Christopher Webber seems to have forgotten or not noticed that I did say
that I was not laying these things down as hard and fast criteria, but
rather as things to look for.  There are certainly a great many works which
are intermediate types, standing close to the border or even standing with
one foot on either side.

There are, however, many more pieces which are firmly on one side or the
other of the divide, and it would be more useful if we wish to develop
criteria for defining the difference, to discuss what the works that are
firmly on a given side have in common and what they do *not* have in common
with those firmly on the other.

He responds to me:

>>While there are some intermediate forms, as I understand it what makes
>>operetta distinct from opera is some combination of the following:
>>
>>1.  A 'light' plot.
>
>Lehar's "Giuditta" makes Berg's "Lulu" look positively frivolous.
>Guerrero's "Martierro" ends like "Peter Grimes" with the fisherman hero
>committing suicide by scuppering his boat at sea.

I am not familiar with any of those works--but, again, I DID say that these
were not hard-and-fast rules and that there were many intermediate types.

>>opera, on the other hand, deals with great Kings & Queens, Gods, Heroes &
>>Heroines
>
>Just like "El rey que rabio" (Chapi), "Princess Ida" (based on a Tennyson
>poem) "La Belle Helene" and other Offenbach treats - and much of the rest
>of the French operetta school to boot!

Yes, but "Princess Ida" and "Belle Helene" use the Kings & Queens, Gods,
Heroes & Heroines to poke fun either at the absurdities of the authors'
contemporary societies or at the conventions of 'heroic' opera itself.

>>2.  A great deal of spoken dialog.  Opera has little or none.
>
>Carmen? Fidelio? The Magic Flute? There's lots of dialogue in the original
>versions of all these ...

'Magic Flute' is listed as a 'singspiel' and 'Carmen' as an 'opera
comique'--both terms not to distant from 'operetta' and 'musical.' But even
if we concede that these are operas, I did say that there were exceptions
and intermediate types.

>>3.  Highly melodic music.  The songs should be accessible--preferably
>>hummable or whistleable (sp.?) by a person with minimal musical training.
>
>Unlike "Lucia di Lammermoor", "The Marriage of Figaro" or "Turandot"?

I'll give you "Figaro", and perhaps "Turandot"--but "Lucia"?

>>4.  Natural and unaffected vocal technique, as opposed to the highly
>>stylized vocal technique often required by opera.
>
>It takes world class, highly trained opera singers to do justice to "Die
>Fledermaus" or "Dona Francisquita" - Sullivan also insisted on opera
>trained voices ...

Again, "Fledermaus" is on the 'high' side of the genre.  "Francisquita" I'm
not familiar with.

>>Singers with minimal formal training--although not minimal talent or
>>musicianship--can often sing operetta, while such singers would need
>>much additional training to tackle most opera.
>
>Untrue (see above.) We've all been subjected to vocally inadequate
>Offenbach, Sullivan and Vives - even in national auditoriums!

Yes, but we've also heard delightful amateur performances of Sullivan.
How much good amateur Puccini or Wagner is out there.

>>5.  Lack of extremes, both in emotional content and musical qualities.
>>(Not extremely loud or soft, not using the extremes of the singers'
>>ranges, etc.)
>
>Whispering choruses abound in 19th century zarzuela (as in Rossini) and
>Kalman can make nearly as big a noise with his pit orchestra as Wagner!
>Have you never been blown away by the 1st Act finale of "The Yeomen of the
>Guard"? If you need emotional extremes, try most of the zarzuela repertoire
>(e.g.  "Las golondrinas", a bloody verismo tragedy).

I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be with zarzuela, so I will concede that
you may well be right; "Yeoman" is one of G&S's heavier pieces, so we again
may put this as something close to the border or even straddling it.

>>6.  Operetta does not take itself seriously; opera does.
>
>What do you mean by "seriously"? Musically, Offenbach, J.  Strauss,
>Sullivan and Sorozabal took their work extremely seriously (whatever
>Sullivan's public line might have been).

If you mean that they wrote the best music that they were capable of, of
course they did.  They were honest artists.  Did they think of themselves
as Great Artists, producing Serious Art for the Ages? I think not.

What I meant was that Opera, when the plot is preposterous, usually asks us
to pretend, at least for the evening, that it isn't.  Operetta frequently
winks at us across the footlights and invites us to share the joke.

>>The next question is "Where does one draw the line between operetta and
>>musical comedy?"
>
>Once again, I fear the best thing is not to even try.  Because that line,
>as Pablo Massa cynically observes, only exists in the minds of snobbish
>opera house bosses of the Old School!

Well, again, I think there is a line.  There are many pieces which are
close to that line, or even straddle it--but there are others which are
definately on one side or the other.  What do those on one side have in
common with one another which they do not with those on the other?

"Bruce Alan Wilson" <[log in to unmask]>