Talk:Opera/Archive 2

Sourced/Unsourced?

I have added general references and removed the {{unsourced}} tag. I trust that is OK with everybody. Kleinzach 17:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Particular to Europe?

I understand what you are trying to say, to distinguish the opera of Verdi and Wagner from, say, "Chinese opera." But I think we need a better term. Opera is a lot more than European now, judging from the full house at the Metropolitan Opera at nearly every performance. And there are opera houses in Sydney and Toronto and even Santa Fe. Yes, most such operas were written by European composers, but there are plenty of non-European composers these days too. But you know all this. Why did you say it was particular to Europe? –Shoaler (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I just changed the lead to say "originated in Europe". The definition in the lead could be worded better still (I'll have a look at it after I'm home from work) but you were right; it shouldn't be quite so specific to Europe. Antandrus (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it really true that opera originated in Europe? Chinese opera seems to have predated European opera by over 1,000 years. You are right to recognize that opera is neither a European invention, nor centered in Europe. The article should more strongly reflect this recognition, otherwise it reflects a eurocentric point of view. Until those changes are made, I suggest that this article be noted as a non-neutral Kemet 8 Jan 2006.

Thanks for your help. As to rewording, opera is more than drama set to music. In a play, the feelings of the players are conveyed by their acting ability and by the text. In opera, these feelings are conveyed primarily in the music, both in the singing and the orchestration, and the acting is of secondary importance. –Shoaler (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No reason to confuse opera with the original performances of Sophocles either. As for the neutrality disputed tag, it shouldn't be abused. We expect a forthcoming article Tang dynasty opera from User:Kemet, with the opening line "Chinese opera seems to have predated European opera by over 1,000 years." --Wetman 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The author defines opera as "a dramatic art form, originating in Europe, in which the emotional content is conveyed to the audience as much through music, both vocal and instrumental as it is through the lyrics" If this is his or her primary definition of opera [disregarding the statement on its origin in Europe], then this describes other dramatic art forms including Japanese kabuki and Balinese kecak. As it stands, the article ignores this fact and presents opera as a uniquely European invention and phenomenon. My assertion about the lack of neutrality is quite appropriate. There should at least be a preliminary strong statement of the not-so obvious to those who know of no other forms of opera outside of the Western tradition: that this article is about EUROPEAN opera; the term "opera" needs to be qualified. There is, however, no need for me to re-invent the wheel; there is already an article on Tang dynasty opera in Wikipedia, and the suggested opening has nothing to do with succinctly describing the subject of that article, so it is rather useless in that context. Kemet 9 Jan 2005

I am planning to remove the tag regarding worldview unless someone makes a compelling case to maintain it. It appears that there is only one person, Kemet, who disagrees with the article. These sorts of "axe to grind" flaggings of practically every European art form (see also, "Classical music" for example) are out of control. If people are going to insist on saying that these entries are not somehow global in view, then I'll have no choice but to flag every article about every other ethnic or geographic art form (e.g. Kabuki theater and Chinese opera) I come across as likewise tainted. Opera is an art form that originated in Europe in the late 16th century in Florence. Kabuki theater is not opera. We can call Chinese opera Chinese opera by analogy, but it is clearly a different art form as. My guess is that the Chinese term for Chinese opera isn't "opera". (If anything, the ethnocentricity is in labeling Chinese opera as _opera_ at all rather than failing to take a holistic enough account of Western opera). It doesn't imply that other civilizations' art forms are less worthy or of less value to note that they are, in fact, different art forms from what we have in the West. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.96.210 (talk • contribs) .

I have not looked at this article for a while. The author of the above statement missed my point. My "axe to grind" was the lack of a definition of European opera that would warrant separating it from non-Western dramatic art forms--the author's definition would have described such art forms. The introduction has since been improved with a tighter definition, and the article overall is accurate enough for general reference. That said, some things could be clearer (see below under "General") Kemet 19 April 2006.

Although there are some problems with the introduction to this article, I would support removal of the 'Worldview tag'.

Opera is only one form of musical theatre - though arguably the most successful - and 'Chinese Opera', Kabuki etc. are unrelated, i.e. they are not forms or genre of opera. Many forms of music theatre obviously pre-date the birth of opera in Italy. (As anon. (above) speculates, the Chinese wood for opera geju means something like 'song theatre'. Beijing Opera is 'Jingju' or 'capital theatre'.).

Non-Europeans (particularly the Japanese) are indeed now writing operas within the western musical tradition and we have tried to include them in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Opera Work List and resulting articles. If there is any bias in the opera articles we have now, it is towards America, Canada and Australia rather than Europe.

Kleinzach 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I also support removing the tag (and will go ahead and do it). Opera is an Italian word, the form originated in Italy, and the other musico-dramatic forms in the world that are sometimes tagged with the term are completely unrelated. Antandrus (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

General

I did a fair amount of editing today. I really hope I didn't step on any toes. None of it was structural, just a lot of little things like differentiating range and tessitura, adding some examples, trying to improve syntax and flow, adding footnotes, adding links, etc.

Two criticisms. First, somehow in an effort to be comprehensive, there isn't any clear sense of opera's most defining characteristic, i.e. people singing. I certainly don't disagree whatsoever with all of the space dedicated to the importance of visual art, orchestral music, etc., but I feel pretty certain that most people go to the opera primarily to hear the stylized singing.

Second, I just don't get the long section on the sociology of opera. It should be eliminated or expanded and attributed. Maybe we want to say that opera is primarily an historical art form, and that understanding the political, social and cultural context of a specific oeuvre may contribute to our appreciation? The point about operas being "current" when they were written is fine, but it can be said in a sentence. It is a little more different from modern musical theater than say Shakepeare from modern drama, or modern novels from Victorian, but the idea of a repertory being formed from old works isn't one of the differences -- the main difference is that opera really isn't being written any more.

I agree with these criticisms. As it is currently written, the sociology of opera section seems pedastrian and meandering---it should be eliminated, or expanded and attributed as the above authot suggests. Other points:

• Traditional opera consists of two modes of singing: recitative, the dialogue and plot-driving passages often sung in a non-melodic style characteristic of opera, and aria, during which the movement of the plot often pauses, with the music becoming more melodic in character and the singer focusing on one or more topics or emotional affects. Short melodic or semi-melodic passages occurring in the midst of what is otherwise recitative are also referred to as arioso

What is "traditional opera?"

• The earliest composition considered an opera as understood today, originated from around 1597. It is Dafne, (now lost) written by Jacopo Peri largely under the inspiration of an elite circle of literate Florentine humanists who gathered as the "Camerata". Significantly Dafne was an attempt to revive the classical Greek drama, part of the wider revival of antiquity characteristic of the Renaissance.

More can be said about WHY Renaissance nobles were so interested in reviving antiquity. It was not pure academicism, but to show that they were truly aristocrats, who by cultivating the arts and letters (of which the revival of antiquity was part), demonstrated their "culture" and "breeding." Opera was a direct product of these political gestures.

• An underlying prerequisite for the creation of opera proper was the practice of monody. Monody is the solo singing/setting of a dramatically conceived melody, designed to express the emotional content of the text it carries, which is accompanied by a relatively simple sequence of chords rather than other polyphonic parts

The main point here should be that monody was chosen over polyphony because elocution of the text was clearer in a thin monodic texture. Also, monodic textures were more likely to have MORE elaborate harmonic progressions than polyphonic settings, a direct result of their primary function to highlight important affective qualities of the text.

• From this, it was only a small step to fully-fledged monody

Careful--this sounds too close to developmental essentialism (retroactive attribution of a later development to the earliest instances of the elements [also retroactively] attributed to this development).

• Once the Metastasian ideal had been firmly established, comedy in Baroque-era opera was reserved for what came to be called opera buffa. Before such elements were forced out of opera seria, many librettos had featured a separately unfolding comic plot as sort of an "opera-within-an-opera." One reason for this was an attempt to attract members of the growing merchant class, newly wealthy, but still less cultured than the nobility, to the public opera houses

Nobles most certainly found themselves in the audiences for these operas, and of course you would have to describe the criteria by which you could assert that either group was more or less "cultured" than the other.

• Spain also produced its own distinctive form of opera, known as zarzuela

The zarzuela was not completely sung, so it cannot be listed as a style of opera, UNLESS you want to open up the discussion to semi-operas (and then invite criticism as to why the sung (partially or wholly) dramatic forms of countries outside the West aren't included in this article). Kemet 19 April 2006.

Just on this last point: in what way is zarzuela different from opéra comique or Singspiel, both of which include spoken dialogue, as do many post-Singspiel German and other works? I would be very unhappy with any definition of opera that excluded Cherubini's Médée or Die Zauberflöte, Der Freischütz, Carmen, Die Fledermaus, or indeed The Rake's Progress.

More generally, the defects in the article are similar to those that can be found in any long article in Wikipedia that attempts to cover a large subject - a camel is a horse designed by a committee. I personally think that the way to go might be to reduce the article to a kernel and for articles on more specialised topics (matters such as history, individual genres, national schools, etc., etc.) to have a separate existence, as many do at present. An example of this approach is the work currently being done on Grand Opera by an expert in the field. --GuillaumeTell 10:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like add my hearty endorsement of GuillaumeTell's comments. Once we go down the didactic path of saying this or that is not opera we can wreck what should be a neutral, inclusive, encyclopaedic coverage of the subject. We all have our own individual tastes, it's unlikely that any of us will like everything under the opera umbrella, but we should respect other people's opinions and interests. I'd also recommend checking the coverage of other encyclopedias such as the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. You will find it is broad.

Also would it be possible for users to sign comments (with the four tildes or whatever) so that we know who is saying what to whom? - Kleinzach 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Modernism

An explanation of this diff: the existing heading was "After Wagner: verismo and modernism", yet there was no definition or discussion of "modernism" - rather an amorphous term, I'd say - in the context of opera, unless one accepts by inference that Strauss and all the works cited are "modernist". I don't accept that, so I've eliminated all reference to modernism. I can insert some stuff about the second Viennese school and minimalist opera and what have you, but don't have time at present, so be my guest if you want to fill this lacuna.

I've also unilaterally decided that the end of the operatic "Great Tradition" is the death of Puccini and the appearance of Turandot. That means that I've reluctantly removed Wozzeck from the list of "recent" works, and also The Love for Three Oranges, as they appeared before 1926. I am uncomfortable with the concept of "the standard operatic repertoire" (see endless discussion elsewhere), so I've chopped that, but if there is a standard operatic repertoire I can't believe that Einstein on the Beach is in it, so that's gone, too. My substitutions for C20 operas that are performed fairly often are Arabella, Lulu, Capriccio and Billy Budd, though there other possibilities, mostly by Britten, IMO. Feel free to throw brickbats (or congratulate me) below. --GuillaumeTell 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. 'Modernism' in opera is a tricky concept. Grove doesn't includes it. After googling 'opera and modernism' I found someone was teaching a course on the subject in Alberta. He/she listed Salome, Wozzeck, Threepenny Opera, The Rake’s Progress, Four Saints in Three Acts and Street Scene as syllabus. I don't really follow the logic of this, and I agree it's better to leave the term out, particularly in a general article.

I am also unhappy about "the standard operatic repertoire" concept (and the List of famous operas article), but I have written about this before. - Kleinzach 15:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian Anthem

Here it was written that it is a fact that the Russian Anthem is taken from Glinka's Opera A Life for Tsar. By trhe way the fact is wrong. And it is necessary to cut it out. (Meladina 08:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC))

Titles in individual articles

I've noticed, looking at the articles on individual operas, that song titles are usually given in English. Wouldn't it be better to give the titles in the original language and perhaps put translations in the notes to the article? Most lyric translations, of course, being lyric rathre than accurate. Opinions? Roscelese 02:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue was discussed a few weeks ago, I refer you to the guideline under the heading of Arias, duets, choruses, etc. on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera

Here is the key sentence in case you can't find it: 'We recommend referring to the first line [of the aria] in the original language (in italics), followed by the popular title (if there is one) or English translation.' - Kleinzach 07:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reason that the "titles" (actually "first lines") are often in English is that at some point in the past somebody created a whole lot of articles on individual operas at a stroke by taking synopses directly from an out-of-copyright, and thus rather old-fashioned, book of opera plots. Feel free to edit these to your satisfaction! --GuillaumeTell 08:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rock Opera, anyone?

Should rock operas be mentioned anywhere on here? Particularly, the contemporary trends section, which is completely empty. --Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 00:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't cover every genre with the word 'opera' in its title. For example, Chinese opera (a separate tradition) is outside our scope and obviously Soap opera is. Likewise Rock opera is best listed under Rock. - Kleinzach 07:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

...but I've added Rock opera in the alphabetical list of genres under "See also", so that no reader is left behind. --Wetman 12:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Wetman. What exactly is the connection between opera and rock opera? Should we also include pop divas and soap operas in your opinion? - Kleinzach 10:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Wetman is correct. Rock operas have arias and recitatives (or music set more like arioso). Often they have no dialogue. They have solos, ensembles, scenas, etc. Structurally, they are simply operas. The only differences between rock operas and older forms of opera is instrumentation, the rock beat and a rock or pop style of singing (although some of the singing is close to legit). Concerts, like Britney Spears or Pavarotti give, are not operas, they are concerts. I think you should review the rock opera entry before you dismiss it. --Ssilvers 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"See also" is the least controversial connection, in a list that naturally also includes Ballad opera, Musical theatre, Singspiel and Zarzuela. Let us keep in mind that Wikipedia is a service to readers. --Wetman 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is a quotation from Grove:

Rock opera . . . [has] little connection to the opera as traditionally understood. They do not use operatically trained singers; the sound is amplified; some of the more interesting examples were never intended for live performance . . . 'rock operas' are part of (an) . . alternative tradition of of music-theatre stemming from non-Western and vernacular musical cultures. They may eventually join the mainstream . . . but for now they remain outsider phenomenon."

That sums it up quite well. Of course, Rock Opera has it's place on Wikipedia, no-one is trying to ignore it or marginalize it, but it is not a genre of opera per se, so we shouldn't list it alongside opera buffa, grand opera or whatever. It is something else. - Kleinzach 16:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Grove's statement seems to be out of date at best. It is true that the instruments are amplified, but City Opera and lots of other major houses are now amplified. Plus, some modern operas on the list in the opera entry use some or all electronic instruments. Grove's rationale is not a very rigorous analysis. Though some were created first as albums rather than as visual dramatic performances, rock operas are generally intended for live performance. Rock operas are not part of any alternative tradition (what tradition?). Plenty of genuine operas nod to "vernacular" styles. Rock operas are simply operas played using (generally) electronic instruments. As to the singing, I agree that most of it is not performed using what we call "operatically trained" voices, but that is only one small difference out of a long list of criteria. --Ssilvers 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Kleinzach (above). Calling some form of rock music a rock "opera" does not make it into an opera. It is still rock. The same logic would apply to soap operas and horse operas. They do belong in Wikipedia, of course, but not under the heading opera. Tom 18:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines "opera" as "a dramatic art form... in which the emotional content or primary entertainment is conveyed to the audience as much through music, both vocal and instrumental, as it is through the lyrics." In what way do rock operas, such as Tommy, Les Miserables, Evita, Rent or Jesus Christ Superstar differ from this definition? They have dramatic stories about characters told by music; the music is more important than the lyrics and libretto; they often have no dialogue; the score begins with an overture and proceeds to a series of arias and recit or arioso, scenas, and all the other musical indicia of opera. The only distinctions that I can see are that they are not sung by "operatically trained" voices and that they are played by amplified instruments. But they (or at least many of them) have all the other characteristics that describe opera. I have seen many more operas written in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries than I have seen rock operas, but I cannot distinguish the two in any meaningful way. So, I wish that someone would explain what the meaningful differences are that would exclude rock operas from the definition of opera. It is just a diversion to talk about soap operas. Can someone give a reasoned answer? --Ssilvers 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Silvers. We understand your opinion. Perhaps we can now hear from someone else? Kleinzach 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion Rock opera is what today replaced operetta and musical. Here is another question: could we include into opera project the operettas of Isaak Dunaevsky, Dmitri Shostakovich, Johann Strauss, Lehar, or Offenbach? If so, we may consider including Jesus Christ the Superstar, Tommy, Cats and so on. (Meladina 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Shostakovich liked to say: "I like all music from Bach to Offenbach" (Meladina 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Operetta is indeed included. There are about 100 articles on the subject. (If anyone is interested in the overall breadth of coverage on the Opera Project, The opera corpus includes about 1,300 works.) - Kleinzach 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for inclusivity, and, for example, think it a waste of time trying to draw a line between opera and operetta, though some works are clearly one and some clearly the other. Amanda Holden in the Penguin/Viking Guide justifies her selections as follows: "The term opera ... is here interpreted in its widest sense as any dramatic work that can be sung (or at times declaimed or spoken) in a place for performance, set to original music for singers (usually in costume) and instrumentalists." She includes Jesus Christ, Superstar and Les Miserables (but not Tommy).

The opera corpus currently includes "operatic" musicals such as Show Boat and Sweeney Todd. --GuillaumeTell 22:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This brings us back to the original question: Should rock opera be included in the box with the other "genres" of opera. (By the way, Is something wrong with the heading of the "genres" box?) The answer would depend, I think, on whether there are enough rock operas that should be considered operas. Regards, --Ssilvers 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see rock opera being included in this category.

Mr Silvers says: "It is true that the instruments are amplified, but City Opera and lots of other major houses are now amplified."

1. Who amplifies? NYCO's situation is somewhat different (given the house and its limitations). I know of no other houses which routinely amplify opera, unless it is part of an open air presentation (e.g. the Met's "Opera in the Park")

Mr. Silvers: "As to the singing, I agree that most of it is not performed using what we call "operatically trained" voices, but that is only one small difference out of a long list of criteria."

2. Isn't this the sine non qua of what we regard as opera: the ability to use the natural, unamplified voice to fill a house of 1000 to 4000? And is Verona amplified? or Aix? or Orange? or Macerata? In those locations, singers perform for thousands of people in the open air.

No, there are very crucial differences here. Create a rock opera section by all means, but it does not belong here.

Vivaverdi 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your reasoning. I would agree with your argument completely if this were an entry for "grand opera." The description of "opera" on the opera page, however, is used in a broader sense, and as Mr. Tell says above, it includes operetta and a few of the more operatic musicals. The opera page also says that it includes genres such as Ballad Opera and other less "grand" forms. --Ssilvers 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And to think my comment exploded into a discussion this big while I was busy over at the Homestar Runner Wiki. Nevertheless, I stand by my first opinion even more so than before. The first order of business to be done here is to define Opera and see if Rock Opera fits that definition. If I may quote directly from the Opera article right here on Wikipedia (I have taken the liberty of removing information about where and when Opera started):

Opera refers to a dramatic art form in which the emotional content or primary entertainment is conveyed to the audience as much through music, both vocal and instrumental, as it is through the lyrics.

This, then, is an extremely basic definition of what Opera is. Singing skills or the lack tereof don't really matter in this very broad definition, nor do many of the other important aspects of opera. However, this definition is still about Opera.

Now look at Tommy, the first Rock Opera (and one of my favorite albums of all time). Something that can be easily said about that album is that the emotional content or primary entertainment is conveyed to the audience as much through music, both vocal and instrumental, as it is through the lyrics. Sure, the guitar work on this album is great, and the drumming is even better, but the main draw is that the lyrics are telling a tale about deaf, dumb, and blind Tommy Walker's life. Same deal with The Wall, Joe's Garage, American Idiot, and the rest. --Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Opera article is unsatisfactory in various ways. As we all know, much work still needs to be done with the article. The first sentence (quoted above) isn’t an adequate definition. So here is mine:

Opera is one of the performing arts. It is a form of music drama (or music theatre) performed live that traces its roots back to Italy at the turn of the 17th century. (It is not the only tradition of music drama - there are many others). All operas have sections which are sung, but there may also be spoken or semi-spoken passages. The natural (unamplified) human voice is used accompanied by musical instruments. The development of opera is closely related to that of mainstream (classical) music. There are many forms or genres of opera but they belong to a single tradition within which opera singers are trained, alongside other musicians. The technique of singing is applicable to all works from the early Baroque (and before) down to 20th century operettas and musicals.

It follows that works which are not within the tradition (e.g. Chinese opera) can’t be considered true operas, likewise works which are not staged (e.g. films and audio recordings), and works which are not sung (e.g. a performance of Les misérables I saw that was miked by actors).

Obviously there are some entrenched opinions here. If you don't agree with my definition - and I am sure that some won't - then by all means please put forward your own definition for discussion. - Kleinzach 09:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

In your arguement you refer to "traditional opera" (Quote: "It follows that works which are not within the tradition (e.g. Chinese opera) can’t be considered true operas"). I'm not saying by any means that a Rock Opera is even close to a "traditional" opera. That would be like comparing Mozart and Led Zeppelin. The two musicians (and bands) have nearly nothing in common. However, they are both considered musicians (and bands). A rock opera may be the Led Zeppelin to classical Opera's Mozart (or whatever classical musician you want to be filled in here) but they are still both essentially operas. --Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 22:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Check what I wrote and you will see that I did not refer to what you call traditional opera. I referred to an opera tradition - something entirely different. Please have another look at what I said. - Kleinzach 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; I apologize entirely, I misread what you wrote. However I stil stand by what I wrote in that Rock Operas may not be operas in a traditional sense, though they still are essentially operas. --Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

On opera:

Many people say: “Opera is dead” (I have heard this opinion even from eminent composers). I don’t agree. In my opinion, opera is not a frozen genre. It is always developing taking different elements from many sources and now can include ballet, pantomime, amplified voice, electronics, elements of jazz and pop music (including rock, rap), some principles of oriental music theatre, conceptual art, and so on. To speak plainly it can include anything and still remain opera – the synthetic genre based on music and theatre. The innovation and creative imagination are securing its ability to continue its life. (Meladina 09:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

I agree. It is healthy that opera absorbs elements found in other art forms. However that doesn't mean we can call any kind of modern performance, irrespective of its form, an opera. - Kleinzach 01:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss specifics. I suggest that we start by examining the following rock operas to decide if they are "operas", using the definition by Amanda Holden in the Penguin/Viking Guide that GuillaumeTell gave us above ("The term opera ... is here interpreted in its widest sense as any dramatic work that can be sung (or at times declaimed or spoken) in a place for performance, set to original music for singers (usually in costume) and instrumentalists."):

Jesus Christ, Superstar, produced on Broadway in 1971; Les Miserables; Tommy, produced on Broadway in 1993 after the earlier film; Evita; The Wall, first a film, scheduled for Broadway this summer; Starlight Express; Tanz der Vampire; and Chess (musical). Each has a dramatic story told through the sung and instrumental music (indeed, the music is written using traditional operatic musical conventions such as aria, recitative, scena and complex ensembles). Each has little or no dialogue and can be performed onstage. Each also calls for a specific setting and costumes. --Ssilvers 06:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to see the bigger picture. I don’t know if Amanda Holden was offering a definition of opera as such or merely using a conditional ‘’if’’ structure (i.e. if we interpret Opera in its widest sense, then . . .). However there is a problem here.

If we use the Holden definition (if it is one), simply equating opera with music drama, then all music drama is opera. (Rock opera in this context is a minor issue!) All the forms of Chinese opera become opera, likewise southern Asian forms of music drama, Kabuki, and even No (chanted in temples to the accompaniment of a few rhythm instruments)! This is bad - bad for opera (overstating and confusing its case), bad for Wikipedia (reflecting an Anglo-American-centric point of view which is against Wikipedia policy) and bad for forms of non-European music drama (which don’t get the recognition they deserve).

We should respect the different music drama traditions - especially when they are as important as Chinese opera and Kabuki - not absorb and marginalize them.

(Note to Mr Silvers: please no more retrospective editing of your comments OK? Making provocative comments to get a reaction, and then removing them is not good form! Re-edit them by all means before you have had a reply, but not afterwards.)

Kleinzach 09:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the note, Mr. Kleinzach. I will certainly comply with your instructions.

Would you please let us know what, in your opinion, distinguishes the examples I have given above from opera more than, say, examples of Ballad Opera or Género chico, which (if I understand correctly), you accept as being legitimate examples of opera. --Ssilvers 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick answer: the singing. I don't have time to check out all the examples you have mentioned but if we compare the Beggar's Opera and other ballad operas, and Zarzuela, with Les misérables (actors crooning into microphones), then it's the singing, isn't it? Herr Kleinzach, if you please! - Kleinzach 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if Rock Opera (and several other genres) are not considered to be of the true definition of Opera (which I still believe they are), than there should at least be a section devoted to genres inspired by Opera, such as Rock Operas. Also, I would like to bring the Rock Opera subgenre Wagnerian rock into the picture, which is much closer to the true definition of Opera. --Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 22:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally (before I enter into the debate), I would dismiss Wagnerian Rock as not being notable enough for inclusion on this page (c.2000 google hits for "Wagnerian Rock").

Trying to define opera is stupid. Just look at the current Archibald controversy [1], where lawyers are trying to define what a painting is. Personally, I think that people do not think of rock opera when they think of opera, and those who are fans of Jesus Christ Superstar are less likely to spend their evenings comparing it with Parsifal. Perhaps a phrase that says words to the effect of the relatively new genre of rock opera has been compared to traditional opera in that it is sung through. --Alexs letterbox 07:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The current edit says:

Comparable art forms from various parts of the world, many of them quite ancient in origin, exist and are also sometimes called "opera" by analogy, usually prefaced with an adjective indicating the region (for example Chinese opera). However, other than superficial similarities, these other art forms developed independently from and are completely unrelated to opera but are art forms in their own right, not derivatives of opera.

The criterion implicit in this sentence provides a helpful dividing line between what is opera, and what is not. Chinese opera, as noted, is superficially similar, but it developed independently. Did rock opera evolve, however indirectly, from the operatic art form that began in 17th-century Italy? Or, is it a totally unrelated art form that just coincidentally has the word "opera" in it? My sense is that it's more the former than the latter.

Bearing in mind Wikipedia's desire for citeable sources, I suppose the question is whether any legitimate source has ever credited "rock opera" as a type of "opera." Herr Kleinzach has quoted Grove as answering that question in the negative. What citeable source has answered it the other way? Certainly Amanda Holden's definition is sufficiently broad to encompass rock opera, and the Viking Opera Guide does include one work that is currently listed on Wikipedia's rock opera page: Jesus Christ Superstar.

Herr Kleinzach doesn't like the Viking Opera Guide definition, but the Viking Opera Guide's contributors are serious writers: Amanda Holden, Nicholas Kenyon, Stephen Walsh; preface by Sir Colin Davis. I think it's perverse to dismiss the Holden/Viking definition as "against Wikipedia policy," which is an awfully long stretch. Some will prefer the much more limited Grove Opera definition, but not everybody. The most recent Kobbe omits operetta and musical theatre, but stresses that this is strictly for practical reasons. It pointedly does not try to claim that they aren't operas.

An appropriate resolution would be to add a section to the main article, noting that there is no universally agreed definition of the term "opera," and that by some of the more expansive definitions the form includes a much broader universe of works. Another possible solution would be to add a short section briefly describing derived forms (like musical theatre and rock opera) that are usually not considered operas per se, but that draw to some extent on the operatic tradition.

Some criteria, I think, can be readily discarded. An opera isn't defined by the quality of the singing, the types of instruments used, whether those instruments (or the voices) are amplified, or other criteria related to technology or training. I also think it's unhelpful to set up straw men (e.g., "soap opera," which is not a form of classical opera by anybody's definition). The statement that, "in musical theater, dialogue is spoken and an actor's dramatic performance is generally more important than in opera," is dubious, to say the least. Marc Shepherd 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Alexs letterbox: You are undoubtedly right on notability. The idea is fundamental to Wikipedia. The opera corpus has nearly 1,300 works listed, so I don’t think it’s a big deal whether a few rock operas are added to it or not. Also, as you have suggested, anyone who wants to write about rock opera is free to put it into whatever context they like.

However on the question of defining opera, this is an encyclopedia - which defines things - so it is impossible to avoid, even if it is rather a bore to have to do it. - Kleinzach 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Any definition is going to cause difficulty. Under any definition, if we accept Carmen, we must also accept South Pacific, as both mix music and spoken dialogue, albeit in different proportions. In the dialogue form, Carmen probably has less than two minutes of recitative. A definition that would not cause problems, but would look utterly stupid in an encyclopedia is Opera is what happens when people believe they are experiencing opera. Sort of like John Cage with music is what people construe as music. If you believe that you are experiencing opera, then it is opera. However, I doubt this will go down well. --Alexs letterbox 07:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ezio Pinza, probably the greatest Italian bass of the 1930s and 1940s, sang in South Pacific. It is years since I saw the film but my impression is that, like Oklahoma, West Side Story etc. it could be put on in an opera house. Indeed there are a lot of American musicals being performed today in German and central European operetta houses. - Kleinzach 10:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)