Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!oscar
From: oscar@utcsrgv.UUCP (Oscar M. Nierstrasz)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Opera
Message-ID: <4235@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-May-84 17:51:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.4235
Posted: Thu May 10 17:51:01 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 10-May-84 19:51:21 EDT
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 64

I'm always surprised when people assume that `beginners' should be
introduced to what is traditionally thought of as `popular' or `safe'
classical music.  Just because it was written in the 20th century, or
some longhair like Schoenberg or Cage wrote it doesn't mean it's
inaccessible.  Indeed, anybody who listens to Throbbing Gristle or
Einsturzende Neubauten would probably have an open ear to Cage or
Henze, or those boys, even on first hearing it.

Okay, if you want 19th century Romantic opera in the traditional sense,
then Bizet's Carmen, Verdi's La Traviata and Puccini's La Boheme are
obvious choices.  They have a recognizable plot, hummable tunes and are
quite accessible.  Even lighter are works like Rossini's Barber of
Seville (*everybody* used to watch Bugs Bunny, no?) and Offenbach's La
Vie Parisienne, both lots of fun.  (I needn't remind people that people
like Monteverdi, Vivaldi and Handel also wrote operas, but they are
very different from their 19th century counterparts).

Personally, however, I get a lot more pleasure out of less `popular'
operas.  Beethoven's Fidelio is by far my favourite early 19th century
opera (limited experience though I have).  Dramatically it's not
`Raiders of the Lost Ark', but Beethoven's music gives me goosebumps.
The story concerns a young woman (Leonore) who masquerades as a man
(Fidelio) to find her imprisoned husband and obtain justice for him.
Beethoven, of course, is interested in Man's Humanity to Man, and one
is instantly reminded of his Ninth Symphony.

Although I'm not suggesting people run out and buy them unheard, I have
had much pleasure from Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle, Britten's Peter
Grimes, and Berg's Wozzeck.  I am somewhat baffled by John Hobson's
disparaging remark:

 > If they mention Berg's WOZZECK or LULU, change the subject.

I know people with very little exposure to classical music at all who
would much rather listen to `Wozzeck' than `La Traviata'.  I suspect
that a lot of people `dislike' classical music (or *think* they do)
mainly because they have only been exposed to `popular classics'.

Also of great interest are Janacek's operas.  Charles Mackerras has
been recording all of them (it seems) over the last several years, and
the results have been very impressive (lots of critics' awards too).
Although he is a 20th century composer, his music is very `romantic' by
any standards (excuse me, I have difficulty in describing music in
non-technical terms without resorting to cliches).  Hummable too (*I*
hum it).

People don't seem to like Schoenberg a lot in this corner of net.land.
His opera Moses and Aaron, however, is a fascinating work.
Technically, but not philosophically unfinished, it is a retelling of
Moses aquiring the Ten Commandments, and Aaron bungling things while he
is gone.  Throughout, Aaron, the orator, sings, while Moses, who has
the gift of vision but not of speech, speak-sings his part.

As to Wagner, well, I guess he *is* an aquired taste, though I'm trying
my best.  I seen (on film) or heard The Flying Dutchman, Parsifal, Das
Rheingold, Gotterdammerung and Tristan und Isolde, and I think he's a
pretty tough nut to crack.  I'm slowly beginning to appreciate him, but
the problem is the investment in time (and money).  To really get to
know a piece of music you have to be able to hear it repeatedly.
(Recordings sure are handy for this!)

In short, maybe Rossini *isn't* the place to start.

					Oscar Nierstrasz