to his thinking about opera. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: GavinLogan1 09:42 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| I argue that musicals and operas are the same thing: they are stories told using music. Just as there different singing styles in musical theatre, there are also several different styles in the world of opera. One rarely hears a Wagnerian soloist also appearing in a Mozart comic opera.... So it can't simply be the style of singing... I know I'll be flamed for this, or at least I think I will be, but I agree wholeheartedly with music critic Michael Walsh, who wrote in his book "Who's Afraid of Opera?" that there is no difference between the two genres. Even the word "opera" simply comes from the word opus, which means work: "They come from the Latin words OPUS & OPERA (plural). While the original meaning is closest to the Latin word No. 19 and the plural is in use mostly as a singular word meaning No. 1 (plural is operas), this root has become a word for any work which is planned, acted on, and carried through." As much work goes into a well-written musical as into an opera.... so... I don't know. I just can't see the distinction. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:34 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Lloyd Webber's dramaturgy - GavinLogan1 09:42 pm EDT 04/19/20 | |
|
|
|
| ****So it can't simply be the style of singing... I know I'll be flamed for this, or at least I think I will be, but I agree wholeheartedly with music critic Michael Walsh, who wrote in his book "Who's Afraid of Opera?" that there is no difference between the two genres. Even the word "opera" simply comes from the word opus, which means "work."**** I basically agree with all of that, and yes, it's good to be reminded that "opera" just means "work." But when people do attempt to draw distinctions, I imagine they're usually thinking of the differences between very traditional, quintessential, famous operas like those of Puccini, Verdi, and Wagner as compared to musicals with lighter, "pop" style music. But on that note, it's certainly interesting that so many musical theater works written in the rock idiom are called "rock operas," and nobody seems to object to that -- nor should they. I guess Sondheim's statement about how musical theater works are operas when they're performed in opera houses (if I have that quote correct, or at least its meaning even if I don't have it verbatim) is probably key here. Although there are, as you say, "operas" with many widely varying types of music, and the same is true of "musicals," there are going to be some basic differences in works that are written to be performed by unamplified singers performing with unamplified, large orchestras in large opera houses, as compared to works that are written to performed in much smaller Broadway theaters with smaller orchestras -- and even more so over the past 50 or 60 years, a period during which the level of amplification of both singers and orchestras in musicals has risen tremendously. All of which brings me back to my remark that what probably would be best is not for any of us to feel these works need to be strictly labeled to begin with -- though I do understand the impulse. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.024275 seconds.