Okay call me nekulturny, but what’s the difference?
An opera seems to be a story presented on a stage with a cast that sings, whereas a musical play seems to be a story presented on a stage with a cast that sings. They seem the same.
An opera, as most people think of them, uses classical music. But what is classical music? At one time it wasn’t “classical”; it was current. Themes are often about the Old Gods or are classical love stories. Again, classical love stories were once new and fresh. In other words, operas used current themes and current music to entertain people. Modern musical plays use current themes and current music to entertain people.
It seems to me that musical plays are operas, but are not called operas because the masses wouldn’t attend them if they equated Cats to Tristan und Isolde. So are operas a subset of musical plays that consist of classical music and themes? Or are all musical plays operas?
Here’s an article from New York Magazine that seems to touch on a similar thought, i.e., that the disinction may be blurring.
And finally from the Seattle Opera’s webpage, What is Opera?
So I suppose that while some folks may have strong feelings about what’s what, the actual distinction is no clearer than where the fence line lies between rhythm and blues and rock’n’roll.
Of course we’ve yet to hear what others have to say.
In my mind, musical and operetta are pretty much the same, except that a musical would be an operetta written in the 20th century in a modern musical style. An opera would be different because it would include little or no dancing.
Taking the examples from Encyclopedia Britannica:
Gilbert and Sullivan, Offenbach: operetta
George M. Cohan, Gershwin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Sondheim: musical
From the above definition, Porgy and Bess would be an operatta, but it is ususally regarding as an American folk opera. It is very sentimental, has love themes, but also has more sinister actions.
Johnny’s definition re opera being classical music is true for a classical opera (by defintion), but of course not true for a folk opera.
The definition I’ve always heard is that in an opera, all of the lines are sung, wheras in a musical play, there can be both singing and speaking. By this definition, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, for instance, would be an opera, but Man of la Mancha would not be. I’ve also heard the term “operetta” used for a singing-only performance such as Joseph which is shorter than a “traditional” opera, which might go for three or four hours.
I don’t see an appreciable difference in the Britannica definitions of operetta and musical comedy – for that matter, a G&S operetta isn’t all that different from your average (Rodgers and Hammerstein-type) Broadway musical, except for the style of the music. (I’ve heard H.M.S. Pinafore referred to as perhaps the first modern musical.)
I’ve also heard the “rule” that operas are sung-through, but this isn’t always the case – The Magic Flute, for instance, has lots of spoken dialogue. (Which is kind of a pain in the ass when you’re listening to a recording and don’t speak any German… ;))
Finally, the point about milieu in the LaChiusa interview is a really good one.
(Hmmmm…does Rent count as an opera or a musical? After all, it’s a reworking of an opera. What about Miss Saigon?)
Have you ever wondered why there aren’t any really good American classical operas? My take on this is that the English language does not render itself to such beautiful tones as Italian, which has a lot of vowel endings to words, upon which a mezzosoprano diva can really belt out.
I like Porgy and Bess, and it can be argued that that is not opera, but I think, as many others, that it can be labled a folk opera. But it sounds good inspite of the fact that it is in English, because it really isn’t in English, but a Negro patois that has more open sounds than English.
There are English-language classical operas, though, even if there’s not an abundance of American ones. Handel’s Messiah comes to mind, for instance. And if you ask me, Porgy and Bess is an opera, whatever the heck language it’s in.
Messiah isn’t really an opera, though – it’s an oratorio. Oratorio is basically a dramatic form (often with religious subject material) but the action isn’t staged, and the soloists don’t always play particular characters – they don’t in Messiah.
English is every bit as singable as, say, German which also has plenty of consonants for a singer to deal with, and there are quite a few great German operas. In fact, there are some very good American and English operas. Britten, Menotti, Barber, Argento, Floyd, Moore, Thomson, Ward. There are many historical reasons why they aren’t better known, but they have beautiful music and are dramatically engaging. True, they don’t generally have those Italianate melodies/ vocal lines. Composers of English language opera have generally made an effort to be faithful to the rhythms and nuances of English, which produces melodies with a different feel to them – and perhaps not in keeping with the traditional idea of what an operatic melody should sound like.
Back to the OP: It’s very hard to define opera vs musicals, as others have shown. You can always come up with a bunch of works that defy categorization. However, as a classical singer, I do notice a distinct difference in the vocal style required. Operatic repertoire tends to be more virtuostic and lie in a different tessitura than musical theater music. The best test for me is if I sing something and my voice sounds too “cultured” and too overpowering for the music then it’s not opera. (For me rock opera just doesn’t exist. :D) I doubt if a musicologist would put much stock in my rather simplistic definition based on vocal style (especially when it comes to early opera), but it certainly helps when trying to choose roles to sing. Operetta lies somewhere between opera and musicals, but it tends to favor a classical style of singing too.
rivulus
p.s. FWIW, an operatic diva wouldn’t be caught dead belting. And The Messiah is oratorio, not opera.
And The Messiah is oratorio, not opera.