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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)