Sexy Classical Music
-
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. -
fontinau — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 06:28 AM)
Maybe at this point we should just defer the discussion to this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYn99lu6utE&t=6s -
Jill-McBain — 10 years ago(October 09, 2015 02:39 AM)
by
Miezi_Miezi_Miezi
» 1 day ago (Wed Oct 7 2015 07:42:03) Flag
| Edit
| Reply |
IMDb member since October 2015
Post Edited: Wed Oct 7 2015 08:52:57
Rachmaninov.
()
There are soooo many.
(1) ETA:
'Sexy' encloses both sexual and sensual for me in this context.
[/ETA]
I don't necessarily think of '
humping
'
in this context.
Men -
Jill-McBain — 10 years ago(October 07, 2015 08:27 AM)
is supremely sexual, though not exactly sexy, which implies urbanity and elegance.
What exactly does this mean? I don't feel that way at all. Urbanity can be sexy, too. Elegance maybe not. But I still don't understand. Could you please elaborate further?