Bel canto composers and Italian history
Capa0848
>From: mark...@earthlink.net (Mark D. Lew)
>Date: 10/27/2000 8:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <markdlew-ya0240800...@news.earthlink.net>
>
>In article <QjeK5.1132$Yy1....@news1.online.no>, "Hans Christian Hoff"
><hch...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
>> I will not try to refute any of his arguments, which were all both
>> eloquently expressed and based upon solid knowledge, it seems. His
>arguments
>> made it obvious to me that our views upon the questions at hand differ
>> because we have quite different concepts of what opera is (or should be).
>
>Yes, I concur.
>
>> Mark seems to mean that an opera is primarily a drama, expressing ideas
>> about a great variety of things, among them social conditions, morality and
>> much more, and that it is operas primary goal to express such views and
>> thereby engage the audience.
>
>Well, not quite. I wouldn't say drama is MORE important than the music,
>only that both are essential. (If it's only music, you may as well be
>listening to a symphony.) But of the two essential parts, it is the drama
>which is in danger of being lost, not the music. To whatever extent the
>drama is neglected, the work as a whole suffers.
>
>> [...] Until then, however, the underlying drama seems to me to
>> be at most a vehicle for the composers art, which is music [...]
>
>That is more true of earlier works than later ones. This no doubt explains
>why my interest in opera is overwhelmingly tilted toward works written
>after about 1850.
>
>The opinions we've discussed on this thread no doubt also help explain why
>I prefer a bad live performance to the best recording, as well as why I
>prefer opera presented in the native language of the audience.
>
>mdl
>
=================
My server did not deign to share Mark's original post with me, but after
reading Hans' comments I looked it up in Deja News. And like him I was
impressed, (but hardly surprised), by the cogency of Mark's comments.
And like Mark, I think the operas of the latter half of the nineteenth century
(in fact I would set my starting point a half dozen years earlier than Mark's
1850 so as to include Wagner's post-Rienzi operas and some of Verdi's earlier
works) began to return to "drama" and "character" in opera a place they had
not held since Mozart's death.
================
Perhaps I'm overstating this, but, to me, the operas of the Italian bel canto
composers sound more alike than, say, those of Germans of a given period,
Russians of a given period, or French composers of a given period. Especially
in their relationship of singer(s) to orchestra.
Given that (perhaps mistaken) supposition, one wonders if the third of a
century (about 1815-1848) heyday of bel canto was somehow a product of the
dismal years of the Napoleonic Wars -- Rossini, Mercadante, Pacini, Donizetti,
and Bellini were all born between 1792 and 1801, in that chaotic post-French
Revolutionary period of new (short-lived) republics, and secret societies. And
then grew up, after Napoleon declared himself Emperor in 1804, in an Italy (I
believe this is correct) whose citizens were under the same law, used the same
currency, and served in the same army for the first time since the Roman
Empire.
Perhaps this brief unification of Italy, under Napoleon, has something to do
with the similarity in styles of Rossini (b. 1792, in Pesaro on the east
coast, Mercadante (b.1795, Naples on the west coast), Pacini, (b. 1796, in
Catania, Sicily, far to the south) Donizetti (b.1797, Bergamo, not far from the
northern border) and Bellini, (b. 1801, also in Catania).
After Napoleon's fall, and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Italy was divided up
again and split between the House of Savoy, the Bourbons, the Papal States, and
the Austrians. And the best-known composers that grew up in that pre-1848
generation (Verdi 1813, Ponchielli 1834, Boito 1842 each went in a somewhat
different direction.
I'd be interested to hear from our Italian friends whether they feel that the
centralization of the Napoleonic period (and the de-centralization following
it) played any part in the musical styles of those eras. Or was "Italian
music" always more homogeneous than its politics?
Regards,
Pat
Fierce warres and faithful loves shall moralize my song.
Spenser, The Faerie Queene. Introduction. St. 1.
I love this line!
insan...@my-deja.com
only lends itself to melodic phrasing, it makes it almost impossible to
phrase any other way. Mercadante wrote about the 'straight jacket' of
the language...the way such words, in rhyme, so relentlessly fall into
pretty tunes. He is quoted on this subject in one of Budden's Verdi
books.
Also, the main result of the Napoleonic era in Italian music -- Murat's
kingdom centered in Naples -- saw the introduction of Spontini's great
French operas into the Italian musical world, operas which greatly
influenced Rossini's own Neopolitan operas (Manfroce's Ecuba, too among
others) and Donizetti's works as well.
I don't see any greater or lesser difference between oh, Lortzing and
Marshner than between Rossini, Bellini and Donizetti and I don't hear
any greater individuality in the works of most post-Wagner German
composers than between Rossini/Bellini/Donizetti either (whose works
sound entirely individualized to me). Every composer of opera - the
first great art/industry - writes in the idiom of the times, at least to
some extent.
Italian opera flourishes spectacularly from 1814 (with the first Rossini
masterpieces) right through to the end of Verdi's long career. What it
gains in majesty with the later Verdi operas is compensated for in the
almost incredible profusion of great works in the 20's and particularly
30's when the Bellini and Donizetti romantic operas had their debuts.
Yes, Italian opera follows formulas, but so do all operas/all art.
I don't see how it has much connection to the unification or
disunification of the Italian boot.
Regards,
Bob (whose family name is Fabrizio-Volante)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark D. Lew
(Capa0848) wrote:
> And like Mark, I think the operas of the latter half of the nineteenth century
> (in fact I would set my starting point a half dozen years earlier than Mark's
> 1850 so as to include Wagner's post-Rienzi operas and some of Verdi's earlier
> works) began to return to "drama" and "character" in opera a place they had
> not held since Mozart's death.
Sure. The year I named was described as a description of my personal
interest in opera, not exactly when I think it changed. 1850 is a nice
round number, which also happens to correspond with Rigoletto, the first
Verdi that I really like. If I'm talking in the historical context (as we
seem to be now) I usually say 1848.
The coincidence with the year of the revolutions is not just an accident.
Operatic style is strongly linked to political history. Certain types of
opera (and other art) flourish under certain types of political systems.
It's not a hard and fast rule, but the correlation is unmistakable. Elite
opera thrives in small aristocratic states, populist opera thrives in
constitutional monarchies, etc. Another key year is 1871, when the Prussian
war and the Commune effectively killed Paris's long tradition of opéra
comique, four years before Bizet buried it for good with Carmen. Opera
bouffe, in the Offenbach style, was another casualty. Grand opera survived,
but it was never quite the same.
As for the 1815-1848 heyday, I wouldn't focus so much on the when the key
composers were born, but rather the period in which they wrote. This was
the era of Metternich, an orderly time. Everyone was sick of the excesses
of revolution, so the haves were content to make some compromises, the
have-nots were content to make the most of their small gains, and all the
while the great powers carefully watched, quickly squashing any unrest that
might upset the peace.
> [...]
> Perhaps this brief unification of Italy, under Napoleon, has something to do
> with the similarity in styles of Rossini (b. 1792, in Pesaro on the east
> coast, Mercadante (b.1795, Naples on the west coast), Pacini, (b. 1796, in
> Catania, Sicily, far to the south) Donizetti (b.1797, Bergamo, not far
from the
> northern border) and Bellini, (b. 1801, also in Catania).
Well, for starters, Napoleon's unified Italy never included Catania, so
there goes two of your five examples. More to the point, I find no great
relevance in the short-term political status of these composers' places of
birth. Unquestionably the Napoleonic influence was a step on the road
toward eventual unification, but I hardly think the presence of French
soldiers in Naples suddenly made Neapolitans more culturally in tune with
their cousins in Milan.
As I recall, Bellini spent most of his short career in the north. I'm not
really familiar with the careers of these five, but isn't it true that each
of them spent a considerable amount of time in Naples and most of the rest
bouncing around the various capitals of the north? Talent will move to the
center of culture, of which there was one in in the south (or two, if you
count Rome as "south") and several in the north. If anything, I think what
you're observing here is the midpoint in the gradual shift of cultural
influence from south to north. Before the middle of the 18th century,
almost every Italian composer of note was from the south (which
incidentally was then a prosperous monarchy). After the middle of the 19th
century, almost none were.
Finally, I'm not even sure what you mean about the similarity of styles.
As opposed to what? Later or earlier? Later, Italian composers do become
more diverse, but it doesn't seem to be correlated to their regions of
birth. Does Cilea have a Calabrese style? Is Mascagni's Livornese? Not
that I can tell.
> After Napoleon's fall, and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Italy was
divided up
> again and split between the House of Savoy, the Bourbons, the Papal
States, and
> the Austrians. And the best-known composers that grew up in that pre-1848
> generation (Verdi 1813, Ponchielli 1834, Boito 1842 each went in a somewhat
> different direction.
>
> I'd be interested to hear from our Italian friends whether they feel that the
> centralization of the Napoleonic period (and the de-centralization following
> it) played any part in the musical styles of those eras. Or was "Italian
> music" always more homogeneous than its politics?
In short, yes.
But I suppose you were expecting me to say something about the history. OK.
First, I would expand your summary of a four-way partition of Italy, to
include Tuscany as a fifth entity. This, incidentally, results in a
reasonably close approximation of the main cultural regions of Italy even
today.
You seem to be implying that Italy was more divided after Napoleon than
before. This is not the case. Strictly in terms of political boundaries,
there were fewer of them after Napoleon. Venice and Genoa(=Liguria) were
eliminated for good, incorporated by Austria and Savoy/Sardinia
respectively. The duchies of Parma, Modena and Milan each became more
closely tied to the Habsburg emperor than they had been before.
(Simplified, the first two went from independent to semi-independent, and
the latter went from semi-independent to not.) Various tiny states were
also eliminated.
More important than this is that the rulers were now politically allied.
The Bourbon king, the Sardinian king, the Grand Duke, the Pope, and the
Habsburg Emperor with his various related dukes and princes -- they may
have had different styles and local interests, but ultimately they had a
common interest in the status quo, and they actively cooperated to maintain
it. Furthermore, there was no outside power looking to gain influence in
Italy by playing the small states off one another (as previously France,
Austria and Spain so often were).
Finally, there's the issue of technology. During this period, roads were
gradually being built, transportation vehicles were gradually improving,
and established patterns of communication between the capitals steadily
increased.
mdl
Mark D. Lew
> Also, the main result of the Napoleonic era in Italian music -- Murat's
> kingdom centered in Naples -- saw the introduction of Spontini's great
> French operas into the Italian musical world, operas which greatly
> influenced Rossini's own Neopolitan operas (Manfroce's Ecuba, too among
> others) and Donizetti's works as well.
I concur about the result, but not the cause. Murat is a fascinating
character, but he surely did not bring French opera to Italy.
The primary cause was that the French Revolution, which progressed
gradually enough to allow apolitical aristocrats to escape, sent a steady
stream of well-to-do emigrees out of Paris. A great many of them landed in
Naples, which was a cultural center in its own right. The newcomers brought
their French tastes with them, and that is how the French influence began.
If anything, Murat's takeover reversed the trend, by sending the emigrees
again fleeing (curiously, many returned to France, finding Emperor Napoleon
more accommodating than previous revolutionaries).
A secondary cause is that the trauma of French occupation nearly bankrupted
the Neapolitan monarchy. (Like their French cousins, the Neapolitan
Bourbons were already headed for ruin; the revolution was merely the crisis
that collapsed the bubble.) This left them unable to continue promoting
music locally as they (and previous monarchs) had for so long, making Italy
more dependent on imports.
mdl
Luca Logi
> Finally, I'm not even sure what you mean about the similarity of styles.
> As opposed to what? Later or earlier? Later, Italian composers do become
> more diverse, but it doesn't seem to be correlated to their regions of
> birth. Does Cilea have a Calabrese style? Is Mascagni's Livornese? Not
> that I can tell.
Well, Lola's Stornello sounds very Tuscan instead of Sicilian...
(To reply to the original poster: Yes, Italian music was more unified
than Italian politics.)
--------------------------------------------------------
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: ll...@dada.it
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)
Mark D. Lew
Logi) wrote:
> Well, Lola's Stornello sounds very Tuscan instead of Sicilian...
Touché.
Come to think of it, Federico's lament has a rather mezzogiorno feel, too.
So much for my theory....
mdl
insan...@my-deja.com
What the Murat monarchy brought to Naples was French tastes and those
tastes stayed long after Murat's experiment ended. When the Naples
Bourbons came back from Sicily, they continued to actively support the
works of Manfroce (who died too young to do more than Ecuba) and
Rossini, whose Naples operas are vastly more ambitious and forward
looking that his other Italian works. Both Rossini and Donizetti
prepared and conducted important productions of La Vestale and were
strongly influenced (more, inspired) by the scale of the Spontini
masterpiece. Murat has introduced Vestale to the Naples public (the
Murat administration).
Donizetti had greatly wanted a official post in Naples (which Mercadante
got) and it was only gradually that the musically forward looking
Bourbon court transferred its political conservatism to this sphere.
Rossini left and after Poliuto, Donizetti did too. It was political
censorship though that drove Donizetti northward, not musical, as the
scale of Poliuto is clearly in the tradition of the great Spontini
works. No accident, that expanded even further and with an even greater
loosened up of the numbers, it became one of his Paris grand operas.
The Naples Bourbon monarchy has a (bad) rep it does not entirely
deserve. The winners always write the history books:)
Regards,
Bob
Valfer
It's very easy to theorize about Italian political history and its influence
on the arts, but the fact is that nationalism and regionalism have existed
together in Italy for centuries and all Italians are aware of it. It's a
part of the culture. Chaining a composer to his place of birth would be
shortsighted. Artists always seek broader horizons. Bellini, a Sicilian,
would have seen nothing wrong in using a Neapolitan folk tune if it suited
his musical purposes.
If music became more diversified after the unification, a statement open to
dispute, political considerations had little to do with it.
Valfer
"Luca Logi" <ll...@dada.it> wrote in message
news:200010290...@dadovago2080.dada.it...
Capa0848
>From: "Valfer" val...@email.msn.com
>Date: 10/29/2000 9:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <#6LXYvcQAHA.318@cpmsnbbsa07>
>
>Bravo, Luca!
>
>It's very easy to theorize about Italian political history and its influence
>on the arts, but the fact is that nationalism and regionalism have existed
>together in Italy for centuries and all Italians are aware of it. It's a
>part of the culture. Chaining a composer to his place of birth would be
>shortsighted. Artists always seek broader horizons. Bellini, a Sicilian,
>would have seen nothing wrong in using a Neapolitan folk tune if it suited
>his musical purposes.
>
>If music became more diversified after the unification, a statement open to
>dispute, political considerations had little to do with it.
>
>Valfer
================
Thanks to all those who offered their thoughts on this.
Bellini the Sicilian composer might have borrowed Neapolitan tunes, but the
Venetian Bellinis (Jacopo and sons Gentile and Giovanni) were in many respects
the founders of the Venetian school of painting.
Part of the reason I ventured my little theory is that in Italian painting one
sees significant stylistic differences between the painters of Siena and
Florence, or Venice and Rome. Of course the painters of the renaissance lived a
few hundred years earlier when travel was no doubt much more difficult than it
was in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Probably even more to the point, music, through playing and singing, humming
and whistling, is no doubt a more mobile art than painting.
Even so, I'm a little surprised to learn that there were not, apparently,
significant differences between the music of Sicily, Napoli, Roma and Venezia,
just to name a few.
Regards,
Pat
Mark D. Lew
> The Naples Bourbon monarchy has a (bad) rep it does not entirely
> deserve.
Agreed.
>The winners always write the history books:)
Well, yes and no. The best book I've read on the Naples monarchy is by a
descendant of Acton, who writes about the Bourbons almost as if they are
family. But if you're talking about the Italian historian-hagiographers of
the late 1800s, yes, you're quite right.
mdl
who has devoted several web pages to history written by the losers -- well
not "written", exactly... (http://home.earthlink.net/~markdlew/SerbEpic)
Mark D. Lew
(Capa0848) wrote:
> Even so, I'm a little surprised to learn that there were not, apparently,
> significant differences between the music of Sicily, Napoli, Roma and Venezia,
> just to name a few.
Well, that brings up the question of what do you mean by "the music of
Sicily". I would suggest that what Bellini and Pacini wrote was NOT the
music of Sicily. Each of them promptly set out for Naples, a center of
cosmopolitan culture, so that they could be trained in the cosmopolitan
style.
If you look at folk music, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Venetian, Tuscan and
Padane styles are recognizably distinct. What little Calabrese folk music
I've heard is very strange, with lots of exotic chromatics, reminiscent of
music from the western Balkans.
All opera composers are cosmopolitan, almost by definition. Anyone who
didn't happen to be born in a cosmopolitan city, like Naples, moved to one.
Local music comes from outside of such cities. (The one partial exception
is Venice.)
mdl
Luca Logi
> If you look at folk music, Neapolitan, Sicilian, Venetian, Tuscan and
> Padane styles are recognizably distinct. What little Calabrese folk music
> I've heard is very strange, with lots of exotic chromatics, reminiscent of
> music from the western Balkans.
Maybe you don't know, but several Christian Albanese communities moved
to Calabria in late 15th century to escape persecution. Now it is
getting lost, but still 30 years ago some remote Calabrese villages were
going on speaking an Albanese dialect.
Luca Logi
> Part of the reason I ventured my little theory is that in Italian painting
> one sees significant stylistic differences between the painters of Siena
> and Florence, or Venice and Rome. Of course the painters of the
> renaissance lived a few hundred years earlier when travel was no doubt
> much more difficult than it was in the first half of the nineteenth
> century.
>
> Probably even more to the point, music, through playing and singing,
> humming and whistling, is no doubt a more mobile art than painting.
You can't compare behaviours in so chronologically distant periods. The
main point, BTW, wouldn't be difficulty of travelling, but very
different political organization.
For example and very roughly said, the differences between Senese and
Florentine painters date back to a period in which the two cities were
fierce rivals and tried to have different identities.
insan...@my-deja.com
Witllesbach princess, I believe) died in Munich in the mid to
late 1920's!
Mark D. Lew
> Amazing to think that the last Boubon queen of Naples (a
> Witllesbach princess, I believe) died in Munich in the mid to
> late 1920's!
Wow. I assume that would be Francis II's wife (Maria Sofia?). Either she
was much younger than him or she lived a long time (or both).
insan...@my-deja.com
younger. After the battles of the Volturno and Gaeta they embarked on a
British ship (I believe) and sailed into exile. She outlived him by
many decades, back in her parents court in Munich, surrounded by her own
exiled court of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies!
I've heard vague talk over the last few years of a possible restoration
of the Bourbon monarchy in the south! They never renounced their claims
and are still banned from Italy (as is the Savoy family, I believe, and
for the same reason).
Nice to meet another fan of Italian 19th century history! You
wouldn't have any hard, factual information about the naval Battle of
Lissa, would you:)?
Luca Logi
> They were both young when they came to the throne, but she was a bit
> younger. After the battles of the Volturno and Gaeta they embarked on a
> British ship (I believe) and sailed into exile. She outlived him by
> many decades, back in her parents court in Munich, surrounded by her own
> exiled court of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies!
> I've heard vague talk over the last few years of a possible restoration
> of the Bourbon monarchy in the south! They never renounced their claims
> and are still banned from Italy (as is the Savoy family, I believe, and
> for the same reason).
The male descendants of the Savoy family are still banned from Italy,
due to a temporary provision in the Italian republican constitution.
(They have, strange to say, a Italian passports not valid for entry in
Italy!). This as the royal family didn't show a commendable behaviour
during the fascism and WW II.
As far as I know, such a provision is valid only for the Savoy family,
not for the Borbone (as we call the Bourbon family).
insan...@my-deja.com
and Hitler was on record, many times, as loathing the Italian King, I
think the Savoy family didn't behave all that badly during those times.
Anyway, the vote was pretty close (to keep the monarchy or try a
republic).
Luca Logi
> As a daughter of the King of Italy died in a German concentration camp,
> and Hitler was on record, many times, as loathing the Italian King, I
> think the Savoy family didn't behave all that badly during those times.
> Anyway, the vote was pretty close (to keep the monarchy or try a
> republic).
The Savoy family - namely Vittorio Emanuele III - was mainly discredited
by two specific issues: the support to the fascism in October 1922, when
the king prevented the Facta government to take appropriate steps
against fascism; the king fleeing to Brindisi on September 1943, leaving
Rome and the Italian army helpless. The last one was still a burning
issue in 1946, when the polls between monarchy and republic were opened.
In any case Umberto II, the son of Vittorio Emanuele III that reigned
only one month, May 1946, had the clear idea that his monarchy would
have needed a very broad support to go on - even a close win for the
monarchy wouldn't been enough.
insan...@my-deja.com
Do you, by any chance, know anything specific about the naval Battle
of Lissa in the 1866 war with Austria (deployment of the ships, the
actual order of battle, a narrative of what happened step by
step)? Or, can you steer me to any information (only in English though,
as I'm a dumb American and don't speak Italian).
Are you familiar with the great Visconti Italian history movies Il
Gattopardo and Senso? They are probably my two favorite Italian films.
The King left for the south for a lot of reasons and it was the Army
high command (Badoglio?) at least as much as VEII who put the Italian
army in that spot. Anyway, had he not fled to the south, the Germans
would have captured him and they did indeed (Hitler) hate him. He
probably would have been killed by them along with any of the family
they could also catch.
Luca Logi
> I love Italian history (Italian anything, just about):)
> Do you, by any chance, know anything specific about the naval Battle
> of Lissa in the 1866 war with Austria (deployment of the ships, the
> actual order of battle, a narrative of what happened step by
> step)? Or, can you steer me to any information (only in English though,
> as I'm a dumb American and don't speak Italian).
I admit never minding about Lissa after my school years. A quick google
search unearthed the following links:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/lissa.html
http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/novara.html
http://www.uow.edu.au/~morgan/lissab.html
...And so on
> Are you familiar with the great Visconti Italian history movies Il
> Gattopardo and Senso? They are probably my two favorite Italian films.
I personally don't like cinema very much, but my wife likes Visconti's
films very much and would like me to have a look of them at faily
regular intervals.
> The King left for the south for a lot of reasons and it was the Army
> high command (Badoglio?) at least as much as VEII who put the Italian
> army in that spot. Anyway, had he not fled to the south, the Germans
> would have captured him and they did indeed (Hitler) hate him. He
> probably would have been killed by them along with any of the family
> they could also catch.
You're right, Badoglio (not the army commander, but the PM just after
the fall of Mussolini) had his good share of responsabilities. However,
the only advantage of monarchy over republic is in those exceptional
situations that happen once or twice a century, when the monarch becomes
a symbol of national unity in his/her own person. A king failing both
occasions of his life wasn't felt to deserve a throne for him and his
family.
insan...@my-deja.com
Regards,
Bob
Mark D. Lew
> I love Italian history (Italian anything, just about):)
> Do you, by any chance, know anything specific about the naval Battle
> of Lissa in the 1866 war with Austria (deployment of the ships, the
> actual order of battle, a narrative of what happened step by
> step)? Or, can you steer me to any information (only in English though,
> as I'm a dumb American and don't speak Italian).
I have little interest in the military aspect of history -- as much as is
necessary to relate it to political/diplomatic/cultural/etc history, yes,
but details of battles no. So I'm of no help on Lissa. In fact, I didn't
even realize there was a naval theater in 1866, though in retrospect it
seems obvious enough.
As for Italian history in the English language, I recommend any of the
books by Denis Mack Smith, but if you've read much you probably already
know him.
mdl
insan...@my-deja.com
like. Think he is a bit too hard on Mussollini though. His Sicily
books are very good.
In the Battle of Lissa, a freak occurance -- the ramming and sinking
of the Italian flagship (a brand new ironclad) by the wooden Austrian
flagship -- resulted in almost all capital ships worldwide being built
with rams for the next 50 or so years. The rams were never used as
from this point on ships almost never even came within visual sightings
of each other during battles!
Regards,
Bob
Mark D. Lew
> Thanks for the recommendation and yes, I know Smith's work. Which I
> like. Think he is a bit too hard on Mussollini though. His Sicily
> books are very good.
At my library, they list him under "M", so I guess the full surname is
"Mack Smith". (I mention this only on the off chance that some lurker here
is inspired to go looking for his books.)
mdl