Fabio Vacchi

I know him little, I had the opportunity to hear one of his Operas... unfortunately I do not love a trained voice, or rather, today I don't know what sense there is in using it.. and he uses it. What do you think about this?

It would be nice to also include in the discussion

Fabio Vacchi, Dai Calanchi di Sabbiuno (1995)

Practically it is a simple ternary ABA' form, with a central part that is slightly more contrapuntally active than the extreme parts, a barely hinted vocal line that, in continuously varied form in timbre and register, traverses the entire score, a fixed harmony articulated on five key sounds (also reiterated in their own form and in transposed form), finally, the slow pace of a simple binary rhythm, marked by the regular and incessant tolling of a bell: within these linguistic parameters, only apparently simple and held on the edge of a masterful emotional tension, the formal arc of Dai calanchi di Sabbiuno is stretched—a moved, distressing threnody or, if preferred, a sort of secularly participatory funeral march.

Clearly there is a historical reference, but it confirms what Feldman says about the author

Open content (youtube)

Tiger wrote:

I know him little, I had the opportunity to hear one of his Operas... unfortunately I do not love the trained voice, or rather, today I don't know what sense there is in using it.. and he uses it. What do you think about this?

personally, I believe that writing an opera today (by trained voice I mean) is useless, given that the legacy of this genre has been collected for decades by film music. Therefore, I cannot express myself either on Vacchi's Opera, nor even on those of other contemporaries like Solbiati, since I consider the mere idea of re-proposing a dead and buried genre like that to be totally anachronistic.

If we want operas, we have an embarrassing choice, I would say: Berg, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Rossini, Mozart, Handel, Monteverdi. I don't understand why they continue to attempt something that has run its course.

Feldman wrote:

If we want operas, we have an embarrassing choice, I would say: Berg, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Rossini, Mozart, Handel, Monteverdi. I don't understand why people continue to challenge themselves with something that has already run its course.

Perhaps because when something is beautiful, one is never satiated, a bit like making love... why challenge oneself? Nowadays in the digital era and of virtual reality ... it's all about simulations and that's it

Unfortunately these are the thoughts of the new generations, a beautiful thing is never buried... so one can challenge oneself to create other works, if they believe that world is beautiful. ok?

Let's just say there are those who are dissatisfied and those who are happy about this matter... who will be right?

In effect Shark, Cleopatra is dead and buried but I would gladly have a romance with Canalis Ergo, Puccini I may be dead, but I listen to Vacchi gladly

Shark wrote:

Perhaps because when something is beautiful, it is never satisfied, a bit like making love... why challenge oneself? Nowadays in the digital era and of virtual reality... one just goes for simulations and that's it

Unfortunately these are the thoughts of the new generations; a beautiful thing is never buried... so one can challenge oneself to create other works, if they believe that world is beautiful. ok?

Let's say there are those who are dissatisfied and those who are happy about this matter... who will be right?

surely, if something is beautiful, re-proposing it is certainly right and I absolutely cannot criticize a free choice. Personally, I do not appreciate the re-proposing of anachronistic genres; if the figure of the opera composer today is represented by the film music composer, I don't see the utility of such costly productions that are frankly not very relevant to the historical evolution of music.

Regarding Vacchi, I appreciate instrumental, chamber, and symphonic music.

Videoclip wrote:

In fact Shark, Cleopatra is dead and buried but I would gladly have an affair with Canalis. Ergo, Puccini may be dead, but I gladly listen to Vacchi

ahahahah, this one is beautiful!

Abroad, many composers, even young ones, are certainly less hesitant than us Italians to write for the theater. Perhaps because they feel the weight of the melodrama tradition less than we do. A couple of recent examples: Aliados by Sebastian Rivas (which is a full-fledged opera, complete with plot and characters) and Happy deaf people by Jagoda Szmytka (which is not an opera but rather a piece for ensemble, does not employ "opera singers", and does not require classical theatrical spaces... but in its own way, it is theater).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSIYhGchr4o

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

Even if collateral to Fabio Vacchi, I find it interesting to analyze the considerations made regarding the use of the 'impostata' (set/classical) voice.

If I had to answer this question, I would say: I am not interested in the 'voce impostata' because I don't like it and, in fact, I don't use it in the pieces I write.

But let's get to the comments

Feldman wrote:

i deem the mere idea of re-proposing a dead and buried genre like that to be totally anachronistic.

In reality, I make it a matter of taste, in the sense that if I liked it, I would have no qualms about using it. And there would be nothing to blame... so no one, not even Vacchi. And only something that can no longer truly have life is dead.

At one point Red writes

RedScharlach wrote:

Abroad, many composers, even young ones, are much less hesitant than us Italians to write for the theater. Perhaps because they feel the weight of the melodrama tradition less than we do.

In reality, tradition has never been a burden, and people like Mozart wrote operas like the Jupiter because he also had the opportunity to study Bachian counterpoint; the same goes for Brahms with Beethoven regarding symphonism, the same for Mahler with Brahms, etc.

The point is that tradition is a strength and not a weakness, so in what way can potential become a burden? It should be "exploited," so the issue seems more psychological to me than merely musical, and many factors contribute to this, not least sociological ones... and those related to the environments we frequent.

This leaves me relatively perplexed

Feldman wrote:

If we want operas, we have an embarrassing choice, I would say: Berg, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Rossini, Mozart, Handel, Monteverdi. I don't understand why to continue attempting something that has run its course.

After reading, I asked myself, paraphrasing: I don't understand why we continue to write new pieces if there are already others. Reducing the field to the subject of contention, even the "non-impostata" (unset/natural) voice has run its course... in reality, even the text, the prose, the anagrams, the most concrete part of this magnificent instrument... so if that were the case, I would be left only with the question of taste...

But then why bring up other types of justification that seem to want to give a different connotation to the nature of the problem?

Surely it is a limitation of mine, but what is the problem?

In effect, Frank, for me it is just a technique; so why don't we stop using the bow anymore, or glissandi, or strings... after all, everything has already run its course and after Paganini, who wants to hear anything else on the violin. Of course, you could move it from the foreground, record the sounds, process them electronically, etc.

What can I say, this whole anachronism story is losing its tension for me... I mean, if we reason like this, we might as well close shop. What does it mean that a technique is anachronistic? Then let's not use anything anymore, everything has run its course. Not just the sound, but also the fragmentation of music in favor of silence (and vice versa), and even silence itself... perhaps one should rediscover the pleasure of having a pair of ears and act only in their name.

Besides, if someone doesn't like something, they can just say so.. what's the harm? There are those who don't like Mozart's music... let alone those who don't care if someone dislikes a trained voice

Gerardo wrote:

What does it mean that a technique is anachronistic? Then let's not use anything anymore, everything has run its course.

This seems like a cliché to me: in reality there is still room, and there always will be. And I am not thinking so much about Sciarrino, who invents a sound world all his own (on the flute, on the violin...), but rather about the possibility of taking what we have so far, what is of "common domain," and carrying it slightly further, but by digging into the detail, working with precision. From this point of view, a master is, for example, Stefano Gervasoni. The techniques he usually employs are not even that "extensive," or at least he is not interested in the "strangeness" of a technique as if it were a value in itself: but he still manages to provide the detail that can shed new light on the technique. Even if it were "simply" a particular type of glissando... Another example, very distant yet in some ways analogous, is György Kurtág.

So I am convinced that there is always room left: but it is very difficult to identify it.

Gerardo wrote:

...perhaps one should rediscover the pleasure of having a pair of ears and act only in their name.

I like this!

Opera has also lost the functionality and characteristics it originally had. Let us not forget that today it is a genre of the past that lives on in the present thanks to a few composers and a modest niche audience, whereas the great melodramas of the past were popular and had a large following; therefore, if opera, as the popular genre it once was, has transformed into "Cinema" (and musically speaking, into film music; if I had to find heirs to Verdi, Puccini, or Wagner, I would have no trouble naming John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Max Steiner, and Ennio Morricone), I do not understand the point of this "stepsister" which seems more like the old melodrama being forcibly kept alive in a hospital bed, despite all the good experimentation of Sciarrino, Lohengrin, or Quaderno di Strada; often some expressive forms simply run their course.

Then it is obvious that theater is not dead and continues to live, but I believe there is a significant difference between "incidental music" and "Opera"; they are two different genres given that the former is still historically alive and well and the latter is not (let's say it is still living on life support...).

As far as tradition is concerned, I think it is fundamental to hold onto it tightly and use it as a starting point to build a present. It is no coincidence that the foundations (not so much the origins) of Cinema have their roots in Wagnerian thought.

Feldman wrote:

Opera has also lost its functionality and the characteristics it originally had. Let us not forget that today it is a genre of the past that lives on in the present thanks to a few composers and a modest niche audience, whereas the great melodramas of the past were popular and had a large following; therefore, if opera, as the popular genre it once was, has transformed into "Cinema" (and musically speaking, into film music; if I had to find heirs to Verdi, Puccini, or Wagner, I would have no trouble naming John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Max Steiner, and Ennio Morricone), I do not understand the sense of this "stepsister" which seems more like the old melodrama being forcibly kept alive in a hospital bed, despite all the good experimentation of Sciarrino, Lohengrin, or Quaderno di Strada.; often some expressive forms run their course.

saying that I do not disagree is an understatement. And your argument is extremely weak. There are dozens and dozens of operas that were never popular. And opera lost its "original functionality and characteristics" more or less 30 years after it was born. And then another forty years later. And then another fifty years later. And so on, until today. To think that "OPERA" is something unique, static, always the same throughout its history is simply wrong; it is based on false historical data. Believing that opera is dead is an opinion, which I do not share; asserting that opera has lost its function is a poor and difficult-to-argue opinion.

Regarding the niche audience of opera, here too, I do not believe things are that way. Regardless of the fact that nowadays every audience is a niche one, and that no one (I hope) would dream of denigrating ancient Byzantine chant just because it has a niche audience. I remind you that in the world there are quite a few stable opera houses that stage new operatic commissions and more or less recent contemporary repertoire every year. If our discussion becomes a bit more serious, then, and examines, I don't know, contemporary works written in the last 30 years, a true repertoire has been created, appreciated and known throughout the world.

Then it is obvious that theater is not dead and continues to live, but I believe there is a big difference between "incidental music" and "Opera"; they are two different genres given that the former is still historically alive and well and the second is not (let's say it still lives on life support...).

:-) come on, define the difference :-) let's have a good discussion about how fundamental the difference is between a sextet and a septet, or how much the quartet is a living and breathing genre while the trio is not :-)

As far as tradition is concerned, I think it is fundamental to hold onto it tightly and start from this to build a present. It is no coincidence that the foundations (not so much the origins) of Cinema have their roots in Wagnerian thought.

you really have to explain this one to me

So, I'll start by saying that we are talking about Vacchi, not Opera (it's better not to stray from the Topic). Anyway, I will respond to your "confutatio":

1) my argument is anything but weak, dear Thallo. You are right when you say that not all operas were popular, but I am right when I say that opera was a popular genre (the ones you are talking about are also exceptions, and you know it as well as I do).

I base myself on the evolution of genres, and opera had its evolution in film music and Cinema; if you are poorly informed about this, I invite you to dedicate yourself to that branch of musicology, which is very interesting. Do you know Sergio Miceli? Never heard of this gentleman? I believe so, right? Or am I wrong? Thallo, instead of always talking about dusty treatises, let's base ourselves on the concrete side of every historical era: people went to the theater just as people go to the cinema today, no? (with all the differences you can find, the situation was nonetheless very similar). The fame that a Morricone or a Williams (I am talking about the countless cinematic melodies that everyone knows and remembers) would have had in the second half of the 1800s, a Verdi had (then okay, the chorus of Nabucco was a niche melody, come on. For a chosen few, Peppino's colleagues).

So, if you want to talk seriously, do not try to transform history in your favor (I know, it is a professional distortion for you musicologists... what can we do?)

2) you are talking about ensembles, Thallo. The sextet and the septet, at a formal level, have a structure today that is always different from what they could have had decades ago, right? Opera has also undergone "genetic mutations" at a formal level over time (I am referring to the 1900s); the problem is that the basic framework is always the same, otherwise it wouldn't be called opera.... that's why I say it is the rather clumsy attempt to keep alive a genre (made not only of instruments like voice and orchestra but of basic structures and characteristic relationships) that has already evolved in another way. I don't know if I explained myself well; if I didn't, I will try to explain myself better, but I believe I was quite clear :-)

3) Thallo, come on, don't provoke. Never heard of "total opera"? Wagner knew something about it... I believe so, it was part of his thought. The union of more artistic forms in a "popular" genre, where do you see that today? I believe in Cinema. Wagner was not just "continuous melody" but also "continuous narration," you know it as well as, if not better than, me. Where were the interruptions? End of the first act! Well, describe to me the narration of any film and tell me where the interruptions are. Then maybe, at your house, films are divided into "arias," "duets," "cavatines," and maybe "recitatives." You understood the sense of this nice, theatricalized... provocation! :-)

And you also understood the meaning of what I told you, Thallo. I didn't talk to you about dates and chronicles of Narnia; as you can see, there is no... AD, but only relationships between forms and genres, which naturally bring out differences.

Look at that, a call for projects organized by Darmstadt has just been released for a contemporary opera workshop http://www.h-sechs.de/imd/media/com_form2content/documents/c3/a392/f121/Call_Opera_Workshop_en.pdf

And it's not even the only initiative of this kind: soon the opera workshop organized by the Peter Eötvös foundation will conclude http://www.eotvosmusicfoundation.org/?node=events&id=26

Regarding the fact that melodrama was "popular": it applies to Verdi, certainly, but not to Monteverdi. Monteverdi was for the elite. Rossini was definitely pop, and maybe even Puccini, but in a very different sense... But was Wagner ever "popular"? I mean, except for the Ride of the Valkyries!

As far as cinematic grammar is concerned, how can interruptions not exist? Please, let's review the concept of sequence!

Of course, in this case I also spoke about exceptions. After all, if Verdi, Bellini, Puccini, Rossini and Donizetti were popular... it means that essentially Opera is a popular genre, right? Excuse me... it was a popular genre. Today there is film music.

the mechanism of the sequence (as in a change of narrative event, I mean) is also present in Wagner's theatrical conception. The fact is that in a film the scenes change (obviously) but this happens continuously, through dissolves (except for particular cases where a scene can close with a dissolve to a black background and shortly after the other opens). In a film, the scenes are not disconnected; their succession is always fluid.

Put that way, it's a whole different story!

In any case, at the cinema sequences are the norm (and A Lump in the Throat is the exception!).

As for the fade, since it works in a certain way in Coppola, in a completely different way in Kubrick, and in yet another way in Dennis Dugan, I would avoid generalizing altogether.

Agreed, Wagner influenced cinema (at the very least, he certainly influenced Coppola!) but I wouldn't base a discussion on this topic regarding the analogy between opera composers and film composers... even simply because one goes to the theater to listen to an opera by Verdi or Puccini, but I have never heard of anyone going to the cinema to see a film by Hermann or Morricone!

1) my argument is anything but weak, dear Thallo. You are right when you say that not all works were popular, but I am right when I say that opera was a popular genre (the ones you are talking about are even exceptions, and you know it as well as I do).

no, you haven't understood many things about my refutation.

1) there has NEVER existed a genre called "Opera".

2) among the various genres of musical theater, many have never been popular (and "many" refers to the genres, so we are talking about dozens and dozens of titles taken from musical fairy tales, melologs, sacred scenic actions, scenic cantatas etc.), others were popular but not in the sense you might think. Wagner, who was mentioned, has been as influential as few on the history of culture, but certainly people weren't singing Parsifal in the streets. Just to give an example of non-popular opera authors: Monteverdi, Cesti, Cavalli, the various composers of Roman operas, Hasse, both Scarlattis, Handel, Lully, Rameau and practically all French opera composers until at least Gounod, all the opera composers of Italian serious opera, Neapolitan and otherwise, even Mozart, if we take the serious titles. Anyway, there would be many others...

I base myself on the evolution of genres, and opera had its evolution in film music and Cinema; if you are poorly informed about this, I invite you to dedicate yourself to that branch of musicology, which is very interesting.

there is a moment when musicology forgets the history of music and delights in its own pseudo-theories. This is that moment. Film music is a genre apart, with links to music, just as opera itself had links to madrigals and Renaissance vocal music. But in the same way that vocal music did not die at the birth of opera, opera did not die at the birth of cinema.

You can say it as much as you want, but repeating a falsehood does not serve to make it true.

Thallo, instead of always talking about dusty treatises

dusty treatises my foot, I work in the theater and two years ago "Il cappello di paglia di Firenze" which I sang in a chorus filled theaters. The Lombard lyric circuit where I sing, which is a very small reality compared to what there is in Italy, even commissioned an opera for children that it sent on tour through a great many small Italian theaters. And this is the difference between those who resign themselves to musical reality and speak of it, and those who hypothesize a parallel reality that follows their own tastes. The parallel reality in which opera is dead was hypothesized by you, but it is not real.

let's base ourselves on the concrete side of every historical era:

historical methodology like rain :-)

people went to the theater just as they go to the cinema today, right? (with all the differences you can find, the situation was still very similar).

No! Absolutely not! Go study the history of Venetian theaters and go see the complex mechanism of box rentals... go see the hierarchical structure of French theaters, how some operas circulated ONLY in certain theaters where it was practically impossible for "the people" to enter.

Ah, "the people" is not a correct sociological criterion. The "audience" is not "the people".

The fame that a Morricone or a Williams (I am talking about the countless cinematic melodies that everyone knows and remembers) had in the second half of the 1800s compared to a Verdi (then okay, the chorus of Nabucco was a niche melody, come on. For a few chosen ones, Peppino's colleagues).

... there are moments when I truly feel like hitting you... are you aware of the historical reasons why the chorus of Nabucco was famous? And among whom was it famous? The musicologists you normally despise question these things in a somewhat more in-depth way. And those musicologists simply realized that in the years when Verdi wrote his first operas, the Risorgimento uprisings were breaking out in Lombardy. In NORTHERN Italy even at those times there was a more or less consolidated tradition of choirs. It might be secondary to note, but it was the CHORUSES of Verdi that were famous, not the arias. Some choruses from those operas became the underground anthems of the Lombard Risorgimento movements, and this was well known to everyone, including Verdi himself, who wrote "La battaglia di Legnano" practically during the 5 Days of Milan.

There, the chorus of Nabucco was not famous among Peppino's colleagues; it was one of the Risorgimento choruses explicitly included by Verdi in his operas. Others are "Oh signore dal tetto natio", "Si ridesti il Leon di Castiglia", "Patria oppressa".

So, if you want to speak seriously, do not try to transform history to your advantage (I know, it's a professional deformation for you musicologists... what can we do?)

you

could you avoid expressing opinions on things you don't know. For example, even about me and my professional biases.

2) you are talking about ensembles, Thallo. The sextet and the septet, formally speaking, have a structure today that is always different from what they could have had decades ago, right? Even opera has undergone "genetic mutations" at a formal level over time (I am referring to the '1900s'), the problem is that the basic framework is always the same, otherwise it wouldn't be called opera.... that's why I say it is a rather clumsy attempt to keep alive a genre (made not only of instruments like voice and orchestra but of structure and basic characteristic relationships) that has already evolved in another way. I don't know if I explained myself well; if I didn't, I will try to explain better, but I believe I have been quite clear :-)

you were clear in expressing a basic ignorance regarding musical theater. Which, in fact, is not all called "Opera". The structure of, I don't know, Gluck's Iphigenia in Tauris is very different from that of Mozart's Abduction from the Seraglio, despite 3 years of difference. But my irony about the differences between trio and quartet concerned YOUR intervention in which you said that not all musical theater is opera. Which is a bit like discovering hot water, but if this argument is used to decree the death of opera, then I arrive and DEMAND that the death of the trio be decreed, which has a tradition PRECEDING the quartet.

To summarize: musical theater has ALWAYS had many different forms. The one YOU are talking about is only one of many. And besides, even that hasn't died, seeing as there are still many composers who draw inspiration from Verdi.

3) Thallo, come on, don't provoke. Never heard of "total opera"? Wagner knew something about it... I believe so, it was part of his thought. The union of multiple art forms in a "popular" genre, where do you see it today? I believe in Cinema. Wagner was not just "continuous melody" but also "continuous narration", you know it as well as, if not better than, me. Where were the interruptions? End of the first act! Well, describe the narration of any film to me and tell me where the interruptions are. Then maybe, at your house, films are divided into "arias", "duets", "cavatines" and maybe "recitatives". You understood the sense of this nice provocation... theatricalized! :-)

Wagner never made popular operas. Maybe you don't know it, but I see that the doubt of not knowing things doesn't bother you, but "Parsifal", Wagner's opera that you find today on iTunes and at Ricordi, was performed for the first time in Bayreuth in 1882 and FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ANOTHER THEATER in 1914. Wagner had forbidden its performance in theaters other than his sacred Festspielhaus ... but I imagine that "the people" ALL went to Bayreuth in those years

And you also understood the sense of what I told you, Thallo. I didn't talk to you about dates and chronicles of Narnia; as you can see, there is no... AD after Christ, but only relationships between forms and genres, which naturally bring differences to light.

believing that Platonic forms exist outside of time is typical of composers :-) and then you talk to me about how musicologists adapt history...

Look, I cannot dispute anything you have said because it is true. The problem is that you continue to deny the evidence.

Thallo, I am not against opera or against theater; I am simply saying that it is a "dead" genre in the sense that if you want, you can attend a production of an opera from the past, but demanding one today doesn't work because, I repeat, its legacy has been taken up by film music and cinema. While in the past the authorship of an opera was associated with the composer, today the authorship of a film belongs to the director; at the same time, while film scoring has established itself in a certain way, it is clear that the composer will be known for that specific soundtrack, period. Studies have been done on this, go and read Sergio Miceli. Go and read the essays on film music, on its origins. It is useless to talk about applied music of the past if one does not know that of the present.

That being said, I should clarify that I have nothing against musicologists; this is an assumption of yours.

But then I say (without wanting to gloss over an interesting discussion about opera), what does Vacchi have to do with it?? This is my opinion; perhaps in 20 years it will change (long live the evolution of thought). That being said, if you think differently than I do... amen, I respect you, I just don't agree.