Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> writes: >It turns out that Stravinsky was an ardent anti-Wagnerian. Mozart was one >of his gods (at least, he stole from Mozart a lot). Listen to Stravinsky's >operas, particularly The Rake's Progress: separate numbers, rather than >continuous melody. Absolutely: just as his "Oedipus Rex" has a Handelian base, again very much contra-Wagner. Both are amongst the greatest operatic masterpieces of the century; yet I'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. 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. It's not as if 'numbers' operas need be less organised musically: look at "Wozzeck", another great 'numbers' opera. Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK. http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm "ZARZUELA!"