I am happy to say that I was actually able to listen to a decent amount of Sir Arthur Sullivan’s Ivanhoe. If I hadn’t known that this opera had been composed by Sullivan I’m not sure I would have guessed that he was the composer. However, because I did know that Sullivan was the composer of this work, it makes it rather difficult for me to be entirely objective, but I shall try.
First of all, I can absolutely hear a difference in the way the text of this opera was set compared to the way the text was set in his various other operettas with Gilbert as the librettist. I think Gilbert had a very distinct way of writing; he puts a premium on rhymes and the rhythm of the English language. There is always something very ‘English’ about his lyrics, and I think Sullivan reflects this in the operettas the two collaborated on together.
When listening to Ivanhoe it is immediately apparent that the classic Gilbert and Sullivan speech pattern is absent. The text is much less campy and more like natural speech, not necessarily in their delivery, but in the words themselves. And Sullivan no longer plays up the campiness of the lyrics because it’s not there.
However, there are still moments in which I can totally identify the composer as Arthur Sullivan. I’m not sure what it is about his compositional style that makes him so identifiable, but there are certain pieces that I hear and I think, “oh yeah, that is totally Sullivan.” For example, “But hark! What sound is in mine ear?” But I don’t know why. The overall orchestration sounds so much more sophisticated as is the vocal writing, perhaps it is the syllabification of the text, still I don’t know. Perhaps what I am hearing is just what Sullivan felt was an English sound and the way the language would be delivered in England.
Ivanhoe so much more dramatic than his operettas with Gilbert, obviously it’s a grand opera, but I am really impressed. I can’t say that I am particularly a fan of this opera, if I’m to be completely honest I still feel like the opera is a little redundant; by the third act I feel like I’ve heard this all before. I still think it’s cool to hear what Sullivan sounds like without Gilbert, although I don’t think it makes his music any better or worse, it’s just different.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Gilbert and Sullivan
I have to say right away that I totally loved the movie Topsy Turvy. I’m sure a great deal of liberties were taken but I still found the movie really entertaining. I have always been a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan but I’m not incredibly familiar with many of their operas. I understand the style and I know the Gilbert and Sullivan Classics, “Poor Wandering One,” “A Simple Sailor Lowly Born,” and the basic plot lines of the operettas, but I never really gave them much thought. I enjoy the music and I think the stories are quite humorous, but it wasn’t until watching Topsy Turvy that I really had a moment in which I realized how similar a lot of their operettas are to one another.
I felt like I could take one aria or chorus from all of their operettas and fashion a new opera, and if everyone just disregarded the words, everything would fit together just fine. Perhaps naively, I’m thinking of them as a type of Lerner and Lowe, Rogers and Hammerstein duo. And this duo supplies the audience with a plethora of typical characters with each character having typical character songs about typical character problems. I really don’t mean this to be belittling towards these composers or librettists at all, I am a fan of their works, but I think they definitely had a formula in place that worked for them. However, in regard to Gilbert and Sullivan it’s not difficult to see why Sir Arthur Sullivan began to grow weary of these reoccurring themes and librettos. I have not listened to Ivanhoe but I would be really interested in discovering what a grand opera by Sullivan sounds like. Does it retain that classic Gilbert and Sullivan sound, is there a new sort of maturity and seriousness to the opera?
This question is particularly interesting to me because it was Sullivan, at least in the movie, who complained that Gilbert’s librettos were holding him back creatively. I wonder if going with a new librettist for Ivanhoe allowed Sullivan to blossom artistically. If not, then poor Gilbert, Sullivan’s lack of compositional creativity was really not Gilbert's fault at all. Maybe I’ll have a chance to listen to at least some of Ivanhoe tonight and tomorrow and can include my thoughts in my next and final blog.
I felt like I could take one aria or chorus from all of their operettas and fashion a new opera, and if everyone just disregarded the words, everything would fit together just fine. Perhaps naively, I’m thinking of them as a type of Lerner and Lowe, Rogers and Hammerstein duo. And this duo supplies the audience with a plethora of typical characters with each character having typical character songs about typical character problems. I really don’t mean this to be belittling towards these composers or librettists at all, I am a fan of their works, but I think they definitely had a formula in place that worked for them. However, in regard to Gilbert and Sullivan it’s not difficult to see why Sir Arthur Sullivan began to grow weary of these reoccurring themes and librettos. I have not listened to Ivanhoe but I would be really interested in discovering what a grand opera by Sullivan sounds like. Does it retain that classic Gilbert and Sullivan sound, is there a new sort of maturity and seriousness to the opera?
This question is particularly interesting to me because it was Sullivan, at least in the movie, who complained that Gilbert’s librettos were holding him back creatively. I wonder if going with a new librettist for Ivanhoe allowed Sullivan to blossom artistically. If not, then poor Gilbert, Sullivan’s lack of compositional creativity was really not Gilbert's fault at all. Maybe I’ll have a chance to listen to at least some of Ivanhoe tonight and tomorrow and can include my thoughts in my next and final blog.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Umm...Tableau Vivant?
I know someone mentioned in class the other day about Tableau Vivant being featured in pop culture, a specific episode of the Gilmore Girls was mentioned and I totally remember that episode. Not to go off on a huge tangent but the reason I bring this up is because… that is the type of art that comes to mind when I think of Tableau Vivant; famous paintings being portrayed by live human beings in costume with scenery and lighting. This was a family show however so there were no nude pictures portrayed in the episode I’m referencing.
Again, I mention this because I had a set idea in my mind of what Tableau Vivant was, and although this isn’t the most scholarly way to go about finding information on a topic, I was surprised at what I found after doing a Google image search for Tableau Vivant. I found very few pictures that matched the image I had in my mind. I was expecting to mainly see very elaborate and well known works of art portrayed by live people. I found a few of these, but mostly what I discovered were either very modern interpretations of Tableau Vivant, and by that I mean taking a famous painting and reinterpreting it in a different setting and with completely different characters, or a lot of what I’m going to call, very interesting poses.
A lot of these interesting poses came from a photographer called Sarah Small. I tried to find out more about her but her biography was rather limited. I would post some of the photos I am referring to but I’m not quite sure how I feel about them myself. I’m a pretty open minded individual but now I’m feeling, to my horror, a little like Lady Summerset! I’m not sure if it’s art or something else. I checked out her web site and some of her pictures are beautiful, but others, the more elaborate photos taken of people holding some rather interesting and sometimes suggestive posses in the nude, are a little questionable for me. I’m not quite sure what purpose they are serving. It wasn’t only her photos, I was surprised by how many people had similar images. This certainly shows the evolution of Tableau Vivant, but if the purpose is to take a photo, and not for live entertainment, is it still Tableau Vivant?
Again, I mention this because I had a set idea in my mind of what Tableau Vivant was, and although this isn’t the most scholarly way to go about finding information on a topic, I was surprised at what I found after doing a Google image search for Tableau Vivant. I found very few pictures that matched the image I had in my mind. I was expecting to mainly see very elaborate and well known works of art portrayed by live people. I found a few of these, but mostly what I discovered were either very modern interpretations of Tableau Vivant, and by that I mean taking a famous painting and reinterpreting it in a different setting and with completely different characters, or a lot of what I’m going to call, very interesting poses.
A lot of these interesting poses came from a photographer called Sarah Small. I tried to find out more about her but her biography was rather limited. I would post some of the photos I am referring to but I’m not quite sure how I feel about them myself. I’m a pretty open minded individual but now I’m feeling, to my horror, a little like Lady Summerset! I’m not sure if it’s art or something else. I checked out her web site and some of her pictures are beautiful, but others, the more elaborate photos taken of people holding some rather interesting and sometimes suggestive posses in the nude, are a little questionable for me. I’m not quite sure what purpose they are serving. It wasn’t only her photos, I was surprised by how many people had similar images. This certainly shows the evolution of Tableau Vivant, but if the purpose is to take a photo, and not for live entertainment, is it still Tableau Vivant?
Living Pictures
The readings for class these past two weeks have been some of my favorites for the entire course. The articles were so intriguing and I really enjoyed exploring the evolution of entertainment and especially womens involvement in that entertainment. Even though our last class discussion took an interesting turn and ended up on Playboy for a short time, it shows that many of the issues people had over the living pictures exhibits are still present today.
It brings up the question of what is art. Is something art because I say it is art, are there specific requirements, a list of criteria something must meet in order to be considered art, what is nude and what is naked? These questions were clearly just as prevalent 100-150 years ago. Granted there is definitely a line between something being truly lewd and disgustingly misogynistic, but there really can be a lot of gray when it comes to various aspects of taste.
The women involved in these living picture shows clearly bothered people. There was something about the female form being shown live as opposed to in a painting that made people uncomfortable, or rather, some people uncomfortable. Even though these women were representing works of art, the reason they were met with such resistance may have been because this was seen as entertainment. But can art not be entertaining?
People like Lady Summerset who were so opposed to this form of entertainment went on to paint these women as voiceless victims who had no way out and were forced into this work. It’s funny that the women themselves did not feel that way at all. As Faulk’s article shows, the women in the shows suggested she help people actually in need of help, like the poor and hungry; as they didn’t believe what they were doing was at all immoral.
There was a quote on page 175 of the Faulk article by Frederick Wedmore that I really liked, “…the nude in Tableau Vivant, with all its associations, is no longer an undressed woman, but the nude in art…” I think this was what was missing, or ignored by those people who were so opposed to these shows. Tableau Vivant was simply women portraying works of art, which portrayed women, that was all.
It brings up the question of what is art. Is something art because I say it is art, are there specific requirements, a list of criteria something must meet in order to be considered art, what is nude and what is naked? These questions were clearly just as prevalent 100-150 years ago. Granted there is definitely a line between something being truly lewd and disgustingly misogynistic, but there really can be a lot of gray when it comes to various aspects of taste.
The women involved in these living picture shows clearly bothered people. There was something about the female form being shown live as opposed to in a painting that made people uncomfortable, or rather, some people uncomfortable. Even though these women were representing works of art, the reason they were met with such resistance may have been because this was seen as entertainment. But can art not be entertaining?
People like Lady Summerset who were so opposed to this form of entertainment went on to paint these women as voiceless victims who had no way out and were forced into this work. It’s funny that the women themselves did not feel that way at all. As Faulk’s article shows, the women in the shows suggested she help people actually in need of help, like the poor and hungry; as they didn’t believe what they were doing was at all immoral.
There was a quote on page 175 of the Faulk article by Frederick Wedmore that I really liked, “…the nude in Tableau Vivant, with all its associations, is no longer an undressed woman, but the nude in art…” I think this was what was missing, or ignored by those people who were so opposed to these shows. Tableau Vivant was simply women portraying works of art, which portrayed women, that was all.
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Pretty Sweet Blog on Victorian Life
I forget how exactly I stumbled upon this blog, but it’s pretty sweet! “Victorian History: An idiosyncratic selection of short bits about elements of Victorian history,” is written by Bruce Rosen, a retired professor who has taught at a number of universities and colleges. His blog covers a wide range of topics, the railway, London fog, men’s clubs, the West End Club, the aristocracy, the middle class, etc…
Many of these posts are extremely interesting and offer little snippets of information about various aspects of Victorian life and culture. The two posts that brought me to this blog are from 2007; “Music Halls” and “Penny Gaffs.” I love stumbling across things that back up what we have already learned in class, it makes me feel like we’re all on the same page
. In regard to the Penny Gaffs, Rosen includes some scholarly sources including a quote by Mayhew. He describes who its target audience was, the types of entertainment, but what I found particularly interesting was his description of the inside of the Gaffs. They appeared dirty, smelled and were just kind of all around gross, and it doesn’t sound like that is only by today’s standards.
I also really enjoyed his post on the Music Halls. He mentions how they emerged from the Penny Gaffs, the target audience, and lists many of the performers of the day. He even includes a link to a You-tube video of a performer called Little Tich and his “famous shoe dance.” I had never heard about this performer before so I watched the clip which is from around 1900, and it was really pretty interesting. I can totally see the influence of this type of entertainment in a lot of the old Hollywood movies that portray Vaudeville or Broadway acts from around the turn of the century through the 1920’s and 30’s.
This blog is awesome because it offers such a wide array of topics; it’s a little random, but still interesting. I’m not exactly sure how reputable this blog is only because anyone can make a blog and say they’re a professor of something, but he does seem to include a number of scholarly sources in his blog so although I may not use this in any papers, it’s still cool to look through.
Many of these posts are extremely interesting and offer little snippets of information about various aspects of Victorian life and culture. The two posts that brought me to this blog are from 2007; “Music Halls” and “Penny Gaffs.” I love stumbling across things that back up what we have already learned in class, it makes me feel like we’re all on the same page
. In regard to the Penny Gaffs, Rosen includes some scholarly sources including a quote by Mayhew. He describes who its target audience was, the types of entertainment, but what I found particularly interesting was his description of the inside of the Gaffs. They appeared dirty, smelled and were just kind of all around gross, and it doesn’t sound like that is only by today’s standards.
I also really enjoyed his post on the Music Halls. He mentions how they emerged from the Penny Gaffs, the target audience, and lists many of the performers of the day. He even includes a link to a You-tube video of a performer called Little Tich and his “famous shoe dance.” I had never heard about this performer before so I watched the clip which is from around 1900, and it was really pretty interesting. I can totally see the influence of this type of entertainment in a lot of the old Hollywood movies that portray Vaudeville or Broadway acts from around the turn of the century through the 1920’s and 30’s.
This blog is awesome because it offers such a wide array of topics; it’s a little random, but still interesting. I’m not exactly sure how reputable this blog is only because anyone can make a blog and say they’re a professor of something, but he does seem to include a number of scholarly sources in his blog so although I may not use this in any papers, it’s still cool to look through.
The Music Hall
I was pretty much brought up on musicals and old Hollywood movies that featured musical numbers. My dad has a soft spot for Lerner and Loewe, Rogers and Hammerstein, Andrew Lloyd Webber, etc…and it’s funny because he seems so serious and stereotypically male, but I totally caught him singing and dancing to Jesus Christ Super Star once upon a time. And as a family we were always watching movies starring Gene Kelly, Judy Garland, Donald O’Connor, Ethel Merman, and so on.
The whole point of this is that Ethel Merman and Donald O’Connor stared together in No Business Like Show Business, a movie about a family who makes a living doing Vaudeville shows and eventually Broadway. With all of the articles we’ve been reading for class I keep thinking of this movie as I try to trace the evolution of the Victorian Music Hall. And I think Vaudeville is probably the most direct link between the English Music Hall and America, but from there, its influence spreads out in so many different directions.
The Music Hall progressed to film, but it also remained a form of live entertainment with night clubs and dance clubs. Today we see comedy clubs; someone mentioned last class or two classes ago about the Cirque du Soleil. Having been to the Cirque du Soleil I can attest to that fact that it is live, there is often singing and other forms of music, acrobatics, a comedic portion to the show, it uses live animals and special effects; many of the same things included in the Victorian Music Hall shows. I don’t think there is really one performance venue that can be looked at as the final descendant of the Music Hall.
The more I read the more I realize what a huge cultural entity the Music Hall was to the English, and as such, I think it evolved in a multitude of different directions. But it is just so incredibly fascinating to me that I can look at these movies I have loved for so long and see a the influence of the Music Hall tradition. And it doesn’t end at movies, as I mentioned above, it’s theater, the circus, night clubs, comedy clubs, etc…I actually thought that this was more of an American art form, but I clearly stand corrected.
The whole point of this is that Ethel Merman and Donald O’Connor stared together in No Business Like Show Business, a movie about a family who makes a living doing Vaudeville shows and eventually Broadway. With all of the articles we’ve been reading for class I keep thinking of this movie as I try to trace the evolution of the Victorian Music Hall. And I think Vaudeville is probably the most direct link between the English Music Hall and America, but from there, its influence spreads out in so many different directions.
The Music Hall progressed to film, but it also remained a form of live entertainment with night clubs and dance clubs. Today we see comedy clubs; someone mentioned last class or two classes ago about the Cirque du Soleil. Having been to the Cirque du Soleil I can attest to that fact that it is live, there is often singing and other forms of music, acrobatics, a comedic portion to the show, it uses live animals and special effects; many of the same things included in the Victorian Music Hall shows. I don’t think there is really one performance venue that can be looked at as the final descendant of the Music Hall.
The more I read the more I realize what a huge cultural entity the Music Hall was to the English, and as such, I think it evolved in a multitude of different directions. But it is just so incredibly fascinating to me that I can look at these movies I have loved for so long and see a the influence of the Music Hall tradition. And it doesn’t end at movies, as I mentioned above, it’s theater, the circus, night clubs, comedy clubs, etc…I actually thought that this was more of an American art form, but I clearly stand corrected.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Oh the Woes of Writing a Paper.
I’ve been doing research for my paper, and now I feel like I have hit a wall. I’ve been able to find a great deal of information on Ethel Smyth, her early years, some of her better known compositions, how she learned to compose, who she studied with, etc… She is an extremely fascinating woman and a woman way ahead of her time. She was outspoken, independent, she worked, had affairs with other women; things no proper lady of the Victorian era should do.
However, my paper is going to discuss Ethel Smyth’s development, very general information just to give some background and set up who Ethel Smyth was. But the main focus is going to be on her part in the Women’s Suffrage movement and her Suffrage music. I have been able to find a lot of background information and a fair amount of information on her role in the Suffrage Movement, but I haven’t been able to find as much information as I would like to on her Suffrage music. I was hoping to find more, the woman devoted two years of her life to this movement and I find it hard to believe that she only composed a handful of pieces for this cause.
I have found one song, “The March of the Women,” which is great, it actually became something of a theme song for the movement, but I have had trouble finding scores, lyrics, analysis of any of her other suffrage pieces. I would like very much to be able to interweave her life before her involvement in this movement and her life during this movement, with her suffrage music. Why was each piece specifically written, the words/message of the piece, how/why was it performed, what was its reception like? It is the answers to these questions that I am struggling to find.
I am continuing to do research through the databases and journal holdings through the rider web site and finding a lot of useful information, it’s just not exactly what I had hoped for. Unfortunately it seems as though on Monday I may have to make an emergency meeting with one of the reference librarians. However I have to say that although the annotated bibliography is not my favorite assignment, it is forcing me to make sure I have useable sources for this paper before it’s too late, so I appreciate that.
However, my paper is going to discuss Ethel Smyth’s development, very general information just to give some background and set up who Ethel Smyth was. But the main focus is going to be on her part in the Women’s Suffrage movement and her Suffrage music. I have been able to find a lot of background information and a fair amount of information on her role in the Suffrage Movement, but I haven’t been able to find as much information as I would like to on her Suffrage music. I was hoping to find more, the woman devoted two years of her life to this movement and I find it hard to believe that she only composed a handful of pieces for this cause.
I have found one song, “The March of the Women,” which is great, it actually became something of a theme song for the movement, but I have had trouble finding scores, lyrics, analysis of any of her other suffrage pieces. I would like very much to be able to interweave her life before her involvement in this movement and her life during this movement, with her suffrage music. Why was each piece specifically written, the words/message of the piece, how/why was it performed, what was its reception like? It is the answers to these questions that I am struggling to find.
I am continuing to do research through the databases and journal holdings through the rider web site and finding a lot of useful information, it’s just not exactly what I had hoped for. Unfortunately it seems as though on Monday I may have to make an emergency meeting with one of the reference librarians. However I have to say that although the annotated bibliography is not my favorite assignment, it is forcing me to make sure I have useable sources for this paper before it’s too late, so I appreciate that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)