Sexy Classical Music
-
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 10:53 AM)
Mozart is the sexiest music ever (when he wants it to be). I mean, there's a reason why his is the definitive version of the Don Juan story
Would his be the definitive version without the entirely un-sexy Commendatore finale, though?
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 12:11 PM)
Personally, I've always thought the ending is what took Don G. from being a musical masterpiece to being an artistic masterpiece (ie, a work I have no problem putting in the pantheon of all the arts). It's the one intentionally designed "sublime/transcendental" moment in all of Mozart, though he has plenty on a smaller, more human scale.
As for an alternate ending: Don G. being killed in a duel with a jealous husband?
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 12:21 PM)
It's the one intentionally designed "sublime/transcendental" moment in all of Mozart
Assuming we're limiting ourselves to the operas, I'd say the trial scene in
The Magic Flute
unquestionably counts - and arguably so does something like the forgiving at the end of
The Marriage of Figaro
(arguable only because that's a sublimification of the apparently mundane).
I suspect the climax of
DG
may actually be the least great in Mozart's four mature operas (which is of course no shame) - it's certainly the most spectacular, but maybe also has the least going on under the surface.
As for an alternate ending: Don G. being killed in a duel with a jealous husband?
Kind of an anti-climax, no? Wait, maybe I've got it: Let's take anti-climax to the level of travesty and end it with G. being arrested by the cops that Don O. goes to call after "Il mio tesoro" and who accompany our heroes into his house at the end. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 12:40 PM)
Ultimately this would come down to semantics, but I typically think of the sublime/transcendental as the otherworldly intruding on the worldly. Figaro takes place wholly in the worldly, Flute in the otherworldly; so those moments, as great as they are, have a very different vibe than the DG finale.
As for the quality of the finale, we had a similar disagreement over NGE. For me, when you've built up a work with plenty of substance and subtlety, it's fine to go for the spectacular in the finale. The finale of DG may be a bit superficial compared to the other operas, but I think it has a much greater visceral impact.
Let's take anti-climax to the level of travesty and end it with G. being arrested by the cops that Don O. goes to call after "Il mio tesoro" and who accompany our heroes into his house at the end.
Ha!
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 12:54 PM)
Far be it from me to ever say anything against going for spectacle - I'd just rather have depth under the spectacle too.
re DG, I think there may also be less going on under the surface through the rest of the opera, compared to the other big three.
re Eva - I do think there's a falling off starting in episode 21 at the latest - including the movies - but as it happens, I think Big Momma Rei may be both the most spectacular moment in the movies and the deepest they ever get. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 03:10 PM)
I'm not entirely sure there isn't depth there as well. At the very least, it's provoked more philosophical thought than any opera by anyone not named Wagner. As for the rest having less going on, I'd strongly disagree as you rarely have a moment of that opera where there aren't multiple moods/perspectives being played out simultaneously in the music, and that's not an easy thing. In Figaro, Cosi, and Flute I find that the character, thematic, and tonal conflicts are usually kept clearly separate and delineated (except in the finales). Not that DG's method is inherently better, but I do think it makes for a much more layered work as there's more to turn your attention to at any given moment. I also think that makes the Commendatore finale stick out even more as you have this monotone, transcendental being stepping into one of the work's most chaotically silly moments.
I think you know my opinion that the film and series' ending is as profound as the work gets; the film certainly is on a cinematic/symbolic level as it has to coherently bring together every motif/theme the series has developed, and it does so in a way that every image is crammed with meaning; something I've never seen done in any other film/series, actually (those that do use symbolism tend to keep it on a much simpler level).
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 05:28 PM)
As for the rest having less going on, I'd strongly disagree as you rarely have a moment of that opera where there aren't multiple moods/perspectives being played out simultaneously in the music, and that's not an easy thing. In Figaro, Cosi, and Flute I find that the character, thematic, and tonal conflicts are usually kept clearly separate and delineated (except in the finales).
I'd say DG is inferior to the others in exactly that respect, and not just in the finales but in ensembles such as "Soll ich dich Teurer," "Fra gli amplessi," and well, Christ, it's hard to think of a number involving more than one singer in
Figaro
that
isn't
a psychological panoply - "Cosa sento," "Crudel! perché fin'ora," "Riconosci in questo amplesso."
Inferior partly because, for whatever reason, nobody in DG actually develops - they're either worn down by the action (DA, DE) or not (everybody else; even Leporello emerges only shaken, not essentially damaged), and that's it - and nobody except Don G. is really individuated - Susanna is a person, Zerlina is merely a force of nature; Basilio is a debased man, Leporello is merely a hollow man. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 08, 2015 08:03 PM)
Man, maybe I
don't
think Mozart's DG is better than Byron's DJ.
Figaro
and
Flute
are greater than Byron's masterpiece, though, that's for sure - no disrespect intended to the man who came closer than any other to rescuing the English language from Shakespeare. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 09:20 AM)
rescuing the English language from Shakespeare.
Firstly: exaggerate much? Byron's "language" is probably the least interesting thing about him (his wonderful humor and narrative form the best).
Second: "Rescuing?" If anything, the English language needs rescuing from Shakespeare's followers who debased the language through their comparative ineptitude (Milton excepted).
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 09:56 AM)
Where's the exaggeration? Except for possibly Milton, Byron's probably the single least eccentric choice you could make for the designation of the greatest English language poet since Shakespeare.
If Shakespeare didn't use the English language better than everybody else, it wouldn't need saving from him, it would either need saving from somebody else or not need saving at all. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 09:18 AM)
Eh, I'm not sure what to say beyond I simply disagree. Well, I agree that nobody really develops, but I don't see that as a problem in that particular opera, primarily because you have such a "panoply" of psychological states interacting in fascinating ways. What the opera lacks in character development it makes up for in its richness of tonal and psychological juxtapositions. Of all Mozart's operas it's the one where comedy and tragedy trip side-by-side rather than front-and-behind. In fact, DG's refusal to change/develop is one of the philosophical sticking points of the opera. I do disagree that nobody else is individuated; there's a big difference between DE's vengeful fury that relents, DA's melancholy that turns to revenge, and Zerlina's naivety.
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 09:51 AM)
In fact, DG's refusal to change/develop is one of the philosophical sticking points of the opera.
Philosophically the treatment of DG is rock solid, but as a character in an opera - that is, in a work that happens in time (i.e. not visual art) - he risks inertia. Which would be fine if something else were moving, but nothing really is. So the whole opera after the initial setup - which I'd say is done after "La ci darem" - seems to me to some extent a succession of kludges to create the impression that you're hearing something you haven't already essentially heard, when you aren't really. The greatest kludges ever, of course.
I do disagree that nobody else is individuated; there's a big difference between DE's vengeful fury that relents, DA's melancholy that turns to revenge, and Zerlina's naivety.
I'd say that's differentiation, not individuation.
And incidentally, I'd say Zerlina is, along with Don G., the only thoroughly
non
-naïve person in the opera. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 11:38 AM)
What I'd say is moving are the effects that Don G has set in motion. Yes, you learn early on the basics of those effects (DG loves & leaves, his loves get upset), but knowing about them and getting to hear them interact in such a variety of musical and dramatic ways is quite different. I think it's a bit of an erroneous definition to think of drama and opera as being all about how characters develop as there's more possibilities in both mediums that are just as substantial, especially on an experiential level. As I said, DG's very inertia, the lack of development, is one of the philosophical cruxes of the opera (much as Hamlet's inability to act is in that play).
I'd say that's differentiation, not individuation.
I'd say that's a distinction without a difference.
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 11:43 AM)
As I said, DG's very inertia, the lack of development, is one of the philosophical cruxes of the opera (much as Hamlet's inability to act is in that play).
And as I said, philosophically fine, aesthetically maybe a problem. Hamlet of course is Don. G's antithesis insofar as he develops a lot.
I'd say that's differentiation, not individuation.
I'd say that's a distinction without a difference.
But there is a difference - the difference between the people in Figaro and the people in DG. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 12:20 PM)
I don't think it's aesthetically a problem because you have enough going on around him, especially musically. Hamlet develops psychologically but his physical inertia serves as a contrast to that; perhaps DG is closer to Coriolanus, a character who doesn't psychologically develop, but whose actions set in motion the turmoil around him.
the difference between the people in Figaro and the people in DG.
They're different kinds of characters to begin with, and because Figaro is more about love where lust serves as a foil to that, DG is more about lust where divine intervention serves as the foil to that. The former is, obviously, on a more empathetically human level, so the characters feel more human to us. I don't think the lack of empathetic humanism hurts DG any more than it hurts, say, 2001:ASO; it serves a purpose in both. DG is just more of an outside-in opera.
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 12:30 PM)
The former is, obviously, on a more empathetically human level, so the characters feel more human to us.
I don't know what "more human" means. I'd say the people in Figaro just have more specific characteristics. -
Eva_Yojimbo — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 01:04 PM)
What I mean is that the love and sadness experienced in Figaro is more universal; most of us have relationships, feel strongly for other people, and experiences issues with trust/infidelity. Most of us aren't heartless rakes that leave a trail of broken hearts in our wake and are then divinely punished. All of the "emotion" in DG comes from characters reacting to the protagonist, so we see them with more distance and objectivity rather than empathy; while all of the emotion in Figaro come directly from a cast full of protagonists we're invited to empathize with.
In a sense, from the audience's perspective, the characters in DG are more representative of emotional states while those in Figaro seem to be experiencing the flux of emotional states. It's the difference between Spenserian and Shakespearean; both approaches can be done well or poorly, and I think both DG and Figaro are done as well as they can be done. Cosi and Flute are quite curious mixtures of the two.
aaahmemories
: Trolls are just fascists with keyboards.