Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 9:27:03 GMT -5
Good afternoon to you all! If I may address one of your many points directly, ahinton: "These are all amongst the great issues of our time!" Indeed so. Another argument in support of the idea that opera is the summit of achievement in music ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) No - on several. Firstly, dealing with "great issues of our time" does not necessarily a great opera make. I did not wish to imply that an opera is great because it deals with the great issues of our time, ahinton. I can only offer my full and unreserved apologies if I gave such an impression. The point I wish to make is more subtle. It is that the composer John Adams has made an important artistic contribution to some of the great issues of our time. Personally, I value his attempt to do so, and it helps give me structure to my own thoughts on these issues. I should add that some of Richard Wagner's operas help me in a similar way! In my opinion, music, like any other form of human expression, can be considered as an attempt to communicate with one another. What is important to me is not so much music's meaning, ahinton, as its use. Out of interest, what do you all consider the use(s) of music to be?
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Mar 14, 2013 9:47:40 GMT -5
Firstly, dealing with "great issues of our time" does not necessarily a great opera make. Very true, as Philip Glass proved with his opera 'Satyagraha'. The life of Gandhi ought to have made a great opera. But - it didn't. And here I will add a further point of my own - that if the libretto is poor, weak, or - as in the case of Satyagraha, a laughable pile of pretentious twaddle - then no worthwhile opera can be made out of it, no matter how fine the music. Tippett proved the same thing, by writing dreadful libretti for his own works. ![]() And what of Schönberg and Mahler - both Jews - revering Wagner as they did? [/img] Perhaps I am naive, but I would consider them as composers first, and Jews only incidentally? Yet despite that deep & undoubted reverence, neither managed to write even one decent opera. Mahler - perhaps the greatest opera-conductor of his generation - seemed blocked intellectually by the Wagnerian legacy, while Schönberg - who, in fairness, did essay an opera on a Jewish theme - produced a deeply unsuccessful work in result. Even the composer admitted it was a failure.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 14, 2013 10:16:42 GMT -5
Firstly, dealing with "great issues of our time" does not necessarily a great opera make. Very true, as Philip Glass proved with his opera 'Satyagraha'. The life of Gandhi ought to have made a great opera. But - it didn't. Why "ought" the life of Gandhi necessarily have made a great opera? I do agree with you that, in the case of Satyagraha, it most resoundingly didn't, but I'm not sure that the logic of the one is predicated upon that of the other. And here I will add a further point of my own - that if the libretto is poor, weak, or - as in the case of Satyagraha, a laughable pile of pretentious twaddle - then no worthwhile opera can be made out of it, no matter how fine the music. Tippett proved the same thing, by writing dreadful libretti for his own works. Not quite, in my view; your point is undoubtedly valid but not, I think, universally so. I agree that Tippett did himself no favours in writing his own libretti, however well-meaning his efforts to do so no doubt were, yet I could almost forgive him his shortcomings here when faced with the glorious music of A Midsummer Marriage, which seems to me to be a good deal less confused than its libretto! ![]() And what of Schönberg and Mahler - both Jews - revering Wagner as they did? [/img] Perhaps I am naive, but I would consider them as composers first, and Jews only incidentally?[/quote] As would I, of course; my mention of their being Jews was clearly made solely as a consequence of Wagner's all too well known anti-Semitism and there'd have been no other possible reason for me to do so. Yet despite that deep & undoubted reverence, neither managed to write even one decent opera. Mahler - perhaps the greatest opera-conductor of his generation - seemed blocked intellectually by the Wagnerian legacy, while Schönberg - who, in fairness, did essay an opera on a Jewish theme - produced a deeply unsuccessful work in result. Even the composer admitted it was a failure. But why? Many might well have felt "blocked by the Wagnerian legacy" and hardly without good reason, but then Wagner did not write many song-cycles or symphonies and Mahler did what he felt he could do best by writing them, just as Wagner had done in writing mainly for the stage (although I understand that, after Parsifal, he was contemplating composing a symphony - and how fascinating the result might have turned out to be had he accomplished it!). All that said, however, we must continue to agree to disagree about opera as somehow being the highest form of Western musical composition; you evidently see it that way whereas I see it as its best as just one of them; likewise, Sorabji once berated someone (whose identity I cannot now recall) for talking (or maybe it was writing) about the string quartet as "the highest form of music" by saying something along the lines of "how can it or anything else be the highest form of music in and of itself except in instances when it is so?". I simply do not believe (and, if I did, I'd have packed up composing long ago) that the "heightened emotion" which you ascribe to opera is exclusive thereto and therefore unavailable to other means of musical expression; that's where the central thrust of our disagreement is on this, I think.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 14, 2013 10:20:22 GMT -5
In my opinion, music, like any other form of human expression, can be considered as an attempt to communicate with one another. What is important to me is not so much music's meaning, ahinton, as its use. Out of interest, what do you all consider the use(s) of music to be? It's impossible meaningfully to talk of "music's meaning" but, yes, its purpose is indeed to communicate. I know that it sounds like a cop-out for a composer to answer "just what I wrote" to the question "what did you mean by that?", but the very fact that music is capable of expressing things that cannot necessarily be accounted for in words demonstrates that is nothing of the kind. So, to the question "what were you trying to say in that piece?" I could only answer "what I wrote - and I can only hope that I succeeded".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 14:16:40 GMT -5
I suppose that when you combine words with music, ahinton, the meaning of the music can be interpreted through the text, as in opera. Nevertheless, I should add that the music does not necessarily mean the same thing as the words. Sometimes, the words can say one thing, and the music can seem to say something completely different. Arguably the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century, Ludwig Wittgenstein, felt that previous philosophers had tied themselves in knots by asking the wrong sorts of questions. They thought that philosophical problems were to do with understanding the nature of the world, but Wittgenstein thought that they were all problems of language. Sort language out, Neil McGowan, and you could knock philosophy itself on the head. Let us therefore knock language, music, philosophy and everything else on the head here in The Third tonight, Sydney Grew. Ludwig Wittgenstein thus pondered how language related to the world, Gerard, what the limits of language were and what this all meant for the philosopher. He came to two different conclusions; firstly, as outlined in ' The Tractatus', that language had a logical structure that accurately reflected the structure of reality; secondly, as outlined in the later ' Philosophical Investigations', that language was a game, full of tricks, jokes and subtleties, the meaning of which was derived from social context as much as logical analysis. You can certainly see this game being played here online, for example, if not everywhere else. Ultimately, Wittgenstein was unsure that anything could be said about how language related to the world because that was necessarily beyond the scope and meaning of language itself. Thus he concluded that some things remain unsayable and declared: Much the same may be said, or even played, using music! I communicate, therefore I am; I do not communicate, therefore I am not. You post something below, Sydney Grew, therefore you are? ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2013 18:58:00 GMT -5
It's impossible meaningfully to talk of "music's meaning" but, yes, its purpose is indeed to communicate. I know that it sounds like a cop-out for a composer to answer "just what I wrote" to the question "what did you mean by that?", but the very fact that music is capable of expressing things that cannot necessarily be accounted for in words demonstrates that is nothing of the kind. So, to the question "what were you trying to say in that piece?" I could only answer "what I wrote - and I can only hope that I succeeded". That is all true, but I would add that it is usually possible to perceive what a composer was attempting to do - what his intentions were - and to judge whether and how well he has succeeded. Meaning no, goal yes.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Mar 15, 2013 1:38:18 GMT -5
But why? Many might well have felt "blocked by the Wagnerian legacy" Why? I was hoping you could tell us, Mr H - since you brought forth Mr Sch and Mr M as examples? Mahler clearly believed in opera as an art-form, since he made his living conducting it so very frequently ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 2:32:24 GMT -5
Good morning to you all! If I may address your final point directly, Sydney Grew: " ... Meaning no, goal yes." The goal of music, in its widest sense, I suspect, is to communicate sound. I am not qualified to go further, as my background lies elsewhere, Sydney Grew. If my goal was to write a brilliant opera, for example, kleines c would probably attempt to hire Mozart and da Ponte to help out! I know my limitations! Of course, ahinton and Neil McGowan might make an even better combination! The goal of life, in a profound sense, however, is reproduction. As a scientist, I can make a convincing case that we are here to reproduce our genes. Of course, my genes, just like my jeans, may not be worth reproducing, but who cares anyway, Sydney Grew? As for Neil McGowan, I don't personally think that opera is necessarily better than instrumental music, or musicals, or theatre. I would naturally take the lazy view that it is horses for courses, so to speak. I can invite you all for a date at the opera, for example, but you might not be into opera, or you might not be into a specific opera with kleines c. ' Doctor Atomic', for example! I don't think that it ultimately matters, however! Do you?
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Mar 15, 2013 3:35:13 GMT -5
Of course, ahinton and Neil McGowan might make an even better combination! My own compositional skills are a complete 0. I stick to what I can do - arrangements, orchestrations, and occasional bits of genre parody. I once earned some rather nice cash for doing a Wagnerian Rhine-journey parody for a bath-salts tv commercial ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) This is really about the level of my dubious achievements ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I've only ever done two librettos. A composer asked me to create a libretto out of THE GLASS BEAD GAME, but sadly ill-health prevented him ever getting far with the composition. I am not so sure this story made a good opera anyhow? Composers love this kind of persecution-complex plot (FIDELIO, IL PRIGIONIERO, HOUSE OF THE DEAD, THE CONSUL etc) but audiences quickly weary of this kind of stuff - as '1984' soon proved. I have a libretto for a chamber opera carved out of Flann O'Brien's THE THIRD POLICEMAN, but I've not yet found a composer who was interested.... Frankly it's compacted down a bit too severely, assuming that if it ever got a production, the casting budget would be utterly minimal. I'd like to review it as a mid-scale piece instead. I have written (and staged) the scenario for several musical entertainments - including a biography show about Handel, a peculiar piece about Mozart (I was asked to feature a number of his obscure works in the story), and quite a few 'opera gala night' shows. The Handel piece was very successful, and stayed in repertoire for four years - the retirement of the actor who played Handel brought it to a close. I will happily go to Dr Atomic (or almost anything else) with you, kleines ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) But can we go to the Netherlands Opera production? Adams wrote - in a huge 6-page program note for the ENO production - that he believed his ideas had been traduced by the NYC/ENO production. He also went on to say he had been 'leant on' by the US State Department over his ideas in the piece, and it was not what he'd originally wanted. His original version ended later in Oppenheimer's career, when he was indicted by the Anti-American Activities Commission. For the record, I see no genre division between opera/Singspiel/musical/operetta/musical comedy/rock opera. They are all essentially achieving the same thing, within their own terms. The only possible difference is that the more difficult the music is to perform, the more carefully you have to give the performers a bit of 'space' to concentrate on getting the music right - it's the primary concern. In this respect, the true master in our generation is David McVicar.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Mar 15, 2013 3:56:32 GMT -5
I don't think that it ultimately matters, however! Do you? If it doesn't matter, then we can go to a Rachmaninov/Medtner recital in Oxford on Nov 8th. My partner is giving a recital with Jonathan Powell, prior to recording the Medtner songs in a new complete release of his works. They might preview the concert in London in the same week (details pending). Of course, it's not opera.... but... ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 15, 2013 5:18:15 GMT -5
But why? Many might well have felt "blocked by the Wagnerian legacy" Why? I was hoping you could tell us, Mr H - since you brought forth Mr Sch and Mr M as examples? Mahler clearly believed in opera as an art-form, since he made his living conducting it so very frequently ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I wasn't suggesting that Mr M and Mr S were among those who felt like that and I apologise if I've expressed myself with insufficient clarity here. Of course Mahler believed in opera as an art-form. So did Schönberg (although he didn't conduct operatic performances as Mahler did). I believe in it myself; indeed, how could I not?! But that doesn't mean to say either that I would make a fine stage composer or that I would feel an inclination to write for the operatic stage (two distinct issues, by the way!).
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 15, 2013 5:20:41 GMT -5
I don't think that it ultimately matters, however! Do you? If it doesn't matter, then we can go to a Rachmaninov/Medtner recital in Oxford on Nov 8th. My partner is giving a recital with Jonathan Powell, prior to recording the Medtner songs in a new complete release of his works. They might preview the concert in London in the same week (details pending). Of course, it's not opera.... but... ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) That would be well worth attending whether or not "it" matters! Medtner was one of the great Russian song composers, different to but at least on a level with Rachmaninov as a song composer (and that's saying a lot!). Must try to get to the Oxford recital. I know Jonathan Powell's playing very well and am therefore able to declare with some authority that there are few to touch him.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Mar 15, 2013 5:27:29 GMT -5
Then I'll see you in Oxford, Mr H ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Along with anyone else who would like to come along ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Rachmaninoff is very well covered with recordings - but Medtner's songs feature on just a handful of disappearing-from-availability 'highlights' discs. I think this is the first attempt to record them all, by Opus No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 5:35:52 GMT -5
If I may address one of your many points directly, Neil McGowan: I don't think that it ultimately matters, however! Do you? If it doesn't matter, then we can go to a Rachmaninov/Medtner recital in Oxford on Nov 8th. My partner is giving a recital with Jonathan Powell, prior to recording the Medtner songs in a new complete release of his works. They might preview the concert in London in the same week (details pending). Of course, it's not opera.... but... ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I would naturally encourage you to put this particular event in The Third's Calendar, when you have the precise details. I should perhaps confess that I did not go to Oxford University. Well, technically, I did used to go to Oxford to thrash various student sports and debating teams, wherever possible, but such activities were some time ago now, Neil McGowan. Upon reflection, I think that we should all meet up in November 2013, and ahinton would obviously prefer Oxford to London. So let us therefore do so! Don't worry, ahinton! I can behave myself, on occasion!
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Mar 15, 2013 6:00:42 GMT -5
I think that we should all meet up in November 2013, and ahinton would obviously prefer Oxford to London. We will be in London for a few days after the Oxford event - so if there is anything juicy at the ROH or Coliseum, we might well be up for that too ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|