Post by AnMeinKlavThere's no mystery about the term as it is conventionally applied in operatic
history. Grout lists several defining characteristics of this operatic genre of
1) Libretti that featured royal and noble personages, free of irrelevant comic
episodes, supernatural events, deus ex machinae, and "bombastic declamation,"
whatever that means, almost always with a happy ending.
You mean opera seria lacks such episodes, or that it includes them merely
when they are "relevant" ?
Certainly there are plenty of supernatural events and dei ex machinae in
o.s.
And some of Handel's operas (Xerxes, Parthenope) are comic, in part.
But they are knit into the fabric.
And the happy ending does not exclude tragedy entirely -- I'm thinking of
Mitridate's suicide at the end of Mozart's Mitridate. (But that was put
there, perhaps, because the event was the most famous thing remembered about
Mitridate in Mozart's day -- nowadays, nothing at all is remembered about
him.) And true love and patriotism conquered all.
Post by AnMeinKlav2) Musical structure consisting almost exclusively of alternating recitative
(mostly secco, accompanied only by continuo) and aria. Choruses and ensembles
are rare.
I would add that while small ensembles (mostly duets or finales) are not
uncommon in Handel's o.s., they are almost invariably "single-minded" --
that is, both characters are miserable together (Giulio Cesare, end of Act
I), or in love with each other (G. Cesare, end of Act III; Rinaldo Acts I
and III), or detest each other (Rinaldo Act II). Handel was, as it were,
exploring his aria style by giving his single protagonist two voices.
When Grandpadave objects that there's so much more movement in the ensembles
in Mozart's da Ponte operas, he is quite right and has identified a major
reason they are not opera seria. They were breakthroughs in the buffa form;
and do not relate to what Mozart was called upon to do in opera seria. This
is why the quartet in Idomeneo seems less dramatic -- he is writing an
"aria" for a single four-part soloist, as required by opera seria
convention. (But doing this, so exquisitely, for four soloists at once, was
very "advanced.")
There are exceptions to this: the trio in Act III of Alcina, e.g., when the
lovers battle with Alcina -- but that too does not develop different,
contrasting emotions -- only contrasting voices in the same wrathful
emotion.
The chorus is never a principal character in opera seria. This is true even
in the interesting choral parts of Idomeneo, and is one reason Gluck's
reform operas can (and should) be distinguished from opera seria: In Orfeo,
the chorus is the second most important character, serves many functions,
and the various character of its music undergirds many of the scenes: the
Furies but also Elysium, the mourners of the opening and the rejoicing of
the conclusion.
Gluck derived this style in large part from French opera, the
Lully-Charpentier-Rameau tradition that has recently returned to a certain
vogue. It is nothing like opera seria, and is far more ancestral to Gluck's
famous operas than anything in the Italian form.
(Gluck also wrote lesser known operas in every other form he knew of --
opera seria, opera buffa, and singspiel. If he'd been Mozart, he might have
put them all together. And Gluck, in turn, is a more significant ancestor of
Berlioz than Mozart or Rossini are. Part of the fun of getting to know Gluck
is seeing how he prefigures Berlioz, and of getting to know Berlioz is
seeing how he drew from Gluck. While cross fertilization was constant, the
national schools remained separate for a very long time. Rossini, Donizetti,
Meyerbeer and Verdi follow Gluck in attempting to write in several different
national styles, but they developed a new more international style in doing
so.)
Post by AnMeinKlav3) A preponderance of the da capo aria form.
4) The glorification of the solo singer to the exclusion of other musical
values. The heyday of the castrati, famed for their vocal virtuosity and
improvisatory skill in ornamentation.
This is, methinks, the heart of it. While we have learned in recent years
just how much drama can be brought out in these scores by sensitive,
intelligent, musicianly performers, they can also be performed in shallow,
merely virtuosic ways.
I think I would add
5): Opera seria is in Italian. (Plenty of non-Italians composed them, but
only in the Italian language.) The French serious opera is entirely
different, in balance, in style of singing, in choral (and dance)
participation. The German serious opera was never so formal or without
extraneous interludes. (I don't know Arne's serious English operas -- how
close to Handel were they?)
Post by AnMeinKlavMozart's Idomeneo largely matches 1), 2) and 4); not so much 3). By these
criteria, opera seria is not at all an appropriate term for the tragic operas
of the bel canto age such as Lucia or Semiramide.
Completely agree.
It is surprising Tito held the stage as long as it did (about forty years).
By that time, there must have been very few other 18th-century opere serie
still holding the boards anywhere. Even in southern Italy, new styles had
taken over, the castrati were gone forever, and everyone expected a certain
dramatic involvement from the performer and ensembles in new works.
Hans Lick