Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:57:27 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Christopher Webber:
>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 suspect the "symphonic" opera easier to write, in the sense that a lot
of it can be faked. A really great melody can't be faked. Wagner, of
course, has all sorts of great melodies, or melodic set-pieces, so he's an
exception. But think of all the routine and justly-forgotten operas that
follow the Wagnerian model: Zandonai's Francesca da Rimini, Bretan's Arald
and Golem, the petite-Bayreuth in France, Bolcom's McTeague, Corigliano's
Ghost of Versailles, Aschaffenburg's Bartelby, and so on.
Steve Schwartz, waiting for fire to come down on his head
|
|
|