I’ve long had this theory about how to cataogorize stage/movies This is according to what role music plays.
At one end you have plays(with maybe just a little bit of a musical score) and on the other end you have Opera, which is entirely sung.
In between, you have:
Play/Movie: A background score perhaps, if even that much. Maybe a song played, either background or that the characters can hear. People sometimes sing along.
Musical: The cast(or certain members) will just break out in song with little or no warning, accomponied by the orchastra/soundtrack in the background.
Operetta/Opera: Okay, this is where I get lost. Opera I know has no spoken lines, and is oftern in another language, but I’ve heard similar things about Operetta. What’s the difference exactly and where is the line drawn?
I know this sounds wierd, but it’s been bugging me for a while.
Part of it is going to see Les Miserables on stage this weekend realizing that there was not a spoken word in it, which made me think it seemed somewhat Operatic in that way.
Operetta is something between Opera and a musical (and musicals derived from operettas). They usually have some spoken words, and, in addition, tend to have a comic or light hearted plot (i.e., no one dies at the end).
You get musicals which are sung throughout and have no spoken words. One example is Jesus Christ Superstar. And there are operas with speaking parts.
As RealityChuck says the difference between opera and operetta tends to be one of tone (although comic opera is also pretty frivolous and stupid, so probably the musical seriousness and questions of style come into it too). Operetta is mainly applied to the works of Gilbert and Sullivan.
The differences between opera and musical are by no means clear, especially in the 20th century, and it seems to be involve the seriousness of the piece, the relative amount of speech and singing, but also the repute of the composer. I’m not sure why Kurt Weill’s Street Scene is generally reckoned to be an opera while the works of Andrew Lloyd-Webber are all judged to be musicals (even those which plagiarise classical music and opera), unless the reason is snobbery.
I agree that snobbery has a lot to do with it. Phantom of the Opera is actual opera by definitional standards.
I’ve heard that were it not for Wagner, we probably would have ended up with a definition of opera as “a story in which all the lines are sung in Italian”.
Another source of confusion: many “musicals” are completely sung (think of “Les Miserables”), while many “operas” have long stretches that are spoken, and not sung (think of “The Magic Flute”).
Not quite. There are plenty of musicals (most notably the film version of “Cabaret”) where characters never just burst into song, but only sing in the context of some sort of public performance. Some would argue that there are musicals that focus on music and dance to the exclusion of any onscreen singing at all, but I personally do not hold with that view.
I did my Award Winning senior thesis on musicals (specifically Hollywood screen musicals from Cabaret through Chicago), and believe me, simply defining the term “musical” in a rigid enough way to use for academic purposes is no easy thing.
Like so many things in art, there is no clear-cut difference and no solid line. The distinction often has as much to do as the time period when the piece was composed as the work’s actual features. This is not to say that the work’s actual features are unimportant, it’s just that this is not an exact science.
Not sure I agree with that. I think the subject matter involved in Les Mis… or Miss Saigon (both sung throughout BTW) are more “serious” than Mozart’s Don Giovanni.
I do think snobbery and the reputation of the composer are factors. But a more tangible difference is in the singing style.
(Hmmm… how do I say this without sounding like I’m making outrageous generalizations which don’t always hold true? OK, put it this way, the following are generalizations that don’t always hold true)
Opera singers approach their art from a classically trained POV. They typically study music, and learn the correct opera singing technique which requires a great deal of dedication and discipline. They are concerned with projection, proper breathing, and tone to a greater extent then with acting, character development, and other theatre-related issues.
Musical theatre singers typically approach their art from a theatre POV. They are usually stronger in terms of their acting then their singing (not that that doesn’t also require a great deal of dedication and discipline). They sing in character and are likely to alter their voice to be more nasal, or whiny, or deep (to an exaggerated extent), or silly, or emotional, or whatever is called for by the story. They are more concerned with clarity of the text and story then tone quality.
(Personally I prefer the musical theatre style).
Basically, they are 2 different art forms which are approached from different backgrounds and philosophies. There is, of course, some crossing over, but I think if you watch an opera and then a musical these stylistic differences become a bit clearer. Go rent a Pavorotti performance and then Sondheim’s Sunday in the Park with George and see if you can imagine Mandy Patinkin and Pavorotti switching roles. (Interestingly, Sondheim studied with Milton Babbit, a very important 20th century composer. I think it’s probably more common for musical theatre composers to be trained in classical music than the musical theatre singers).
All that being said, don’t forget the role of snobbery. I’ve known more than a few classically trained opera singers who cringe at the “awful” technique of theatre singers. I’m glad to say that I think that’s changing though as boundaries between “high brow” and “low brow” art are becoming increasingly more ambiguous (not to mention that there’s more work available in musical theatre).
I do realize it’s sometimes it’s hard to classify. I had completely fogotten about Caberat and Chicago(the Fosse Musicals) which have singing and dancing in context(though I haven’t see the stage version of either). I would have put that in a seperate catagory, but my theory needs some work anyhow. It would probably help if I actually saw an Opera.
And while I can’t speak to Miss Saigon, Les Miserables definatly has some very mature themes in it, not withstanding that spoiler Almost all of the main characters die. spoiler.
Phantom also seemed very operatic in style, apart from the fact that operas are part of the storyline.