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!"