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

[kernelbogey]

In mentioning Verdi I was thinking of the last act of Otello: 'Ancor' un baccio', he sings to Desdemona, as he had with love in Act One, before killing her.

Also as Posa lies dying in Carlos's presence in the last act, the orchestra recalls his earlier duet of solidarity with Carlos, most movingly.

[richardfinegold]

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!

I've never understood the rise of "reality" TV Programs (but then, I have hardly watched TV for the last 40 years or so, so I understand anything why people habitually watch that medium at all). I thought that the idea of entertainment was to brighten our daily lives with illussions. I understand that one of the most popular reality shows here involves people doing "dirty jobs"--garbagemen, fishery employees, etc. Perhaps so many people now work in cubicles with computer monitors that they find such fare exotic and worthy of their leisure time.
Opera is a very stylized form of entertainment but it need not appear more strange to us than any other form of stylized entertainment. Certainly there is a lot of chaff amongst the wheat. One problem is that a lot of great music is buried in that chaff, in the same way that a mediocre Broadway Musical may be redeemed by a few great numbers, or a less than stellar movie or televesion show may have one or two memorable characters or actors that stand above the backdrop of a less than great production.

[David-G]

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?

An excellent post. And I would add - it is also to dismiss the geniuses who wrote it.

I think that discussing whether there is some twaddle in the operatic genre is to miss the point. The key word in the original question is "all".

[Dave2002]

I think that discussing whether there is some twaddle in the operatic genre is to miss the point. The key word in the original question is "all".

Well done for spotting that, so the question to answer now becomes, effectively "Is there a single opera which is not twaddle?", in which case the answer is "No"!

Exam technique - which most of us have failed - "Answer the question."

Now nominate your non-twaddle operas. It is just possible that the "answer" is non-computable.

[ardcarp]

Opera is a very stylized form of entertainment but it need not appear more strange to us than any other form of stylized entertainment.

I think that, Rich, i.e. pointing out that it is a stylised form of entertainment/art, puts a finger on the problem. One does need to be au fait with its conventions and rituals. As has been said, in real life if you are stabbed you die. In opera you sing for at least half an hour. Yes, one has to work at getting to know backgrounds and plots and much else besides. To grab a member of the public off the street and give him/her a free seat at the ROH for Tristan might not be fruitful. Some OTOH like opera just for the sheer sound of the human voice. I knew a school caretaker who had a huge collection of 78s of arias, mainly from Puccini's (pew-sinny he pronounced it) oeuvres, and he was completely in love with the bel canto syle....especially tenors!

[aeolium]

One does need to be au fait with its conventions and rituals. As has been said, in real life if you are stabbed you die. In opera you sing for at least half an hour.

Although I am keen on quite a lot of opera, I like this rant towards the end of Terry Pratchett's Maskerade. The plot in this book is very loosely based on The Phantom of the Opera and at the end the "ghost" is mortally wounded on stage, interrupting another opera performance. Here are his last words, interrupted by several false deaths:

"Whatever happens it can't be worse than a season of opera!!!! I don't mind where I'm going so long as there are no fat men pretending to be thin boys, and no huge long songs which everyone says are so beautiful just because they don't understand what the hell they're actually about!!!! Ah---Ah-argh....[slumps to the floor, then gets up]...Incidentally, another thing I can't stand about opera are the plots. They make no sense!! And no-one ever says so!!! And the quality of the acting? It's non-existent!! Everyone stands around watching the person who's singing. Ye gods, it's going to be a relief to put that behind....ah....argh....[slumps to the floor again, then struggles up]....As for the people who attend opera, I think I just possibly hate them even worse!!! They're so ignorant!!! There's hardly a one of them out there who knows the first thing about music!!! They go on about tunes!!! They spend all day endeavouring to be sensible human beings, and then they walk in here and they leave their intelligence on a nail by the door....[hits the floor again, then rises again when someone prods him to check if he's dead]...You know what really gets me down is the way that in opera everyone takes such a long!!!!!.....time!!!!!.....to!!!!!.....argh.....argh. ....argh....." [keels over for the last time].

[Thropplenoggin]

[Btw: Gesamtkunstwerk ? ]

Yes, well, from what I understand, Wagner didn't like the artifice of what opera had come to mean in the mid-19th Century and the artifice of the tunes and arias and how the music/word set pieces added little dramatically. What he attempted (and, I would say, succeeded in doing) was create a new artform, or perhaps one could say re-invented, in that it was based on Ancient Greek principles of drama, dance and song.

I wonder if the operaphile members of the forum could point out which if any post-Wagner operas apply the same principles of Gestamstkunstwerk as opposed to the aria/recitative model.

[umslopogaas]

Re. #20, no, if I had to grab a member of the public off the street and try to get them interested in opera, and assuming I didnt get arrested or a punch on the snoot, I wouldnt choose 'Tristan and Isolde'. Maybe 'The Barber of Seville', or 'The Ride of the Valkyries' as a way into Wagner. The first opera I ever saw - I was persuaded to go by a friend, not grabbed off the street - was 'The Marriage of Figaro'. Shortly after I remember driving my Dad crazy by listening to 'Boris Godunov' on the evening radio while he was trying to clear some paperwork. Not sure what got me interested in Wagner, but it was probably an LP a friend had of Flagstad singing Brunnhilde excerpts from 'The Ring'. Good grief, that was fifty years ago!

[Mary Chambers]

My own early opera experience went like this (apologies to those who've heard all this before): age 11, Britten's Let's Make an Opera, which explains the conventions for children. Not converted. Age about 15, Humperdinck's Hansel and Gretel at school. Besotted. 22 or so - Gounod, Faust in Amsterdam. It's a marvel I ever went to another opera. Very bad performance, I suspect, and total twaddle as far as I was concerned then. Later the same year, Peter Grimes. Totally converted!

Some wise person once said that some opera is mainly about singing, and some is mainly about drama. I go for drama and meaning.

[Sir Velo]

Re. #20, no, if I had to grab a member of the public off the street and try to get them interested in opera, and assuming I didnt get arrested or a punch on the snoot, I wouldnt choose 'Tristan and Isolde'.

For anyone under the age of 45 or so I'd go for Bluebeard. It's got memorable music, small cast list, and it's over before you can get bored. Le Grand Macabre for anyone a bit wacky.

[Mary Chambers]

La Traviata for romantics.

[umslopogaas]

Hmm, Sir Velo, I might go for 'Bluebeard' if I was confident that the victim liked the instrumental music of Bartok and his ilk, but not if they were generally new to classical music. After decades of listening to Bartok I'm quite comfortable with his music, but when I first heard it I found it pretty difficult, and while I agree the music is memorable, it isnt particularly tuneful ... though the opening of the fifth door is quite something, maybe if one did use 'Bluebeard' as an introduction to opera, one should start just before that bit?

And thanks for reminding me about 'Le Grand Macabre', I know of it but have never heard it. Time to bother the local CD seller for another set they've never heard of. WHO? Why dont you listen to Beethoven like every one else?

[ahinton]

For anyone under the age of 45 or so I'd go for Bluebeard. It's got memorable music, small cast list, and it's over before you can get bored. Le Grand Macabre for anyone a bit wacky.

Good choice, although I'd go for Salome (I see that Salome and Elektra are being performed in unstaged versions on two successive days in this year's Proms as part of the celebrations of the 150th anniversary of their composer's birth); I probably wouldn't do what someone I know did and have as a first live operatic experience The Midsummer Marriage (or The Midsummer Magic Flute, as I once heard someone call it), from which experience she emerged "utterly confused, but thrilled and impatient to go to another opera"...

[french frank]

I wonder what is meant by 'twaddle' in this context?

[ardcarp]

"I wonder what is meant by 'twaddle' in this context"...plonk plonk [on the harpsichord]

Nice little recit there, ff.