Re: What makes LvB's Missa Solemnis so profound a work?

Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 04:01:25 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Size: 5,831 bytes

email-address-deleted (Pan) wrote in
news:email-address-deleted:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:07:28 GMT, mike <email-address-deleted> wrote:
>
>>email-address-deleted (Pan) wrote in
>>news:email-address-deleted:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 05:17:33 GMT, mike <email-address-deleted> wrote:
>>>
>>>>email-address-deleted (Pan) wrote in
>>>>news:email-address-deleted:
>
>>>>> So what? The fact that it is a music drama doesn't tell us that
>>>>> the music is not classical.
>>>>
>>>>it's classical opera,
>>>
>>> So then it's classical, right?
>>
>>classic examples of opera, opera succeeding on its own terms... the
>>best of the expression.
>
> You're engaging in a confusion of expressions. Classical music is not
> so-called because all of it is "the best." There's plenty of lousy
> classical music. And "classic" does not equal "classical."
not the classical music of radio station choice, but the reality that
some musics are more giving than others, have more interesting things to
listen to.
>
>>>> just as the stones are classical rock.
>>>
>>> _Classic_ rock, which is _NOT_ a form of classical music, as far as
>>> almost everyone but yourself (?) is concerned.
>>
>>classic rock is a d.j. term, i think. but stones would have to be said
>>to be what one would think of as emblematic of rock.
>
> That doesn't make their music classical. It's rock. Rock is not
> classical music. The term "classical music" is very hard to define,
> but what it's _NOT_ can be more clearly stated, up to a point, and
> rock is one of the things classical music is _not_.
there's classic rhythm and blues, say. music from the birth of the genre
which was so imbued with the force and energy of the new sound that it
can't help but be internally consistant.
>
> [snip]
>>> Can't take a strong argument, eh? Take
>>> things personally too easily? Then don't make remarks that are so
>>> silly and take them so seriously. :-)
>
> In case it isn't clear, I apologize for making this remark.
i hear it as part of the dialog. you step into the cold water and scream!
>
>>>since opera is a _music_ drama,
>>> the music is an
>>> _integral_ part of the opera, presumably never a sidelight
>>
>>hoo! you're forgetting an awful lot of operas! "Vanessa", for
>>instance?
>
> How do you figure the music is a sidelight? Because the story is
> better than the music? That's another issue, I think. An opera is a
> music drama. That's definitional.
you don't feel that a lot of guys feel forced to write a longer work than
they're actually comfortable with? look at the mess of Tristan... wagner
writing trying to say Everything. look at early Puccini working with
almost identical material: a kind of musical wagner.
>
>>actually, i have to admit that, though i like opera very much,
>>Janacek's Makropolos Case is the only opera i've heard that really
>>impressed me as a complete music, a music which used voice as
>>instrument and used the pretext of plot to convince the listener that
>>they were hearing music... well, actually i like Puccini and Berg
>>too... and the liebestod always knocks me out...
>
> I part company with you on Janacek and agree with you on the others.
>
>>> as it could
>>> be in a movie, so the opera doesn't exist without the music.
>>
>>that would be a drama play, i agree! and the music existing without
>>the lyric? "opera without words". heard carmen fantasy lately? barf.
>>...
>
> I like the Pablo de Sarasate one. Opera paraphrases are often lousy,
> but can be excellent, though it does help to know the operas they're
> paraphrasing, in any case.
oof.
>
>>hummm, the flower song is neat... very flexy -- and i only like it
>>sung. but, imagine a lyric to Bolero... what would that offer the
>>music?
>
> Nothing that I'd want, though I don't like the piece much, either. But
> jazz singers have given lyrics to many melodies that were originally
> saxophone solos and such and I can enjoy those.
jazz singers are the special case of composition on the fly.
>
>> -- i
>>don't know. maybe it would be like one of the four last songs?
>
> Nope. Not nearly good enough music. :-)
waat? you don't like Bolero? it knocks me out. you ever hear how the
original was staged? a solo spanish dancer is joined by other spanish
dancers and the stage gets stomped?
>
>>> The next
>>> question is what type of music is composed for x opera. The usual
>>> case is that it is classical.
>>
>>dude. it's romantic or classical or modern! peter suggests that
>>whatever is named is what is.
>
> I consider that you're confusing terms again.
not really. i know what you mean, but this classification is the kind i
have to use with my daughter the anti-boring-music person. This is
> rec.music.classical. Are you suggesting that the only music that's
> really on-topic here is what was written by some composers in the 18th
> and early 19th centuries? "Classical music" is not a period style
> designation. If you want that, "Classical-style music" could be used.
naw, we grind it all out. opera is on topic, since it involves dedication
of a music towards musical ends.
>
>> the music is a flavoring, a prop or stage setting...
>>much the way a concert opera performance uses the lyric as a
>>flavoring.
>
> I'm not following you. The music of an opera isn't just a flavoring;
> it's a major part of the core of the whole artistic endeavor. And the
> lyrics are generally a central part of the substance of a song,
> right??
that's how it is. but, you know that this term, and all these terms, were
invented for specific uses, and that we now use them as portmanteau
carry-alls to get the concepts into the group? like the word "science"
being indiscriminantly used to describe any non-frooty activity?
have a peach. =)
>
> Michael
>