But isn't all opera twaddle? I was asked.

[arthroceph]

well, I said (buying time) isn't all _theatre_ twaddle? In opera, it's the music which drives the action, not the words.

In real life, it's the words that drive the action. So opera gives us a chance to see the alternative.

Well that's all I could muster. Pushed for a recomendation, I said Rigoletto.

In retrospect I'm not entirely dissatisfied with my answer.

[Serial_Apologist]

In real life it's the action that drives the words.

I think you rigollouted.

[David-G]

The answer, quite simply, is NO - such a statement is complete twaddle.

[antongould]

Up to a month ago or so I would have possibly said yes.......but then the Cosi dropped.

I presume S_A has got his coat.....

[Serial_Apologist]

Up to a month ago or so I would have possibly said yes.......but then the Cosi dropped.

I presume S_A has got his coat.....

Nah - I'm cosy as I am, thanks.

[cloughie]

Nah - I'm cosy as I am, thanks.

No there is a fair percentage that is - much being in as foreign language doesn't help - vibrato and not always pleasant sounding voices doesn't always add to the enjoyment - but then there's often great music that drives it all on.

[David-G]

It is the art form with the deepest human connection.

Here is Berlioz writing to his sister after first seeing an opera as a young man in Paris.

“[…] The Opéra is something different (sc. than the lectures he had been attending); I doubt I can give you even the slightest idea of what it is like. Short of fainting I could not have been more moved than when I saw a performance of Gluck’s masterpiece Iphigénie en Tauride. Imagine for a start an orchestra of eighty players performing with such ensemble that you would think they are a single instrument. The opera begins: in the distance you can see a vast plain (yes! the illusion is complete) and further away the sea is visible. The orchestra announces a storm, black clouds are seen descending slowly and cover the entire plain. The theatre is only lit by flashes of lightning which tear the clouds, all done with a realism and perfection that have to be seen to be believed. There is a moment of silence when no actor steps forward. The orchestra murmurs softly, as though you could hear the wind blowing […]. Gradually the scene becomes more agitated, a storm breaks out, and you see Orestes and Pylades in chains brought by the barbarians from Tauris, who sing the terrifying chorus: "Il faut du sang pour venger nos crimes" ["We demand blood to avenge our crimes"]. It is unbearable; I defy even the most insensitive person not to be deeply moved by the sight of these two unfortunates each clamouring for death as the greatest blessing. And when finally she is rejected by Orestes, well, it is his sister, Iphigenia, the priestess of Diana who must slaughter her brother. It is terrifying, you see. I could never describe to you with any degree of truth the feeling of horror one experiences when Orestes collapses to the ground saying: "Le calme rentre dans mon cœur" ["Calm returns to my heart"]. He is asleep and sees the shade of the mother he slaughtered wandering around with various ghosts brandishing in their hands two infernal torches. And the orchestra! it was all in the orchestra. If you heard how it depicts every situation, especially when Orestes seems to be calm; well, the violins hold a note that suggests repose, very softly; but underneath you can hear the basses muttering like the remorse which, despite his apparent calm, is still to be heard in the parricide’s heart. […]”

This is the essence of opera.

[Mary Chambers]

It would be easy to argue that opera is the most complete art form. It's music, drama, words, and it's visual as well. At its best it is the supreme expression of the human condition. At its worst it is vocal gymnastics combined with a banal plot.

Opera (like all art) does vary a lot, and no doubt some of it is twaddle. We all have our own opinions of which operas are, and which ones are great art.

[Dave2002]

This is the essence of opera.

Indeed - it could be twaddle.

What I think we have to accept is that dramatic art - including film, theatre, opera - although in the real world is not reality. A few artists have tried to use reality as a subject for art, such as Warhol's film of New York at night - "Empire". The kitchen sink dramatists of the 1950s and 1960s tried to present a version of "real life" as drama, but we are still aware of the distinction between the presentation and life when we watch their plays.

Generally I'm guessing that we don't want to be entertained by watching real life, though some voyeurs may enjoy doing just that.
Watching the neighbours from behind net curtains has perhaps been a pastime for some for years, but most of us don't do it, or at least not for long. A passing observation that "oh, the postman's not delivering to number 7 today" - may represent a curiosity, but on the whole people do not spend hours on end watching the behaviour of other people, or being interested by it.

Naturalists may spend time watching animal behaviour, and there is a thrill to be had by watching a lion chase a wildebeeste. Will the lion catch its intended prey - or not? The outcome is uncertain, and also the way in which the wildebeeste may make its escape makes observation of such events more exciting.

Films often seem to present more realism, yet many films would be much shorter if they showed the main characters being killed and dropping to the ground in the first few minutes. Heroes dodge bullets as if they were soft balls, and even if they get hit, they carry on "bravely". Films can present reality, seemingly with more fidelity, but they are subject to constraints and conventions which might be considered at least as artificial as any which are used in opera and theatre works.

Perhaps it is possible to get enjoyment simply by looking at the scene out of the window. Is it raining? Is it going to rain? Is anything moving? Does the light change? Are the leaves on the bushes moving in the wind, or the branches on the trees waving? Is anything expected going to happen, and does the unexpected happen?

What about looking at an impressive landscape? Is there pleasure in that? Yes - almost certainly, though why, and for how long? The average stay of most who visit the Grand Canyon, often a once in a lifetime experience, is just 3 hours.

What are plays, operas and films for, anyway? Are they not just forms of entertainment which for some reason we find interesting? The same can also be said of music - it helps to pass the time. Why, I do not know, but some of us seem to find it compelling.

There is a distinction to be made between viewers and listeners, and performers. Most of the audience at a concert will be listeners, who do not play instruments. The experience of performing is different, and a few people get enjoyment from that. Similarly, most of the audience at a play or opera will not be actors or singers. Actors and singers presumably get a rather different satisfaction from their participation than the audience they play to. Many of us are now passive observers at events, we watch football, rather than play it, we do not have the same experiences as the active participants. Perhaps there are still things we do in which we actively participate, but we are surely used to being entertained in a passive way, rather than becoming involved as participants.

Some genres may have a purpose other than entertainment - to inform, or educate, or possibly other less wholesome intentions. I can't think of many operas which attempt to inform or educate, though someone will perhaps enlighten me further.

In the end I guess some of us have to accept that some aspects of theatre and opera are twaddle, but whether this offends or upsets us may be offset by what pleasure or enjoyment we do get out of the experience of watching and hearing. If nobody liked such presentations then they would probably cease to exist, yet the evidence seems to be that for centuries, even millennia, people have enjoyed such presentations. Perhaps the only form of entertainment which has a longer history is story telling in an oral tradition, though I suspect that active participation in games may also have a long history.

In our own lifetimes, games such as football, rugby, tennis and sport such as horse racing all seem to be popular entertainments to watch and their popularity can to some extent be judged by their commercial success. Some human activity does become popular, though it's not always clear why.

Dramatic art forms, such as theatre, opera and ballet certainly did become popular from the 1600s onward, though they are not the major forms of entertainment in the present century. Despite that, some of us still enjoy, somehow, presentations in these genres. Some, at least.

Some operas have some twaddle - but the music may be sublime.

A lot of opera is twaddle - get over it!

[Dave2002]

It would be easy to argue that opera is the most complete art form. It's music, drama, words, and it's visual as well. At its best it is the supreme expression of the human condition. At its worst it is vocal gymnastics combined with a banal plot.

Opera (like all art) does vary a lot, and no doubt some of it is twaddle. We all have our own opinions of which operas are, and which ones are great art.

Very well expressed, and very succinctly too. Bravo!

[Roehre]

It would be easy to argue that opera is the most complete art form. It's music, drama, words, and it's visual as well. At its best it is the supreme expression of the human condition. At its worst it is vocal gymnastics combined with a banal plot.

Opera (like all art) does vary a lot, and no doubt some of it is twaddle. We all have our own opinions of which operas are, and which ones are great art.

[Btw: Gesamtkunstwerk ? ]

[Mary Chambers]

Thank you, Dave2002.

I should add that quite a lot of opera productions are undoubtedly twaddle

[umslopogaas]

If you maintain simply that opera is twaddle, you do not discriminate between the libretto and the music, since both are essential parts of the whole. You are therefore saying not only that the words of Shakespeare, Cervantes and Goethe are twaddle, to name but three, but so is the music of Verdi, Massenet and Berlioz/Gounod/Busoni. This doesnt seem to me to be a profitable argument.

While I admit some operatic plots are far-fetched, that usually just means they are melodramatic. I cant think of one I would dismiss as "twaddle". When they are silly, it is usually with deliberate intent: G & S are sometimes silly, but deliberately so, with satirical intent, and Mozart and Rossini could also use satirical plots that can seem silly on first encounter, but usually arent when you look more closely.

To dismiss all opera as twaddle is also, of course, to dismiss as devotees of twaddle not only a lot of very intelligent people who go to see it, but also a lot of very shrewd people who fund it and very talented people who perform it. But enough of this, who suggested this nonsense?

[kernelbogey]

Somewhere I came across the idea that what is unique to opera is that from time to time it freezes the action while one or more characters reveal to us their thoughts and feelings: and these are enhanced with music. In this it is similar to plays' use (e.g. Shakespeare) of the convention of the soliloquy. It's not the full answer to the question, but a notion worth putting to opera sceptics to explain what may seem like twaddle.

The music can also convey feelings, memories etc that are not expressed in language, such as in Verdi, and, most notably in Wagner.

[Flosshilde]

Somewhere I came across the idea that what is unique to opera is that from time to time it freezes the action while one or more characters reveal to us their thoughts and feelings: and these are enhanced with music.

Absolutely; think of the Act 3 quartet in Rigoletto - is there any play in which four characters express, simultaneously, different emotions, all intelligible to the audience? And Mime in Act 2 of Siegfried; preparing the broth he hopes will kill Siegfried while telling him how much he cares for him, while the music reveals his true feelings & emotions.

Some opera can be twaddle (& some, in a poor production, can seem to be twaddle when it isn't - & vice versa), but then so can some plays. But they can both be jolly good entertainment non the less.