April 11th, 2009 11:33
Megan and I were talking last night about opera. She hates it (though she did really enjoy the one opera we’ve seen together–a BYU production of Le Nozze di Figaro). She doesn’t like that style of singing. It’s not an uncommon viewpoint among those of my generation and even the one before me. Seems that most people my age (who aren’t musicians) don’t like the high notes, the vibrato, the resonance of operatic (bel canto) singing. It is a little distracting for people who grew up with folk-derived music, with its more intimate, speechlike quality.
My theory has always been that the rise of recorded music, with microphones and amplification, made the bel canto style obsolete. Bel canto (“beautiful singing” in Italian) was developed during the 17th century in Italy around the same time as opera grew out of more and more elaborate and complex art songs called madrigals. The rise in popularity of opera led to larger venues that required louder voices (which were also needed to sing over the expanding orchestras). The need for loud, powerful voices in large concert halls with large orchestras only increased with the demands of Romantic composers like Wagner and Mahler.
“Hey mister! I don’t mean to be tellin’ tales out of school, but there’s a feller in there that’ll pay you ten dollars if you sing into his can.”
-Oh Brother Where Art Thou
The microphone let anyone sing and be heard over instruments in a large hall without formal training (required by bel canto). By the 1940s the most popular vocalists were crooners singing with the big bands. A generation later amplified singing had acquired a diversity that made bel canto seem inflexible and outdated. Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers, Smokey Robinson, Little Richard all had unique styles. Who among us can tell the Three Tenors aparts by listening? Just kidding… a little.
All this brings me to something I read this morning in book called The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men through Rubber Soul (Walter Everett, Oxford University Press, 2001). Here’s part of the excerpt from page 71.
…the solo singers of that time [the 1950s], spearheaded by Presley, make their expression as physical and individual as possible. What was at the time frequently condemned as the product of a lack of training (in a fiercely fought generation-defined battle of tastes) might conversely be appreciated as a new interest in expressive ornamentation, comparable to the situation created by the introduction of the Nuove Musiche at the turn of the seventeenth century.
What was condemned for lack of training, rock and roll, has become so common a generation later, that bel canto is foreign and difficult to comprehend (even when sung in English). Ironically, perhaps we’ve traded a condemnation of a lack of training for a condemnation of the pretentiousness of training.
Tags: Aesthetics, bias, opera, rock
April 11, 2009 at 13:23
I fancy myself musical, but by no means a musician. I am very picky. I have a hard time with Musicals (save the classics like Seven Wives for Seven Brothers) because they seem to have license to put words to music without any real melody or return to a central theme (at least in my limited view that’s how I see it). I don’t listen to music to hear words. If I wanted to listen to poetry I’d listen to poetry. I listen to music to hear instruments come together to form an experience that connects with me on some level. If the singing happens to fit into that then all the better, and sometimes the blend fits perfectly. I allow music to affect me, that’s why I choose to listen to certain songs at certain times.
As for Opera. I’ve never given it the time of day because it’s farther down the continuum than Musicals on the do-whatever-you-want scale. Credit to creativity and talent goes to where it is due, but I’d rather go on a run and listen to Joe Satriani bang out a melodic solo than the Three Tenors. It doesn’t mean I don’t think they aren’t talented and truly musical. Maybe that provides evidence to your point with the current generation.
April 24, 2009 at 08:25
I feel like such a strange kid… I think I am one of the few non opera singers who prefer bel canto singing over anything else. I’ve always loved the meldoic lines in opera. I remember how I would always run around as a kid singing La Donna é Mobile (sp?) and and Schuberts Ave Maria in the biggest chest voice I could belt out.
What I find strange about the average ear, is that they perfer out of tune vocals to bel canto. They cringe to beautiful in tune and wonderful timbred voices, but they are all over the out of tune and airy vocals of indie bands. It’s strange how the musical intrest has changed over the years (obviously due to the recording industry.)
The sad thing is that opera singer just aren’t as good as they used to be either. I’ve play so many operas (Die Walküre, La donna é Mobile, Čert a Káča, Siegfried und Isolda, Die Meister Singer von Nürnberg, Lohengrin, and Carmen), but the singers these days fail to impress me. The only place I’ve heard a really good opera was in Germany. I just find it hard to find a good vocalist in America. It just doesn’t seem to come easy to them (is this due to evolution? Are we losing our ability to sing!?) I’m greatful for the microphone though. I use it a lot in composition. I just wish music hadn’t come so dependent on it. :/