simply saying that it is a "dead" genre in the sense that if you want, you can attend a staging 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 the work was associated with the composer, today the authorship of the film belongs to the director;
Aside from the fact that I remember Morricone and others and not the directors of the films they scored, if what you claim is true, from my point of view, art music is also dead, since music, through globalization, has shifted towards large numbers... which we all know have different requirements compared to the fine palates of the academic world.
Feldman wrote:
at the same time, if commentary music has established itself in a certain way, it is clear that the composer will be known for that specific soundtrack, period.
Morricone is not remembered for "a soundtrack, period." But there are many others.
Feldman wrote:
But then I say (without wanting to gloss over an interesting discussion about opera), what does Vacchi have to do with it??
... if he has written operas? Yes.
Anyway, I am not sure that it deserves all this attention, otherwise posts would have poured in"
I repeat that YOU started the discussion on opera. You cannot spout "nonsense" and expect no one to respond...
Regarding the hypothetical "functions" of film music and operatic music, I would like to remind you that opera does not comment on a dry fig [meaning: it doesn't comment on trivialities]. Or rather, the evolution of operatic writing has led music to greatly diversify its own "narrative" role. The possibility of commenting on or supporting an action on stage is only one of the possible functions of operatic music. The main function has always been to integrate singing, which is almost never present in film music.
When the first episode of "The Hobbit" trilogy was released, last year I think, I got extremely angry precisely because of this. In the film, there are many moments where the dwarves sing—moments present in the book that are part of the actual action (diegetic music)—but their voices are absorbed by the soundtrack, just as if it were a musical, making the effect absolutely "extra-diegetic." I called it the "Glee effect," which is then the Operetta effect: the idea, that is, that the action should be acted out and the lyrical reflection can be sung. This automatically transforms that film into a musical film, something that in my opinion makes no sense, but which depends precisely on a misunderstanding of how the soundtrack is treated. In a fully set Opera, the issue is even more radical because there is no distinction between a "non-musical" diegesis and a "musical" diegesis. Diegetic music exists in opera ( "La donna è mobile" is a song sung by the Duke of Mantua, for example), but in fact, extra-diegetic music does not exist, because singing always occurs on stage.
This is a fundamental difference between film music and musical theater.
V
Videoclip
Member
Reply 23 by Videoclip
Posts
140
thallo wrote:
When the first episode of "The Hobbit" trilogy was released, last year I think, I got extremely angry specifically because of this. In the film there are many moments where the dwarves sing, moments present in the book, which are part of the actual action (diegetic music), but their voices are absorbed by the soundtrack, just as if it were a musical, making the effect absolutely "extra-diegetic". I called it the "Glee effect", which is then the Operetta effect, the idea, that is, that the action should be acted out and the lyrical reflection can be sung. This automatically transforms that film into a musical film, something that in my opinion makes no sense, but which depends precisely on a misunderstanding of the treatment of the soundtrack.
I say, where is the problem? Classification?
In the end it was produced and broadcast, it had an audience... take it as a form of contamination
yes, it's probably a very post-modern thing. Those who handled the audio must have been thinking EXACTLY of the Glee effect, which is immediately recognizable to the ear, and it's very likely that the target audience for that film has a lot in common with the target audience of Glee. From my point of view, however, as an artistic choice it is inconsistent, even compared to the rest of the film and the book it is based on. But anyway, that's another discussion...
But in the end, did you like this Vacchi or not...? I don't dislike the things posted here at all.........
T
Tiger
Member
Reply 26 by Tiger
Posts
447
geppino12575 wrote:
But in the end, did you guys like this Vacchi or not...? I don't dislike the things posted here at all.........
For me yes, as long as the voice isn't set
A
aaa
Member
Reply 27 by aaa
Posts
78
geppino12575 wrote:
But in the end, did you like this Vacchi or not...?
I did not express an opinion of taste because the question was of a different nature
Feldman wrote:
he was one of the first Italian composers to focus on the perceptive, expressive and emotional aspect in music during the '70s, at the height of the avant-garde.
Honestly, he seems like an uninfluential composer in the evolution of music history to me, even though I find his proposed pieces very musical. To put it briefly, I like them just as I would like a good tonal or modal piece.
I doubt, however, that Feldmann is interested in an opinion in these terms, which is why I hadn't written anything.)
Why should a judgment of taste not matter? The author asks: "What do you think of Fabio Vacchi?" In my opinion, the most concrete response is to start from a like or dislike and then provide arguments; the discussion regarding what importance he has held in Italian music historiography comes in a second moment, in my view.
A
aaa
Member
Reply 29 by aaa
Posts
78
I agree, but the premise had left me a bit "disarmed"
he was one of the first Italian composers to focus on the perceptive, expressive, and emotional aspect of music during the '70s, in the midst of the avant-garde.
mmhmm
V
Videoclip
Member
Reply 30 by Videoclip
Posts
140
geppino12575 wrote:
The most concrete answer, in my opinion, is to start from a like or dislike and then provide arguments; the discussion regarding what importance it has held in Italian musical historiography comes in a second moment, in my view.
Holy words, the relationships between music and music history are just a detail. Better "old" music that communicates than "new" music that says nothing
I understand, for you is this [song] by Vacchi old or new music? Does it communicate something to you or not...?
V
Videoclip
Member
Reply 32 by Videoclip
Posts
140
geppino12575 wrote:
for you, is this one by Vacchi old or new music?
In the '70s there were already other composers seeking expressiveness despite the inevitable contaminations from avant-garde music. Even a traditionalist like Britten was affected...
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.
A couple of days ago, Raffaele Grimaldi's third post regarding music and theater was released. Reading it, I couldn't help but think back to our discussion
A couple of days ago, the third post by Raffaele Grimaldi regarding music and theater was released. Reading it, I couldn't help but think back to our discussion.
"Musical theater could therefore become an increasingly powerful, intermedial, and synesthetic art, in which imagination, dream, and memory become the theater of reality, within the alchemy of the word, of human relationships, of today. It could increasingly open its doors to our sensitivity and shake those capacities for enjoyment and understanding of the human being.
In this sense, even criticism could open up more and benefit in terms of intellectual freshness, or perhaps, finally, undergo a necessary process of cultural rejuvenation."
... I didn't quite understand where he is trying to go with this.
