Paisiello: Nina - Act I Finale

as usual, I think it is excessive to spout nonsense like this. La Nina pazza per amore has meant great changes in musical theater, even if, from what I know, it is somewhat set aside today. Much of the novelty of Nina has to do with the theme, with the 'larmoyant' comedy (the comedy in which one does not laugh but cries, like Elisa di Rivombrosa...) and the so-called piece à sauvetage (the drama in which a poor young girl is saved), all concepts that philologically have problems, since they did NOT originate in the 1700s but are quite common throughout the centuries. Paisiello sets these themes to music with a continuous and boring 6/8, and I must say that this boredom comes through from the listening [link] you posted, but it would be interesting to talk about the hundreds of musical and stylistic errors made by the company; guys, the 1700s are not sung like that!

Speaking of the 1700s... Nina is from 1789, Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro is from 1786, and it is often said that everything that will come in Nina and in subsequent middle-character comedies is contained in THIS piece

a minute-and-a-half piece that is considered an absolute masterpiece. It seems to be the only piece in a minor key in the entire opera, and in the most typical Neapolitan tradition (that of villanellas and moresche), when Barbarina speaks of something she has lost, there is probably a double entendre, or at least Mozart wants us to perceive it ;-)

Paisiello's score should be found, but I dare to doubt from the start that the writing of any of his pieces is even minimally comparable to Mozartian writing... in the Nina piece you linked, I don't find anything special...

Open content (youtube)

Thallo, I was asking for opinions specifically on the forum, and yet as I was saying, I find it very innovative and among your initial lines I seem to read what I had in mind... at least I am not the only one

compared to what do you find it innovative? :-) I am already happy that there is someone else talking about opera. But that period of opera history is still largely unknown. In the sense that theaters let us hear very little, the historians who deal with it are hyper-specialized and often little known, and in all this we are victims of the shadow of the greats, meaning we see the history of opera as "directed" (first there is Monteverdi, then there is Handel, then there is Mozart, and everything in between serves to fill the gaps).

Therefore, even my considerations are very partial.

Nina is an incredible opera. It anticipates Bellini's La Sonnambula by a few decades; there are evident parallels, for example in the use of the chorus (intended precisely as a mass of people), which I also believe was a revelation. Besides, Paisiello is viewed with too much condescension... without him, 19th-century lyric opera would not have been the same!

LucianoP wrote:

Nina is an
incredible opera. It anticipates Bellini's La Sonnambula by a few decades; there are evident parallels, for example in the
use of the chorus (strictly understood as a mass of people),

Bellini's La Sonnambula is not a
revolutionary opera, quite the contrary. Much less so in the
use of the chorus... anticipating it doesn't mean much, I don't know if I can explain myself. Then, tastes are tastes, obviously. But in that chaos that is the 18th-century operatic scene, there are too many little-known figures, such as Piccinni or Gluck

Speaking of Piccinni. I correct what I said in my previous message by saying that it is to him that the "award" for the birth of larmoyant comedy in opera should be assigned, with Cecchina

thallo wrote:

But in that maelstrom that is the operatic 1700s, there are too many little-known characters, like Piccinni or Gluck

There will be at least "a thousand thousand" interpretations of 111, on YouTube. And only two of this music:

why?

In my opinion, there is only one explanation: the stupidity and ignorance of people

Open content (youtube)

BackSpace... not to mention that this music has such a modern singability... there really are no excuses for ignoring such a masterpiece (as is the case with all of Paris and Helen, from the first to the last note)