Breaking Into the Classics

[shostakovich]

Yesterday I was going through old cassettes and I found one that I used on a radio program. It was primarily for initiates to orchestral music. Of course, it's not the only point of entry, but it works for some.

Start with short works such as marches and dances. The melodies and rhythms will leave a strong impression, and acclimate people to the orchestra. Ballet and operatic suites do nicely. Leroy Anderson was excellent for 3-minute pieces (that would fit on one side of a 78).

Then go to overtures, which will introduce one to thematic development, and symphonic poems, which have a story line for ease of assimilation.

After getting familiar with a lot of the above, one can determine which composers he/she would be willing to follow into more "advanced" forms of music.

PS: Sousa will lead you nowhere but to Sousa. His marches will, however, give you the sound of a band, which is quite different from that of an orchestra.

----------------------------------------------------

Other suggestions for breaking into the classics welcome.
Shos

[dai bread]

I never did like symphonic poems or tone poems. At this distance from my first encounter wiht them I can't really say why. I suspect that things like "Finlandia" and "Ma Vlast" are tone poems, so I may have to amend that.

I grew up with 78 rpm records. 3 or 4 minutes per side of the best-known opera of the day, "Excerpts". Lots of tunes, great drama, full orchestral sound and great singers. To this day I can't stand opera without an orchestra. I don't care if it's a recorded orcestra; it must have an orchestra. A piano is nowhere near adequate.

[Bones]

Originally posted by dai bread:
I never did like symphonic poems or tone poems. At this distance from my first encounter wiht them I can't really say why. I suspect that things like "Finlandia" and "Ma Vlast" are tone poems, so I may have to amend that.

I grew up with 78 rpm records. 3 or 4 minutes per side of the best-known opera of the day, "Excerpts". Lots of tunes, great drama, full orchestral sound and great singers. To this day I can't stand opera without an orchestra. I don't care if it's a recorded orcestra; it must have an orchestra. A piano is nowhere near adequate.

Yes, Finlandia and Ma Vlast are symphonic poems! Time to amend your stance.

And I agree, opera without the orchestra is not opera.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by dai bread:
To this day I can't stand opera without an orchestra. I don't care if it's a recorded orcestra; it must have an orchestra. A piano is nowhere near adequate.

Same here, and I like opera most of all on DVD or video with subtitles. That way you have a chance of following any unfamiliar bits of the plot and libretto. Not to mention fully enjoying the visual and dramatic etc. aspects of this great art form.

[dai bread]

True, DavidS. That's why I'm not one who insists on the original language being used. If you can't get a decent translation, find someone who knows his way around English. It's a very versatile language.

That being said, I sympathise with W.S.Gilbert, when he said "whoever heard the words of grand opera"? Standards of diction are improving, though, and I don't agree with Gilbert as much as I once did.

The clearest diction I ever heard is on my recording of "The Pearl Fishers" done years ago by some French Canadians. Pierette Allari (sp?) is the soprano, and I'm too lazy to look up the others. You can hear almost every word.

When people say that English is not singable, they forget "The Messiah" and instead point to that lovely trite line in "Madam Butterfly" which in my libretto is "milk punch (whatever that is) or whisky?" The Italian is "milk punch o whisky". That is somehow "better".

[OperaTenor]

I think utilizing the original language is only fair to the audience if something like "supertitles" is used. A very concise, easy to follow translation is projected just above the stage. I imagine it's the case with most major opera houses around the world these days, especially since we've had it here in Sandy Eggo for longer than I've been in the company.

When I first heard about it, I thought it might be annoying and take away from the action on the stage, but I've found quite the opposite to be true.

As long as there is a way to easily convey a translation to the audience, I think it's always best to perform an opera in the original language, for two reasons:
1) The music blends better with the language the composer imagined it with, and
2) The translations are usually nauseating.

(In googling it to search for a photo I found this explanation from Opera Illinois. The photo shows a scene from La Boheme, using sets built by the San Diego Opera.)


Opera Illinois

[dai bread]

I think that opera must have been over-rehearsed, O.T.!