Christopher Webber <[log in to unmask]>:

>Both (Oedipus Rex and The Rake's Progress) are amongst the greatest
>operatic masterpieces of the century; yet 've always been interested as
>to why 'melos' or symphonic opera writing seems to get a better press, or
>be considered in some mysterious way more progressive than 'numbers' opera.
>It's all a bit like saying an orange is better than an apple.

This is true, I believe.  One may wonder whether this is due to a
persistence of an extreme wagnerism at some sectors of modern audiences,
or due to the "progressive" preaching of ex vanguardists like Boulez (who
criticized Berg once for using classical formal schemes at "Lulu").

>I suppose it comes down to the siren call of mimesis, or imitation
>of reality.  After Wagner, some weird feeling seems to get around that
>symphonic opera is somehow more realistic than numbers opera.  Even Verdi
>got the bug, at least in parts of "Otello" and all of "Falstaff".
>
>As afar as I know nobody ever bothered to explain what was more realistic
>about melos - it was just taken for granted.

That was true for a wing of german romantic aesthetics during a certain
time.  Nietzsche ("Die Geburt der Tragoedie" chapter 11, if I don't
remember bad) explained it very well.  Our concept of "mimesis" have
changed a bit since that and, precisely, "Wozzeck" or "Lulu" are masterful
examples of this.

Pablo Massa
[log in to unmask]