Is opera a kind of literature?

[Brasil]

Music and literature were born together.
The ancient greek poems (lyrics) were written to be sung, not read, and that's literature (ex: hymn, ode, ecloga...)
In Middle Age, the rondo, the song, the cantiga, the madrigal, the ballad were written to be sung, not read, and that is literature.
The minstrel and trobadours in Middle Age were singers, and that is literature too.

So, what about the opera? It was based uppon literature, but it's sung.
Could we define opera as a kind of literature?

[JBI]

It is, but very few Librettos are good. The ones Wagner Wrote are excellent, and Hugo von Hofmannsthal's are great (he wrote many for Richard Strauss). However, Puccini's libretti all seem to be mediocre at best (he had a love of taking popular pulp fiction and turning it into an opera) and Verdi's are hit miss (the one he used for Otello I find to be a work of art). The La Ponte libretti Mozart used weren't bad, but I would not go as far as to say they deserve reading on their own.

Opera is essentially a musical play, but all the bad ones have been sifted out over the years, and the music and not the play are central (with the exception perhaps of Wagner). Because of this, opera tends to be melodramatic, and doesn't work the same way as literature. It is a narrative told in many voices, hypothetically, and therefore doesn't really work the same way as other sung poetry.

Lieder perhaps is the better counterpart to what you are looking for. That is actually sung poetry.

[JCamilo]

Music and Literature didn't born together at all. Literature was only born when the written word was invented and the oral world (those of the oral storytellers and musicians) existed for a considerable amount of time before the first written word.
Some oral narratives are the source of the first artistic texts and poetry are written so they could also be read but they are not the same thing (otherwise why giving it a new name). When a text is created for paper they obey rules and have an structure that is different from music, even if they are similar. You may call the libretos and all the other writen support of music of literature, since they are written text, but Opera is music. It is not the libretos.

[Brasil]

For JBI

Hamlet is theatre.
Theatre must to be played and seen, not read.
Opera is sung theatre.
So, if Hamlet is literature,
Opera is sung literature.

I love Verdi, Mozart and Bizet. I don't think any libretto is mediocre.
It's a personal taste thing. Very easy say "this is good or this is bad"
You must analyse not to judge.


That's my oppinion.

Thanks for sharing yours.

[JCamilo]

For JBI

Hamlet is theatre.
Theatre must to be played and seen, not read.
Opera is sung theatre.
So, if Hamlet is literature,
Opera is sung literature.

No, what is literature is the script of Hamlet. Hamlet the play is not literature at all. There is a difference here.

[Brasil]

...some British university, in a Literature course, was studing the words of a Lennon/McCartney song (Norwegian Wood by the Beatles).

I don't remember exactly where it was, I read about this a long time ago.
I found that great, cause a love the Beatles.

So, if a popular song can be taken as literature, why not opera?


The best aria for me is Vesti la Giubba by Ruggiero Leoncavallo, from the opera I Pagliacci. I prefer this one sung by Pavarotti.

Originally Posted by JCamilo:
"what is literature is the script of Hamlet. Hamlet the play is not literature"

Correct!

Follow me:
The script (of Hamlet) is literature, but the play is theatre.
So, the libretto (of a music) is literature, but the act is opera.
So, the word (of a song) is literature, but the song is music.
It is logic! There is no difference, at all.

[JCamilo]

The written text of the song is literature. The Song is Music. This is the difference. Opera is the music, not the text that is just a support for the show. Any text is literature, you can consider your paycheck literature, your super-market list literature, the phone list literature. Almost all arts have supports from other arts.

[JBI]

Wow, that isn't ignorant. Of course some libretti are mediocre, even the writers themselves have admitted as much. It is irrelevant however if the composer is excellent. Puccini's music is amazing, and he is one of the most preformed opera composes in the world. That doesn't stop his libretti from being mediocre. It just means his music is beautiful.

Many Hamlet operas surfaced, many even with changed endings to make them "happy". Some of them are still preformed today, as are other opera adaptations. As literature, they are mediocre in comparison to Shakespeare's version. As operas they perhaps are beautiful for their musicality.

We are talking about evaluating opera as literature, not as music here. In which case, we learn from examining the libretti (which I have done for many at length, and am still doing, since I am trying to learn Italian and it is somewhat a good way) and I can attest to the fact, that as poetry, or drama, if read and not listened to, those libretti are rubbish. If you want me to quote, I have about 50 of them in front of me and would gladly back it up.

[kasie]

For JBI

Hamlet is theatre.
Theatre must to be played and seen, not read.
Opera is sung theatre.
So, if Hamlet is literature,
Opera is sung literature.

I love Verdi, Mozart and Bizet. I don't think any libretto is mediocre.
It's a personal taste thing. Very easy say "this is good or this is bad"
You must analyse not to judge.


That's my oppinion.

Thanks for sharing yours.

I agree, Brasil, that Hamlet is theatre and should be seen performed - but it can be read, appreciated, enjoyed and studied as text, without a performance. It may lose a certain something in the process but all that is essentially Hamlet is there in the reading.

An opera on the other hand loses a great deal in just being read - you can read the words and, if your musicianship is good, you can 'hear' the music in your inner ear. However I doubt if you can 'hear' the full musical effect of soloists, chorus and orchestra just by reading the score. For that, you need a full production. I was never more aware of this than when I saw Eugene Onegin recently - Tchaikovsky makes the orchestra another character, not just accompanying the singers but underlining, echoing and expanding the emotional content of their singing.

Also I feel that when an operatic composer takes an existing literary work as the basis for an opera, all he is really doing is plundering it for its plot and characters, rarely for its language. I saw Falstaff recently (the day after Eugene Onegin in fact - I had a little opera fest!) and saw The Merry Wives of Windsor recently as well and it seemed to me that only the characters and the barest outline of plot had been transferred from one to the other.

As to whether a libretto is good or bad, I think it is possible to say 'This libretto could be better - it does not do the story or characters justice, it is not of the same calibre as the music.' Also, I think very few libretti stand alone - they need the music to give them any sort of stature.

[PeterL]

Literature is the written word.Whether one sings it or reads it silently doesn't change that. But literature was not born at the same time as song. The oldest known work of literature is from 2100 BCE, and it is thought to have been originally written a few centuries earlier. It is not unlikely that people have been singing in some form for several hundred thousand years, almost as long as people have been speaking.

[JCamilo]

Originally Posted by JCamilo:
"what is literature is the script of Hamlet. Hamlet the play is not literature"

Correct!

Follow me:
The script (of Hamlet) is literature, but the play is theatre.
So, the libretto (of a music) is literature, but the act is opera.
So, the word (of a song) is literature, but the song is music.
It is logic! There is no difference, at all.

Yes or No, i am not sure what you mean, but there is difference between music and literature and all the rest (maybe you mean there is no difference between opera and theatre, and it should not since Opera is a form of dramatization as well) . Even when we got oral storytellers - even the modern storytellers - they need to adapt the text for an oral performance. Sometimes the difference is considerable, sometime it is just subtle. Try to get an oral storyteller using his expression to convey pain while presenting a writen comedy - the perception of the public will change with that. The same goes for music and text, a one can see in the movie and the manipulation of the music in the scenes. The tunes will change the perception of the audience and all artwork is about manifestation.
Heck, even Marshall McLurham will tell you that the difference of media can change the message.

[Brasil]

Kasie:
"An opera loses a great deal in just being read" - Yes, I agree.

"Hamlet is theatre and should be seen performed, but it can be read" - Yes, it can be read, but it is not to be read.

Hamlet loses a great deal in just being read (ask an actor or director)

You can read, it is possible and a good thing to do. But loses the "magic" of the permormig act.

JBI,
You're very kind, but...
I disagree, I think it is your oppinion saying "it is rubbish... it's mediocre"
I not share the same oppinion and I'm talking about literature too.

JCamilo:
"The written text of the song is literature" - Yes, that's what I've been tell you at the thread "Brazilian Literature".

Now I've convinced you that Cazuza and Renato Russo are literature too?
Even you do not apreciate them, but they are composers, they write words and songs, they make rhymes and metres, etc... so they are poets.

Lennon is poet, Jim Morrison is poet, why not Russo?

[jgweed]

A libretto or a poem set to music, if taken by itself, may be called literature, even great literature. But these words, when paired with music, take on a completely different existence, and are transformed by the immediate communication of the music itself. One has only to think of Beethoven's Ninth, or Das Lied von der Erde, or the end of Rosenkavalier, or Handel's Amen in the Messiah to realise that what we have is not sung literature, but an entirely different and transcending experience.
Opera is opera, and thank heaven it is.

[kasie]

[QUOTE=Brasil;569531]Kasie:


"Hamlet is theatre and should be seen performed, but it can be read" - Yes, it can be read, but it is not to be read.

Why should you not read it? A performance is a rare occasion, over in a matter of a few hours, reading the text can take place whenever you want it. By all means aspire to see a performance, it will enrich your life and live in your memory for ever, but don't cut yourself off from the drama by refusing to read it because it is 'not the real thing'.

Hamlet loses a great deal in just being read (ask an actor or director)

Yes, of course, but in reading the text, you can go back and re-read, study and ponder, which you can't do in a performance which is taking place in real time. And this familiarity will enhance your enjoyment of the next performance you are fortunate enough to see.

You can read, it is possible and a good thing to do. But loses the "magic" of the permormig act.

Can't argue with that, Brasil! But I still want to read the text - before and after a play, if it's something as meaty and thought-provoking as the Bard!

You could say that a recording of an opera is not as good as 'the real thing' - I'd have to agree but I want to know more about (for example) Eugene Onegin which I am very unlikely to be lucky enough to see again, at least not in the near future, so I will be looking out for a recording of it so that I can absorb more of its essentials - the fusion of words and music - over several re-playings.

[JCamilo]

Kasie:


JCamilo:
"The written text of the song is literature" - Yes, that's what I've been tell you at the thread "Brazilian Literature".

Now I've convinced you that Cazuza and Renato Russo are literature too?
Even you do not apreciate them, but they are composers, they write words and songs, they make rhymes and metres, etc... so they are poets.

Lennon is poet, Jim Morrison is poet, why not Russo?

Lennon is not a poet, Jim Morrison, except for the few books when he tried to be a poet, was not a poet. Cazuza and Renato Russo neither (that have nothing to do with status). They are musicians. Their lyrics are created to be alive while sung. Sometimes the music was even before the lyrics. (Reckonizing then as poets have nothing to do with saying they are good or not - Lou Reed, Lennon, Buarque all are good musicians but not poets.)
But you are wrong - I never said the words of their music is not literature, I said they are not poets. They are musicians and I think you not being fair with them - They fought hard to be good musicians and yet you are trying to say they did something else (being poets). Almost like calling Hitchcook a comic illustrator just because you can see his movies in the storyboards.
They write songs (and not songs and words, just songs) that use devices used by poetry, but what they do is something else (in fact, rythim and metric is something poems borrowed from music).

[Brasil]

"...storytellers need to adapt the text for an oral performance. Sometimes the difference is considerable, sometime it is just subtle" - yes, I agree

but the written language born (comes) from the oral language, never the opposite.

Written language is just a part of the oral language.
When you speak you can say every word we have in written language.

Therefore, oral language can be literature.
And it really was at the past, the madrigal, the cantiga, etc... so why not today? I don't see any difference!
People recite poems. To recite a poem is a literary performance. Does it need to be read? No!


jgweed,
"Opera is opera" - I agree.

And theatre is theatre!

But what is opera?
A musical and theatrical performance.
If you decide to read the words from the libretto, it's literature.

What is Hamlet?
A theatrical performance.
If you decide to read the words from the script, it's literature.

What is "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"?
A musical rock album by the Beatles.
If you decide to read the words from the songs, it's literature.

Furthermore, literature can be oral.

Camilo, you've said:
"Cazuza and Russo...Their lyrics are created to be alive while sung"
This is your own personal oppinion. Don't put millions of fans against you.
Although you do not like, they are poets (they write words).
Words of a song is literature, it is poem with rhyme and metre, it does not make difference if it is sung, spoken, recited or read.

Hitchcook does not make his own storyboards. So, he is not a comic ilustrator.
Renato Russo makes the words of his songs. He writes the words, his own words, sometimes before it becomes song. It makes him a poet.

Literature can be performed, read, told or sung.

kasie
Do not worry, you can read the text and you must to read, it is a good thing.
But it "loses the deal" as you said.
Try to see the act, but keep reading as well.
I am just trying to say: the same you think about Hamlet (theatre) is for opera.

[PeterL]

"...storytellers need to adapt the text for an oral performance. Sometimes the difference is considerable, sometime it is just subtle" - yes, I agree

but the written language born (comes) from the oral language, never the opposite.

Written language is just a part of the oral language.
When you speak you can say every word we have in written language.

Therefore, oral language can be literature.
And it really was at the past, the madrigal, the cantiga, etc... so why not today? I don't see any difference!
People recite poems. To recite a poem is a literary performance. Does it need to be read? No!


Many people make the mistake of thinking that written language is part of the same communication system as spoken language, but that is a common misunderstanding. In fact, spoken and written languages are two different semiotic systems. While people commonly translate directly from one to the other, that isn't always true and is not really possible for hieroglyphic and pictographic writing systems, because the symbols in such languages do not represent the sounds or syllables of the spoken language; they represent things. I don't believe that anyone has really investigated the mater yet, but some people even think that the experience of reading a pictographic language operates in a different part of the brain.

[JCamilo]

Exactly, there is many alphabets that are not just representation of sounds and not every symbol we use in the western alphabet belongs to writen language (you do not use -,:,etc).
Scientifically speaking the change of media (oral to writen) will produce a different form of communication, the similarities cann't trick you.

Brasil:



but the written language born (comes) from the oral language, never the opposite.

That is also not true. There is a good ammount of words, expressions and products were born in the writen word and moved to the oral word. The languages are dynamic system not enclosed by media.


Written language is just a part of the oral language.

That is a non-sense. Writen can not be oral. Any serious research of the matter will put apart the two universes even because the cultures they represent are very different. By the way, the audio-visual language is different, the cyber language is different, etc.



When you speak you can say every word we have in written language.

Not really. Some alphabets are so graphic that they are not even "words" and they are a writing system.


Therefore, oral language can be literature.

It is almost a matter of honor for researches of oral culture to be separated from literature because Oral Language can have their own life and predated the writen word.
They are different, different system, different cultures, different forms of preservation. You also study them apart because a text is different from an oral preservation.
Since you are brazilian I invite you to (i hope it is not against this site rules), visit the homepage of the cultural institute where I work :www.aletria.com.br devoted to study and preservation of oral culture. I am not talking from otter space, the study of the difference between both is part of my daily work.


And it really was at the past, the madrigal, the cantiga, etc... so why not today? I don't see any difference!

Do you see the difference between Cinema and Painting?
Anyways, between Virgil (a total written world poet) and Homer (a transitory poet)?


People recite poems. To recite a poem is a literary performance. Does it need to be read? No!

That is the difference, minor but it is: A Song is writen to work with sounds, so it is whole is when it is sung. A poem is full just with the graphics in the paper. Some poems (concrete poems or Mallarme) can not even be recited without losing the graphic power. It is live primary in the text; that does not mean a song does not have poetic vallue. Many songs have. But they are different. (I think you confund the fact that I find little vallue on Russo and Cazuza as if I do not see vallue in any text of a song. I do. Aguas de Março is almost perfect, but it is a music, not a poem)



Furthermore, literature can be oral.

No, read what you said, man. In all examples you had to "read" to make them literature. Reading is not an oral act. I suppose what you are trying to say is that something that is expressed in the Orality can also be expressed in the writen world.


Camilo, you've said:
"Cazuza and Russo...Their lyrics are created to be alive while sung"
This is your own personal oppinion. Don't put millions of fans against you.

The wisdow of the many... ai, ai. It is not my opinion - They released songs with those works, not books. They called themselves musicians. That is their opinion.


Although you do not like, they are poets (they write words).
Words of a song is literature, it is poem with rhyme and metre, it does not make difference if it is sung, spoken, recited or read.

That is a stubborn opinion. Poets are not those who write words. Words of a song writen may be literature but not a poem, it still the song's words.
Poem is not something with rhyme and metre and music is something with rhyme and metric. It does make a difference. If someone writes music, you do not call him a poet, you call him a musician. Just like you do not call a policeman, lawyer, although both work with law.


Hitchcook does not make his own storyboards. So, he is not a comic ilustrator.

Hitch did some of his storyboards. Who do you want next, Kubrick? Fellini?


Renato Russo makes the words of his songs. He writes the words, his own words, sometimes before it becomes song. It makes him a poet.

Dude, Poet - something who write poems. Let me quote you: words of his songs. Who write songs? open a dictionary and see: musicians.


Literature can be performed, read, told or sung.

Yes, so? Music can be read, but still music. An Art on her own. What is the problem of having the merit to be a musician? Why do you need to seek a merit that he never conquered? Do you understand that even a superior music writer like Chico Buarque if reduced to a poet status will be a minor poet? While as musician he is one of the greatest? Do you understand that having to consider - like Russo did - that his words are going to be followed by a guitar, drummer, etc changed his options while writing, because a word that would fit a poem could sound clumsy when sung? Do you understand that while you can recite a poem, this is not the same a singing and there is musical notes, different that you can use in every word ?Renato Russo considered it while writing because he was a musician and you insist and reduce his work to be something you he was not.

[Brasil]

- PeterL: "I don't believe that anyone has really investigated the mater yet, but some people even think that the experience of reading a pictographic language operates in a different part of the brain."

- True! I've read about semiotic


But literature is the verbal communication, we must not consider pictographic language as literature.


What is art: any human expression with the purpose of telling a message and bring feelings, any kind of feelings. There are 6 arts.

music: is a constant sound with melody and rhythm variations making harmony. To be music does not need words, just sounds. A musical alarm can bring feelings to you, but the purpose is not it.
Music do not need to tell a message, just feelings

literature: any kind of verbal communication with the purpose of telling a message and bring feelings. An autobiography can bring feelings, but it is not the main purpose.
The book is not art, actually, art is the thing that the book tells and the feelings that it brings. Letters (a, b, c, d) is not literature, actually, literature is the thing that the letters tells and the feelings that it brings.
Literature can be narrated (epic), sung (lyric) or performed (dramatic) and also read.

theatre: is acting to everyone who knows it is acting. To tell lies is not theatre cause the one who listen do not know you are acting. Don't need words to be theatre, it can be just mime.

painting: any drawing with the purpose of telling a message. The cavermen's painting is art, do not need to bring feelings, just tell a message. But it must be purposital.

sculpture: any material maniputalion (res extensa) with the purpose of art when can not be used as a tool.

architecture: any building maniputalion with the purpose of art when can not be used as a tool but only to give beauty to the building.

Mix of arts
dance: can be art when it has the purpose to be it. So, it is acting with music. But sometimes can be just for fun and not for art.
song: is music with literature
opera: song (music and literature), theatre and achitecture.
photography: painting made by a modern instrument, the camera. When the photoghaphy has the purpose of art, it is art. The technique (oil, sand, etc) and the method (brush or camera) does not matter to be art.
cinema: photography with movement, song (music and literature), theatre and achitecture

Sciences (not art):
Grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, etc...

[JCamilo]

Dude I have no idea where you got those but we have more than 6,7,8 arts... (And not as much science as you claim).

1 - We have pictographic writing systems. Not all writing systems are composed by "words".
2 - Even the old greeks reckonized more than 7 arts. Dance is an art on their won and Opera and Song are products of Music, not something apart. You are refusing to notice that the various art trade among themselves techiniques and systems. So, Dance use music, Cinema use photography and music, etc.
3 - Not every verbal system is Literature. The word means "writen letter", vocal systems are an art apart and older than literature.
4 - Lyric is not "sung" in literature. Epic poetry also was meant in the past to be recited, philosophic texts as well. Your deffinition defy the fact that moderm poets also wrote lyric poetry that was not meant to be "sung" at all.
5 - Science have a broader meaning that you must define with care. Your list seems to belong to the first milenium.
6 - The main purpose of an autobiography is bring feelings or information. You pick.

Art is not any human expression to bring a message and feelings (you should symplify and consider feelings as part of any message). Watch any telejournal, they transmit a message and bring feelings. Any propangada and they are not art. You forget the main difference that make art, art, which is not the feeling or the message, but beauty, in other word : it is what uses aesthetical approach. You can not define art properly without making the reference to the need to have an aesthetical merit.

[Brasil]

"The languages are dynamic system not enclosed by media".
- So why you make critics when some writer use a different system. Just because he does not know the grammar as well as you, it does not means he is awful writer.

Literature can also be reading, but not necessarily must to be written thing. Since past times till today that is the way it is.

audio-visual language is a mix of arts. Cyber language can be literature, but not necessarily literature must to be a written thing. Not only written things are literature. Do not need a book to be literature. Cordel is literature. Do not need to be written to be literature. Cantiga is literature.

I agree with the most things you say, actually oral and written are different things, but we can not deny that the writtings are a necessity born from the oral language.

Some literature are necessarily in the paper and can not exist outside the paper. Brazilian Concretismo, for example, depends of the graphics to be a poem. But literature is not just Concrestismo, that style is only one style.

Song: the sound is not literature, it is music. But the words yes it is literature.

Any musician who writes words is poet too. It does not need to be in a book.
Renato Russo was a musician, he played guitar, bass, piano, etc, and he wrote musics. I know what is a musician, I am musician too. And I am poet too, cause I write words. Some words become songs, some just remain as poetry. Some has rhymes, some not.
The same thing is Russo. He wrote poems to be sung while the music was played. So, he was a poet too. What if he published a book with the words that not became a song? Do not need to publish to be a poet.
I know, poem can have metre or not. Music as well. But the words of a song is literature, so he was a poet (and also musician cause he wrote music too).
Music is just the sound, but the words is not music.


If Hitchcook did his own storyboards he is an ilustrator.
He directed movies too, so he is director as well.
What if he wrote the scrypts? How can we call him? I tell you, it is called writer.

Camilo, about you last post I say:
Telejornal, propaganda, etc... can bring feelings but the purpose is different from the art. I was advertising student. Propaganda use art, but the purpose is different, so it is not art. Dance does not exist without music. And autobiography can bring feelings, but it is a consequence, not a purpose. You are making confusion (this is my oppinion) however you have the right to have your oppinion, as I have my right to have my oppinion. So I can define, by the way, that is a traditional definition (how you didn't know it?). Imagine the sacrifice of post references of all I write! This is a forum, not a scientific article. I say references if I judge it necessery.
Define art is a difficult thing to do and now I am exaust, tired, hungry...

Now I ask you a curious thing, please answer it:
In your oppinion, who is the best singer? I am not talking about poetry, literature, etc. I am talking about music now.
In your oppinion, who is the best singer, who has the stronger voice and best interpretation? Between (there are opitions):
Renato Russo
Vinicius de Moraes
Chico Buarque
Tom Jobim
João Gilberto

For everyone in this forum.
Know more about Brazilians musicians (and poets):
Indios, sung by Renato Russo with english subtitles (very rare thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tWc-WBfpVu4

Tom and Chico:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ota5tKjuijo&feature=related

[stlukesguild]

Sometimes JBI can be far too opinionated... but I must admit I agree with him completely in this instance. If anything, it is a unique form of theater, combining numerous arts: the spoken and sung word, music, acting, theatrical staging (costume, stage sets, etc...)... To reduce it merely to a branch of literature makes as much sense as to suggest that we might reduce film to a branch of music because it employs music and sound. Like film... or the "book arts" (think Book of Kells) or a Gothic cathedral, opera employs several art forms in a unique mix that is far better appreciated as a whole than taken in parts. The librettos for most operas are mediocre at best... much like the screen plays for most films... and taken as a separate entity rarely suggest the splendor of the work as a whole. Yes, Wagner's libretto's hold up as literature... as do Hofmannsthal... and to a far lesser degree, da Ponte's... but Puccini was notorious for choosing the most sappy pulp fiction as the sources for his operas and Mozart's Magic Flute ranks among the most retarded libretto's ever. In spite of this, The Magic Flute is an exquisite work of art, as are most of Puccini's operas. In most instances operas or songs do not work well as literature or poetry in their own rite, but demand to be taken in the intended context as a whole work of art. This is equally true of songs as of opera. Schubert's grand masterpiece, Die Winterreise is actually build upon a rather mediocre collection of German poetry... but the composer is able to pull out far more depth and complexity and profundity in his settings of these poems than the works even begin to suggest alone.

[Brasil]

We are "talking" about the differences between Portuguese grammar and English grammar.

I think you would like to join:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=569687#post569687

Certainly you can be helpful there.
Here, in this very forum, the invitation is for every one.

[JCamilo]

"The languages are dynamic system not enclosed by media".
- So why you make critics when some writer use a different system. Just because he does not know the grammar as well as you, it does not means he is awful writer.

Oh, for god's sake. You are such Coelho's fanboy. He was not using a different system or anything. There is a difference between proposing the use of coloquial portuguese as he did and doing mistakes and between Rosa's experience with regional language. Plus, I am not against Coelho doing watever he does I just analysed the artistic quality of it.


Literature can also be reading, but not necessarily must to be written thing. Since past times till today that is the way it is.

oh, jesus, stop being stuborn,literature was invented with the writing. The best you get is oral literature, a term that is combated since it is an inversion of vallue and a non-sense.


audio-visual language is a mix of arts.

Jesus, audio-visual language ,is a LANGUAGE.


Cyber language can be literature, but not necessarily literature must to be a written thing. Not only written things are literature. Do not need a book to be literature. Cordel is literature. Do not need to be written to be literature. Cantiga is literature.

Only written things are literature. Jesus, you can even read what you just said a few posts ago ?

But what is opera?
A musical and theatrical performance.
If you decide to read the words from the libretto, it's literature.

Do you notice that you say that you must read the libretto. you only read what is writen. You cann't read sounds!
Of course Cordel is literature. You are sounding very childish - From Camara Cascudo definition of Cordel "...referente aos folhetos impressos". Do you see, PRINTED STUFF. Writen. Or you really do not knew that they used to recite the stanzas to sell the books?
Cantingas is a song, music!


I agree with the most things you say, actually oral and written are different things, but we can not deny that the writtings are a necessity born from the oral language.

Who is denying it. Photography is the origem of Cinema, but Cinema is not photography. I am not my mother and father either, and i was born from them. Literature became a thing own their own.


Some literature are necessarily in the paper and can not exist outside the paper. Brazilian Concretismo, for example, depends of the graphics to be a poem. But literature is not just Concrestismo, that style is only one style.

It is more than enough to show that you can not escape from the paper and use the limited definitions you are using.

Song: the sound is not literature, it is music. But the words yes it is literature.


Any musician who writes words is poet too. It does not need to be in a book.

No, he is a musician. That is what he is.


Renato Russo was a musician, he played guitar, bass, piano, etc, and he wrote musics. I know what is a musician, I am musician too. And I am poet too, cause I write words. Some words become songs, some just remain as poetry. Some has rhymes, some not.


Rhymes, rhymes, I see you have no idea that lyric poetry had no rhymes in the origem, do you ?


The same thing is Russo. He wrote poems to be sung while the music was played. So, he was a poet too. What if he published a book with the words that not became a song? Do not need to publish to be a poet.

No, but soon you can claim he was a painter too, what if he painted stuff and never exposed. So far, I know and you know he only did music. What ifs is not a logical argument.


I know, poem can have metre or not. Music as well. But the words of a song is literature, so he was a poet (and also musician cause he wrote music too).

Dude, he is a writer. He wrote. Who wrote is a writer not a poet because Kafka was a writer and not a poet and he wrote words.

Music is just the sound, but the words is not music.



If Hitchcook did his own storyboards he is an ilustrator.
He directed movies too, so he is director as well.
What if he wrote the scrypts? How can we call him? I tell you, it is called writer.

Screenwriter. Yes. But storyboard is part of the process he used to direct.


Camilo, about you last post I say:
Telejornal, propaganda, etc... can bring feelings but the purpose is different from the art. I was advertising student. Propaganda use art, but the purpose is different, so it is not art. Dance does not exist without music. And autobiography can bring feelings, but it is a consequence, not a purpose. You are making confusion (this is my oppinion) however you have the right to have your oppinion, as I have my right to have my oppinion.

That is even worst... Propaganda does not use art - Propaganda use techniques that Art employs. And yes, the purpose is different, but Your deffinition have nothing to do with the purpose since propaganda does give information and try to provoke a feeling.
Dance does not exist without music ?So what? Dance is not music, it is an artistic expression on her own. Again - Most arts are influenced by other artistic style, that is natural.
Feelings are always a consequence and who are you to say that I didn't wrote the story of my life to make people feel pity about me?
If anything, You are a festival of confusion and lack of information (For example, You have no idea what cordel is for what is seems). And I am not denying your right for opinion, I am poiting that your opinion is not right and you take opinion as the same value as fact.
You do not even is coherent with your conclusions (Pointing book is not literature, rightfully so, but falling to see that Song is a product of music just like a book is a product of literature, just to express your point about a musician being a poet - soon an paiter will be a poet too)


So I can define, by the way, that is a traditional definition (how you didn't know it?).

It is not that I do not know - Your definition of art is not the traditional definition because the traditional definition links arts and aesthetics and you are unable to even mention it. Your defintion seems to belong to Plato and Aristotles time and seems to ignore 3000 years of culture.


Imagine the sacrifice of post references of all I write! This is a forum, not a scientific article. I say references if I judge it necessery.
Define art is a difficult thing to do and now I am exaust, tired, hungry...

So you must accept the basic critics I made and see how your tiredoom is making you say what is not correct.


Now I ask you a curious thing, please answer it:
In your oppinion, who is the best singer? I am not talking about poetry, literature, etc. I am talking about music now.
In your oppinion, who is the best singer, who has the stronger voice and best interpretation? Between (there are opitions):
Renato Russo
Vinicius de Moraes
Chico Buarque
Tom Jobim
João Gilberto

Dude, I am not a 12 years student to play those games of interpretation. The best singer is Elis Regina. The Best musician Tom Jobim. The best artist Vinicius.

[Brasil]

I know this kind of person, unfortunatelly.

You got all undestood, all my posts. But your arrogance does not let you admit it.

You know that (into the list) Renato Russo has the best voice, everybody can see in youtube. But you will never admit it.

The same is about the controversies:
"P. Coelho is bad writer or not" - I try to show that kind of oppinion depends, but you are too cathegoric.

"words of a song is poetry" - I belive I've already proved that in all ways. If you do not want to see, I have my conscience in peace. I like debates, but it has limit too.

The one who write words (for poetry or song), does not matter if it will be sung, read, narrated, etc... is a poet.

Musician writes music. Do you know what mean "partitura", musical notes, musical time, chords?

"audio-visual language ,is a LANGUAGE" - Congratulations, Cabral! You've discovered the Brazil.

You know, and you know very well, the context I said that!
But you want to prove by force your ideas, so you made my posts seems like that, out of context! The same strategy I have seen in other posts of yours.


So, as friends, I wish you all the best.:thumbs_up

[JCamilo]

I know this kind of person, unfortunatelly.

You got all undestood, all my posts. But your arrogance does not let you admit it.

Dude, I am not angry and do not know me. It is your arrogance who defy your own logic (You manage to say that if you listen to a song it is musical appreciation but if you read the words you have literature, but then you insist that literature is not writen, despite your earlier conclusion) and every single time you bring Renato Russo or Paulo Coelho. Are you just upset because I am pointing to them as artists of low quality ?


You know that (into the list) Renato Russo has the best voice, everybody can see in youtube. But you will never admit it.

For god sakes. If you can not get the sarcasm for me with those little games (Interprete this, say who is good or not) because you build up a biased list (despite Joao Gilberto being a superior singer for example, everyone knows his voice is not great) that you wish to be analysed using merits power of voice because any kid know Renato Russo can have a more powerful voice for watever purpose I cann't help you out.


The same is about the controversies:
"P. Coelho is bad writer or not" - I try to show that kind of oppinion depends, but you are too cathegoric.

Again, see. Here is Paulo coelho again.


"words of a song is poetry" - I belive I've already proved that in all ways.

No, the only thing you did is proving that you do not know how to read. Songs are not Poems. Something different than poetry. Fact is I said song uses poetric devices since day one.



If you do not want to see, I have my conscience in peace. I like debates, but it has limit too.

Yes, I suggest you when debating to listen others, to follow logic and use competente sources. Otherwise you will be crying wolf like you are now.


The one who write words (for poetry or song), does not matter if it will be sung, read, narrated, etc... is a poet.

No. Only if you mean all writers are poets. For example, we are writing words here and we are not poets because of that.
If you live in a universe where the definition of poet is : the one that write words then I suggest you to give a Nobel to however writes the telephonic lists. You know, someone wrote words there.


Musician writes music. Do you know what mean "partitura", musical notes, musical time, chords?

Yes, after your amazing display with Cordel do not try to patronize me. As I said a music is composed by more than just lyrics (if any lyrics at all) so, when someone write a music he is doing something different than writing a poem to be writen. Listening all those differences are helping my argument.



"audio-visual language ,is a LANGUAGE" - Congratulations, Cabral! You've discovered the Brazil.

Seriously,how old are you? I mean, you claim a language is art, I have to write this down and pretend to be sarcastic? I am arrogant or you just didn't noticed that you have no idea what a language or a media is?


You know, and you know very well, the context I said that!
But you want to prove by force your ideas, so you made my posts seems like that, out of context! The same strategy I have seen in other posts of yours.

Are you joking, aren't you ? You do the absurd of claiming writen language is part of oral language, I list different languages besides the oral and writen included audio-visual then in the next post, you mix that reply with the reply of another post refering to the definition of art that you posted and I am the one taking it out of context ? You even mixed subjects and I am taking it out of contexts ?
I mean, I was taking out of context when I noticed you have no idea of what a Cordel is??

[Brasil]

Camilo: "I am not a 12 years old student".

- I know!

Camilo: "Poem is something different than poetry"
Camilo: "you have no idea what a language or a media is"
Camilo: "you have no idea of what a Cordel is"


- Maybe, when I get your age I will be as inteligent as you.




Be happy!:)

[Virgil]

I love opera, but I do not consider it literature. It's all trite as far as story and language goes. The power and originality and interest is in the music. Separate the music out and you have nothing.

[Brasil]

"Separate the music out and you have nothing." :(

- Maybe opera loses some attributes when translated to english.

Ma per chi capisce l'italiano le parole sono bellisime!

Opera is pure lyricism!




The same thing is the Portuguese Fado. Perfect, beautiful!!!

[PeterL]

- PeterL: "I don't believe that anyone has really investigated the mater yet, but some people even think that the experience of reading a pictographic language operates in a different part of the brain."

- True! I've read about semiotic


But literature is the verbal communication, we must not consider pictographic language as literature.

No, literature is written language. Oral work is not, and cannot be, literature. When poetry was first written down, it became literature. Today, the onlyoral art is extemporaneous work that was not written down at the time it was presented.

Literature is an art, but that does not mean that it encompasses all arts, nor do all other arts encompass literature.

[JCamilo]

I would say there is oral art with the moderm oral storytellers, although the majority uses some short of record before memorizing.
The thing about Opera is that no art lives in a bubble isolated from the other arts. Take William Blake who considered his illustrations part of the poems or Andre Breton claim that a text should have no narratives and because that he used pictures in Nadja. A Drama always combined his acting with the support of other forms of art, first the oral form, then the text, sometimes music ,dance, etc.
But thinking that makes all arts one art is just being near-sighted.

[jgweed]

Let us say that I wish to go to a performance of Glass' Akhnaten, and I read the libretto before attending; how does this effect (or improve my understanding) of the opera itself?

Now, since I have the time and money, I go to Stravinski's Oedipus Rex. I do the same study of the libretto. How does this effect my understanding of the performance (and why does the narrator tell the story behind the music)?

[Virgil]

"Separate the music out and you have nothing." :(

- Maybe opera loses some attributes when translated to english.

Ma per chi capisce l'italiano le parole sono bellisime!

Opera is pure lyricism!




The same thing is the Portuguese Fado. Perfect, beautiful!!!

I'm sorry Brasil. I disagree with you. All you're proving is how beautiful a language Italian is. (And I think it's the most beautiful language in the world ;) ) An opera singer can sing "Im taking out the garbage" in Italian and it would sound wonderful. That's why most operas are in Italian. It's easy to integrate the sounds of Italian to music. And it goes to show that it's how it sounds (and therefore integrated medium with music) that counts, not the literary ingrediants of the words.

[Nossa]

An opera singer can sing "Im taking out the garbage" in Italian and it would sound wonderful.

:lol: He has to be one hell of a singer to say this and actually amuse people :p
But I agree. I for one think that Arabic is the most beautiful language in the world, but still, I can't see it going anywhere when it comes to Opera. If we say that Opera is a literary genre, then Arabic operas would be good (based on their literary value). It depends mostly on the music, since, as far as I know, some Operas were literary works that turned to Operas later. So basically the judge in the opera isn't based on literary grounds but rather musical ones.
If we consider Opera literature, then we might as well call Ballet literature, since it's, sometimes, based on literary works. Literature means books, or that's how I see it. Anything else adds a new element to that book to make it 'different' from literature, and that's how they get their names and techniques. I'm not sure if that made sense, but hope you get my point.

[Virgil]

I for one think that Arabic is the most beautiful language in the world,

I haven't hread enough Arabic to compare it's inherent beauty with other languages. The little bit I have heard compares favorably. It seems to have a lot of vowels, and vowels are the key for language sounds. I always remember this. Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones (rock group) was asked what was the key to writing songs, and he said, "it's all in the vowels." What makes Italian have the edge over some of the other languages with lots of vowels is that there vowel sounds are disctinct from each other and don't blurr. Apparently that means something to song writers. Perhaps because each syllable is a distinct note. I don't know, I'm not a musician.

[Nossa]

I haven't hread enough Arabic to compare it's inherent beauty with other languages. The little bit I have heard compares favorably. It seems to have a lot of vowels, and vowels are the key for language sounds. I always remember this. Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones (rock group) was asked what was the key to writing songs, and he said, "it's all in the vowels." What makes Italian have the edge over some of the other languages with lots of vowels is that there vowel sounds are disctinct from each other and don't blurr. Apparently that means something to song writers. Perhaps because each syllable is a distinct note. I don't know, I'm not a musician.

Maybe. I'm not an expert on Opera (and haven't heard much of it either) so you might be right. But I remember that there was an attempt (I think in the 40s or the 50s) to make an Arabic Opera, and it failed big time. The singer who was supposed to sing it, was at that time (and still is) the best most famous Arabic singer. Her vocal abilities were compared to an Opera singer called Maria Callas (Whom I'm told was a great Opera singer herself).

If you're interested in listening to Oum Kolthoum (the singer I was just talking about), here's the best YouTube video I could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ8Cu3FJyUk&feature=related

Maybe you can judge from this. But I'm still not sure about Arabic being an Opera language. Maybe if I hear it and judge myself. Who knows.

[JCamilo]

I would say Opera is a wonderful use of Italian language and there is little wonder that Dante managed to be Dante in italian.

Anyways, I think the big problem is the super-generalization, if we transform a song, a opera, a music in literature just because there is a part of the process is writen, we would end having almost no musician - they would all be writers and there would be no music, just literature.
This is a dangerous inversion of vallue, sounds like Music depends on Literature, and we all know that Music came before literature and existed without a single writen symbol for god knows how long.
Today we have a writen society, so almost all art forms have writen register, but that is now.

[Virgil]

Maybe. I'm not an expert on Opera (and haven't heard much of it either) so you might be right. But I remember that there was an attempt (I think in the 40s or the 50s) to make an Arabic Opera, and it failed big time. The singer who was supposed to sing it, was at that time (and still is) the best most famous Arabic singer. Her vocal abilities were compared to an Opera singer called Maria Callas (Whom I'm told was a great Opera singer herself).

If you're interested in listening to Oum Kolthoum (the singer I was just talking about), here's the best YouTube video I could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ8Cu3FJyUk&feature=related

Maybe you can judge from this. But I'm still not sure about Arabic being an Opera language. Maybe if I hear it and judge myself. Who knows.

I can't open the youtube video while at work. They block them. So I'll try to remember when I get home. But if it wasn't successful it may have had to do with lots of other things than the language. They can make a good opera out of any language. Some have mentioned famous German operas in this thread. If you can have a successful opera in german than you can have one in any language. :lol: (Sorry to you German people, I love you guys, but your language isn't sweet to the ear. ;) :p ) For some reason they stopped calling any operas great after the early part of the 20th century. No matter how good it is, even in Italian, then the opera experts look down on it. It's almost a dead art form, except for the old classics. I never really understood why.

[JBI]

Maria Callas was one of opera's greatest sopranos. She was a Greek-American, who was born in New York City. Her name at birth was Maria Anna Sofia Cecilia Kalogeropoulou. Her voice was always controversial, some thinking it not polished enough for opera, others thinking that the lack of polish increased her voice's charm.

Her "classification" was also controversial. She sang coloratura roles as well as mezzo-soprano roles, as her voice was very dramatic and had much warmth. And she did sing everything from the heaviest roles to the very lightest and had tremendous range.

That has nothing to do with literature though. She was even famous for modifying the traditional way dialogue was "sung" during opera to give it a better flow, showing the true floppiness of the writing in opera.

On another note, I just went to see Pelleas and Melisande by Claude Debussy. That opera has no real singing, and is purely in dialogue, with a little bit of orchestra. That is perhaps the best example of opera as literature outside of the idiosyncratic Wagner tradition. The opera itself was based on a play not a libretto, and therefore acts as a play instead of an opera. Even so, if one was to read it as literature, they would most assuredly go for the original play, and not the modified text used by Debussy. Why? because the music changes the literary composition to yield to the sound, and not the meaning, or to the flow, and not the accuracy. The opera itself is about the musical element over the literary element.

That of course, is an exception. And either way, the writing wasn't that great to begin with (wow, Maurice Maeterlinck botched that one, if anyone knows more about him please say something, because based on that, a Nobel prize was not deserved).

[kasie]

kasie[/B]
Do not worry, you can read the text and you must to read, it is a good thing.
But it "loses the deal" as you said.
Try to see the act, but keep reading as well.
I am just trying to say: the same you think about Hamlet (theatre) is for opera.


I think my friends would smile at your reply, Brasil, and say you are preaching to the converted - they give me Theatre Tokens for birthdays and Christmas. I have seen nine plays this year and have three more booked (including Hamlet); last year I saw seven and the year before twelve. Before that I was not able to go to the theatre for many years, so you could say I am now making up for the years when my drama was all read at home. :)

In those three years I have also seen eight operas and hope to see a few more in Welsh National Opera's Autumn season.

[Virgil]

On another note, I just went to see Pelleas and Melisande by Claude Debussy. That opera has no real singing, and is purely in dialogue, with a little bit of orchestra. That is perhaps the best example of opera as literature outside of the idiosyncratic Wagner tradition.

:lol: How can it be called an opera without singing? Leave it to Debussy to do something silly like that. As a side note, Debussy's music has never inspired me. Frankly he's boring, and an opera without singing :lol: sounds incredibly boring. :D

[Virgil]

And I consider French the most beautiful language in the world, ;)
Yeah, but you're biased. Your husband's french. ;)


Oh, my, that hurt, Virgil! LOL I agree that an opera without singing in no opera at all, but I dearly love Debussy. His music is so impressionistic and almost skeletal in its beauty, but it is difficult to play - at least for me. I can manage some of the Russians better than Debussy.

:lol: I'm not a big fan of his music, but some of it is ok. What's prejudiced my opinion of him is his terrible personality. When I learned about his bio, and the way he treated his wife, it made his music seem worse. :lol:

[Taliesin]

Wiktionary gives, among other meanings, the following definitions to the word "play":

1. A literary composition, intended to be represented by actors impersonating the characters and speaking the dialogue.
2. A theatrical performance featuring actors.

Do you understand - there are two different meanings that happen to be homonyms. (because their meaning is quite close)
In Estonian, there are two different words for them, and although people often mix them up, at least more theater-conscious people give them annoyed looks for that.
In my opinion, one of those meanings above is literature, the other is performance (meaning nothing derogatory by the latter, I don't think one is better than another)
So, one thing is a rendering of some opera on the stage which certainly isn't literature and then there is the opera written down which generally isn't much fun to read, unless you are musically so gifted that you can hear the music (of orchestra, choir and solists) in your head just by reading the notes - and anyhow, since the music isn't literature, you just have your written word, the libretto, which, as mentioned before, is usually quite mediocre. But generally people don't care since the music is so good. (I remember a passage in Pratchett's "Maskerade" where a new singer is taught an aria where she complaints how hard it is for her to leave her loved one. Later, someone translates to her the words or the aria, which apparently were "This damn door sticks! This damn door sticks! It is written "Push!" and indeed I am pushing. Perhaps it should be written "Pull"?")


Opera isn't really about words nor plot nor realism. It is actually quite postmodern in nature, in my opinion. I have heard about instances in the previous centuries where opera stars would, after their arias, sing other arias that they liked out of totally different operas, regardless of the plot.

Also I remember, while performing in the choir of a rendering of "Il Trovatore" a scene, where the choir parted in two - some, about ten played the gypsies of Manrico and the others (including Your Humble Narrator) were the soldiers of Count di Luna. There weren't many guns to be used and since the soldiers were nearer to the props-box, Counts men got all the guns, leaving the gypsies unarmed. So, thats' how the scene went: Count and his soldiers (carrying guns) go to a convent to stop Leonora, his loved one, from taking the vows of a nun. As Count is grabbing the arm of Leonora, out jumps Manrico, everyone goes "Aaaaah!" (actually, everyone goes "Aaaaah!", before they even see Manrico), after which the named characters express different kind of emotions, the Count being of course angry, because Manrico is his rival. The soldiers sing that Count should give up, since things aren't certainly looking good for him. (Yes, the enemy leader is in the center of a bunch of armed soldiers, and could technically be shot at any moment, but the Count should give up) Then, bam!, out jump a bunch of unarmed gypsies, shout "Urgel viva!", and run and take away the Counts sword, push him down on the ground while the soldiers (with guns) just watch as it happens and sing: "Sir, what are we to do now?" and after that "You must retreat, sir, since it is clear that you cannot win".
After about four rehearsals of the scene the director understood that it is a bit unrealistic that a bunch of gypsies should scare the hell out of soldiers who have superior numbers, training and arms. He gave the gypsies some knives.:p
Two rehearsals of the scene after we lost our guns, alas! making the performances a bit less absurd. But hey, if a Chinese plays the long-lost brother of an European, whats wrong with a bunch of soldiers armed with guns being afraid of the shout "Urgel viva!" Perhaps, as we theorized, they were carrying bomb-belts or we were out of bullets or "Urgel viva" just being a really scary thing to say, you know, like "Ni!"

[stlukesguild]

I've never heard Pelleas et Melisande but I certainly agree with Antiquarian that he was a marvelous composer. I am especially fond of his works for solo keyboard, his chanson or "art songs" and of course his lovely Impressionistic orchestral pieces such as La Mer.

[byquist]

I'd have to say no, because I could really go for a Verdi opera and not know what the heck they are saying. Songs (opera) may have lyrics, but its the musicality that makes them soar.

[kasie]

When you say Pelleas et Melisande doesn't have any singing, JBI, do you mean it doesn't have any arias? Late Verdi (Falstaff and Otello) doesn't have arias as such either and certainly throws audiences who have come expecting to hear something like Aida or La Traviata.

re: not liking composers because of their private lives - I'm never sure about this. Doesn't the music stand on its own? Don't written works stand on their own, come to that? (Though I must admit it's more difficult to hide attitudes in words than it is in music.) I sang in Carmina Burana some years ago and got a tremendous kick out of singing with several hundred other singers in the Albert Hall - but when a friend remarked sadly that it was a fine bit of music but a pity about Orff's allegience to Hitler, I felt I was expected to feel guilty about the intensely uplifting experience that the performance had been for me. I don't think I'm a closet Nazi.....

I didn't know about Debussy but I'm not sure knowing more about his personal life changes my attitude to his music (wish I could play it better to do it more justice!). Apparently Saint Saens left something to be desired in his social skills but the last movement of his Carnival of the Animals never fails to raise a smile when I feel low and the Organ Symphony could inspire me to move mountains.

[JBI]

No, Falstaff still has singing, as does Otello. Pelleas et Melisande is dialogue. It is like the dialogue spoken in between arias in most operas, except there are no arias. It is a little more musical than play comic dialogue, but not much. Youtube some samples of it if you don't believe me.

This is one of the more musical scenes in the opera, though they all sound pretty similar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5fBDANBmZM as you can tell, it isn't exactly like spoken dialogue, but it isn't really singing the way we think of it. I congratulate it as being a unique art form (the libretto was not powerful enough for me for this art form to really work) but we have, I think run off topic, I just brought that up as a counter-example of more literary opera.

The notes here, if you notice, only are used to punctuate the words, which would imply we are supposed to judge it as a play (in his time, the playwrite who wrote this was well renowned, even winning the Nobel in 1911, though I think his popularity has ebbed with the end of symbolism and marionette theater, and modernist tastes dominating).

Then again, this is somewhat a popular opera, not enjoying the same popularity as a Puccini or Verdi major opera, but certainly not without a fair share of recordings. I guess it probably just isn't really my thing.

I am also not much a fan of Debussy (the things I like most of his tend to be his piano etudes, not his orchestral works) and if this plays again in Toronto, or anywhere that I am at, I probably will not see it. The play, to me at least, just seems very unmoving, with a rather shapeless/directionless plot.

[stlukesguild]

From what I can sense of the Debussy opera it is still singing... but not so much "song". It is dialog or recitative... in a manner not far removed from Wagner... who essentially eliminates the traditional recitative/aria/duet/recitative/aria, etc... structure of older operas. of course Debussy is far less theatrical... and more impressionistic (realistic?) than Wagner. If you want an even greater blurring of song and the spoken word I would suggest Schonberg's Pierrot Lunaire. You can check out one of the more song-like selections here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=157FG8sDMW8

Personally I prefer the great Germans: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Wagner, etc... but I would probably place Debussy at the top of the heap of the French composers (although such may be a dubious honor:rolleyes:) I do agree that the Etudes are among his finest works... especially performed by Mitsuko Uchida... but I would also greatly recommend Walter Gieseking's inimitable recordings of the Preludes, Images, Suite Bergamasque, etc... Again I would also recommend unreservedly Debussy's "chanson" or art songs, including the famous Clair de lune. Dawn Upshaw made a fabulous recording of his works with James Levine.

[stlukesguild]

Speaking of Opera as a form of literature I just came across this:

http://www.danagioia.net/essays/esotto.htm

And this:

http://www.danagioia.net/opera/index.htm

[Virgil]

Speaking of Opera as a form of literature I just came across this:

http://www.danagioia.net/essays/esotto.htm

And this:

http://www.danagioia.net/opera/index.htm

Oh I have heard of Dana Gioa. When i get a little more time I'll read your web links St Lukes.

[stlukesguild]

Joshua Bell and Cecilia Bartoli were two I saw at Salzburg.

I'd certainly love to have heard Cecilia. Joshua Bell...? I've only heard very little by him... and after all... Itzhak Perelman is still alive and probably the undeniable reigning master of the violin. But then I also must admit I tend to follow pianists and singers more than the violin... at least among contemporaries.

[JBI]

You got Bayreuth tickets!! I've always wanted them. How did you get them? just luck, or did you pay big bucks? Also, what did you see?

Brendel is good, but he goes too far out of his repertoire, I find. My favorite pianist has to be Murray Perahia.

Either way, back on topic, Libretto is a genre of literature. The problem with it however, is the good libretto doesn't always lead to a good opera, and a bad libretto can turn into an excellent opera. Therefore, from a literary point of view, you either have to judge the libretto as a text, or not at all. Judging the opera as a form involves judging the music as well, which sets it beyond the boundaries of literature, and into the field of music.

[stlukesguild]

Oh, yes... Brendel:thumbs_up A magnificent pianist. of course Angela Hewitt just performed here (OK... a few miles from here in Oberlin) and she is no slouch... especially when it comes to Bach's Well Tempered Clavier which was the chosen work for her performance.

[JBI]

Hewitt isn't bad when she plays Bach, though when she wanders... It is interesting to see her, as it is with any gifted female pianist. the interpretation is always 'fresher'.

[JBI]

Geez, that's almost the perfect selection of Wagner (my personal preference is The Flying Dutchman over Tannhäuser) That was probably a very memorable time. You got lucky too, most people wait years for tickets. So I guess you can attest now to the beauty of Wagnerian libretti as literature.

[stlukesguild]

Hewitt isn't bad when she plays Bach, though when she wanders...

I find her interpretations of Bach's keyboard works to be among the best... and I'm saying this as a Bach fanatic who owns 4 or 5 versions of most of the major pieces in this repertoire. Sviatoslav Richter's Well Tempered Clavier, for example, is marvelous... but never a first choice... far too Romantic. Of course Glenn Gould is ever a must have... but quite undeniably idiosyncratic. Still I would not be without both of his recordings of the Goldberg Variations. Ralph Kirkpatrick, the great Scarlatti scholar and performer, also provides a fabulous recording of the Well-Tempered Clavier... on clavichord. Andras Schiff and Murray Perahia also have made brilliant recording recently. Of course you might also want to check out Rosalyn Tureck.

[Brasil]

L'amour est un oiseau rebelle
Que nul ne peut apprivoiser
Et c'est bien en vain qu'on l'appelle
C'est lui qu'on vient de nous refuser

(Love is a rebel bird
That no one can tame
And it's in vain that we call him
It's him that just refused us)

Rien n'y fait, menaces ou prieres
L'un parle bien, l'autre se tait
Et c'est l'autre que je prefere
Il n'a rien dit mais il me plait

(Nothing's doing it, threats or prayers
One speaks well, the other shuts up
Et it's the other I prefer
He didn't say a thing but he pleases me)

L'amour, l'amour, l'amour, l'amour
L'amour est enfant de boheme
Il n'a jamais jamais connu de lois
Si tu ne m'aimes pas je t'aime
Si je t'aime prend garde a toi
Si tu ne m'aimes pas
Si tu ne m'aimes pas je t'aime
Mais si je t'aime, si je t'aime
Prends garde a toi

(Love, love, love, love
Love is a bohemian's child
It never knew laws
If you don't love me I love you
If I love you watch out
If you don't love me
If you don't love me I love you
But if I love you, if I love you
Watch out)

[Brasil]

ITALIAN
Nessun dorma! Nessun dorma!
Tu pure, o, Principessa,
nella tua fredda stanza,
guardi le stelle
che fremono d'amore
e di speranza.

Ma il mio mistero e chiuso in me,
il nome mio nessun sapra!
No, no, sulla tua bocca lo diro
quando la luce splendera!

Ed il mio bacio sciogliera il silenzio (derreterá)
che ti fa mia!

(Il nome suo nessun sapra!...
e noi dovrem, ahime, morir!)

Dilegua, o notte!
Tramontate, stelle!
Tramontate, stelle!
All'alba vincero!
vincero, vincero!


ENGLISH
None must sleep! None must sleep!
And you, too, Princess,
in your cold room,
gaze at the stars
which tremble with love
and hope!

But my mystery is locked within me,
no-one shall know my name!
No, no, I shall say it as my mouth
meets yours when the dawn is breaking!

And my kiss will break the silence
which makes you mine!

(No-one shall know his name,
and we, alas, shall die!)

Vanish, o night!
Fade, stars!
At dawn I shall win

[slobone]

Hi, just catching up with this thread, so I'll just put my 2 cents worth in.

Of course it's monstrously unfair to expect an opera libretto to be readable in isolation. A good librettist almost always has to abridge his source material (and most operas are based on pre-existing works) because it takes more time to sing a line than to speak it.

An interesting exception is Strauss's Salomé, which is almost word-for-word the same as Oscar Wilde's play. But as it happens, Wilde's play is almost never performed, while the opera will live forever.

Similarly with Otello. Yes, it's a great libretto, but if you had a choice between attending a staged version of the libretto without the music, or Shakespeare's original play, which would you prefer?

(I once went to a stage performance of Belasco's Girl of the Golden West, which I guess was OK, but all I kept thinking was, gee this would make a great opera.)

And in any event the impact of an opera performance doesn't depend on the libretto, but on some mystical union between word and text. In spite of what a lot of people think, it's never true that the text is of no importance. If the singers were singing "la la la", it would be a really long evening.

You can tell this if you attend a performance of, say, La Traviata in English. No matter how good the translation, the experience just won't be on the same level (I know a lot of people disagree with me on this.)

And if we're evaluating the literary merit of a libretto, we have to look at more than just whether it's beautiful poetry, as with a lied. Plot, pacing, character development are all important components, just as they are in a play.

That's why I think Puccini's librettos are among the greatest ever written (he usually employed whole teams of writers to do them, and he was very demanding.) You can't beat his operas for tightness of pacing, for capturing a character or an emotion in just a few words. Think of the poker game in Fanciulla, or the second act of Tosca, or the love duet in Boheme. If they're performed even halfway decently you'll be on the edge of your seat, and not just because of the gorgeous music.

So no, operas aren't literature, anymore than a painting or a movie or a building is literature. But they can certainly be great art, and the magic won't happen unless the words and music come together in the right way.

[Brasil]

Original (italian):
Recitar!... mentre preso dal delirio
non so più quel che dico
e quel che faccio!
Eppur... è d'uopo... sforzati!
Bah! Sei tu forse un uom?
Tu se' Pagliaccio!
Vesti la giubba,
e la faccia infarina.
La gente paga e rider vuole qua.
E se Arlecchin
t'invola Colombina,
ridi, Pagliaccio, e ognun applaudirà!
Tramuta in lazzi
lo spasmo ed il pianto,
in una smorfia il singhiozzo
e'l dolor - Ah!
Ridi, Pagliaccio,
sul tuo amore infranto.
Ridi del duol che t'avvelena il cor.

English
To perform! In the throes of delirium
I don't know anymore
what I'm saying, what I'm doing!
Still... you must... force yourself!
Bah! Are you a man or not?
You're just a clown!
Put on your costume,
and make up your face.
People are paying, they want to laugh.
And when Arlecchino
takes away your Colombina,
laugh, you clown, and everyone will cheer!
Turn your agony and your tears
into buffoonery,
your sobbing and pain
into a funny grimace - Ah!
Laugh, you clown,
at your broken love.
Laugh at the pain which poisons your heart

For me, personaly, that is the most beautiful lyric in opera. Try to find it sung on youtube.

[JBI]

Hmm in terms of Opera excerpts, one cannot go wrong with Senta's Ballad from The Flying Dutchman by Wagner.

[Brasil]

Original version (Portuguese)
Passar uma tarde em Itapoan
Ao sol que arde em Itapoan
Ouvindo o mar de Itapoan
Falar de amor Itapoan

English translation
Spending an afternoon in Itapoan
Bellow the sun that burns in Itapoan
Listening to the sea of Itapoan
Speaking of love Itapoan

Obs: Itapoan is a Brazilian beach

Obs: See the internal rhyme inside the original version.

By Toquinho (music) and Vinicius de Moraes (poem)
Bossa Nova rhythm

[stlukesguild]

I've been thinking on this question... and on the related issue of the "poetic" merits of songs... and I find that in most cases the librettos or the lyrics simply just do not stand up on their own... as works of literature... but they were not meant to. A good poem or even a work of prose has a "music" all its own... a certain pacing... a certain flow... a beauty to the language... a multifaceted or multi-layeredness that exists within the words themselves. When one merges text with music we have a whole other art form. Lyrics are given a rhythm or structure that they may lack when taken on their own. The success of the expression of emotion, drama, even level of meanings changes when married to music. Schubert's Winterreise is arguably his greatest achievement in the genre of lieder or art song (and Schubert himself is the greatest composer of the same). Where other lieder were composed to poems of Goethe and other major German lyric poets, this work set a cycle of poems by the minor German poet, Wilhelm Müller, to music. The poems are unremarkable on their own... but through Schubert's music they are endowed with an extraordinary tension... emotion... passion... beauty. The same holds true for most works which combine music and words. Puccini's librettos taken on their own are among the absolute worst... often based upon the latest trashy popular novels. It is the music which raises these to such a level. Certainly the words are part of the experience... but the music raises them well above what they offer on their own. In a manner this is not unlike the manner in which a great film maker can take a mediocre work of literature and turn it into a magnificent film... while a mediocre film maker can just as easily butcher the most masterful work of literature. Film, opera, lieder, paintings, Gothic cathedrals, etc... are all unique art forms to be taken as a whole... not split into parts and portions.

[slobone]

I can see from your comments about Puccini that you don't know much about him. Manon Lescaut was based on a classic French novel, La Boheme on a well-loved one. Neither was a recent work by a long shot. Turandot was based on an 18th century commedia del'arte play, via an adaptation by Schiller. Tosca was based on a play by Sardou, which gave Sarah Bernhardt one of her signature roles. Madama Butterfly and La Fanciulla del West were based on plays by David Belasco, which while quite popular weren't particularly trashy.

And anyway, if you find Puccini's operas trashy, I suggest you avoid A Streetcar Named Desire, Macbeth, and Oedipus Rex... not to mention The Sound and the Fury, Lolita, or Madame Bovary.

[JCamilo]

I've been thinking on this question... and on the related issue of the "poetic" merits of songs... and I find that in most cases the librettos or the lyrics simply just do not stand up on their own... as works of literature... but they were not meant to. A good poem or even a work of prose has a "music" all its own... a certain pacing... a certain flow... a beauty to the language... a multifaceted or multi-layeredness that exists within the words themselves. When one merges text with music we have a whole other art form. Lyrics are given a rhythm or structure that they may lack when taken on their own. The success of the expression of emotion, drama, even level of meanings changes when married to music. Schubert's Winterreise is arguably his greatest achievement in the genre of lieder or art song (and Schubert himself is the greatest composer of the same). Where other lieder were composed to poems of Goethe and other major German lyric poets, this work set a cycle of poems by the minor German poet, Wilhelm Müller, to music. The poems are unremarkable on their own... but through Schubert's music they are endowed with an extraordinary tension... emotion... passion... beauty. The same holds true for most works which combine music and words. Puccini's librettos taken on their own are among the absolute worst... often based upon the latest trashy popular novels. It is the music which raises these to such a level. Certainly the words are part of the experience... but the music raises them well above what they offer on their own. In a manner this is not unlike the manner in which a great film maker can take a mediocre work of literature and turn it into a magnificent film... while a mediocre film maker can just as easily butcher the most masterful work of literature. Film, opera, lieder, paintings, Gothic cathedrals, etc... are all unique art forms to be taken as a whole... not split into parts and portions.

That is my whole point, when we try to imply that a given art manifestation is literature, such we are doing with Music (This thread about Opera is not the only one) we are being arrogant and doing a historical mistake. We imply that Music is a derivation of literature, when we know Music existence predates literature existence for god's know how long and that Literature is the one originated from oral experiences (Music included).
Music does not need to be Literature, it is Music and this is enough. We do not need to validate everything by calling it literature.
So, when we got the writen part of a form of Music, and put apart, lot will be lost (just like a movie script does not stand by itself as it is intended to be completed by the acting, photography, music, etc), even when it is a good song writer behind it.

As for being poetry, if we consider, which is only fair, that poetry is some short of language manipulation, then anytime we have the language being used - oral or writen - we can have poetry, not just when talking about literature.

[slobone]

Stlukesguild, I'm not picking on you personally, but I wanted to add a couple more thoughts on Puccini.

Puccini, along with the other verismo composers, was attacked in his day for the subject matter of his operas (although I don't think the attacks could have been very effective, since all these operas were monster hits.) Some of this may have been due to the fact that lower-class characters were being shown in a serious light for the first time. (Previously, servants, peasants, and so forth were used only as comic relief.)

You'd think that charge would have been defused by now. But then Joseph Kerman, a modern American critic, famously called Tosca a "shabby little shocker." He couldn't have been complaining about the social status of the characters, since Scarpia, Cavaradossi, and Angelotti are all noblemen, and Tosca herself is a celebrated diva who's a personal friend of the Queen (of Naples).

Presumably he's complaining about the torture scene in Act II (though the actual torture takes place offstage). But let's look at what goes on in some other famous operas, shall we?

Die Walküre -- incest
Elektra -- matricide
Salomé -- nude dancing by a minor, vaticide
Rigoletto -- rape (a good lawyer might be able to plead it down to stat rape)
Don Giovanni -- serial attempted rape
Così fan tutte -- mate-swapping
Marriage of Figaro -- sexual harassment of employees
Il Trovatore -- infanticide
Faust -- demonic possession, illegitimacy, infanticide
Oedipus Rex (Stravinsky) -- don't get me started

And that's without going into Lulu or Wozzeck...

Somehow it all sounds more like the Jerry Springer show than an event that's often attended by the most glittering and respectable segment of society.

[stlukesguild]

I can see from your comments about Puccini that you don't know much about him. Manon Lescaut was based on a classic French novel, La Boheme on a well-loved one. Neither was a recent work by a long shot. Turandot was based on an 18th century commedia del'arte play, via an adaptation by Schiller. Tosca was based on a play by Sardou, which gave Sarah Bernhardt one of her signature roles. Madama Butterfly and La Fanciulla del West were based on plays by David Belasco, which while quite popular weren't particularly trashy.

And anyway, if you find Puccini's operas trashy, I suggest you avoid A Streetcar Named Desire, Macbeth, and Oedipus Rex... not to mention The Sound and the Fury, Lolita, or Madame Bovary.

Ah... my mistake. I didn't realize that Henri Murger's La Vie de Bohème, David Belasco's The Girl of the Golden West, John Luther Long's Madame Butterfly, or Victorien Sardou's Tosca were on the same level as Faulkner, Sophocles, Nabokov, or Flaubert. Of course there is Turandot, right? An adaption by Friederich Schiller (don't remember it ever mentioned under Schiller's major contributions) of a play by Carlo Gozzi which was itself further adapted by the librettists, Giuseppe Adami and Renato Simoni.

A word of advice... do not underestimate someone that you know but very little of. I am more than a little familiar with Puccini. He may be my favorite 20th century composer (and I'll call him a 20th century composer because more of his major works were composed from 1900 onward than before) after Richard Strauss. He built upon Wagner's concepts of the musical motif and the continuous flow (as opposed to the recitative, aria, recitative, duet... structure) bringing it a wonderfully lush melodic quality. In spite of this he has been repeatedly criticized for his excessive focus on melody, his overly romantic lushness, his popular appeal, and his lack of "seriousness". Of course the same criticisms were directed at Rachmaninoff and I disagree in both instances. Unfortunately, the criticisms stuck for years, and for quite a while Puccini's works were seen as nothing but light entertainments by many in the music world. Maria Callas has been credited by many as one of the first to endow these works were a level of seriousness... emotion... and passion that was due.

Nevertheless... I certainly find that the criticisms directed at his choices of literary source material are not without merit. None of his librettos will stand upon their own as works of literature. Of course, this is true of almost all operas... with the exceptions of Wagner's and Hofmannsthal's libretto's for Strauss. Again... I don't know that I would call this a "flaw". There are any number of great films based upon mediocre (or worse) plays/stories/novels. There are endless paintings paintings based upon similar mediocre literary sources. We don't measure these art works by dissecting them or dividing them into parts, but rather as a whole.

Puccini, along with the other verismo composers, was attacked in his day for the subject matter of his operas (although I don't think the attacks could have been very effective, since all these operas were monster hits.) Some of this may have been due to the fact that lower-class characters were being shown in a serious light for the first time. (Previously, servants, peasants, and so forth were used only as comic relief.)

Whether the works were hits or not I feel has very little to due with the validity of criticism. Harry Potter and The DaVinci Code were blockbusters that continue to sell phenomenally well. This doesn't belie the criticism that they are but mediocre entertainment. Puccini was a great composer. Almsost none of the authors of his literary source material or his librettos are even close to his level artistically. How many do we still read today outside of the context of Puccini's operas? In a way, this makes his achievement even more impressive, when we consider what he was able to create from such a mediocre source... perhaps not unlike Peter Paul Rubens great cycle of paintings praising the life of Marie De Medici... who had essentially done nothing with her life outside of virtually bankrupt the nation of France. But critics will always wonder "what if?" What might he have achieved with material more worthy of his talents?

But let's look at what goes on in some other famous operas, shall we?

Die Walküre -- incest
Elektra -- matricide
Salomé -- nude dancing by a minor, vaticide
Rigoletto -- rape (a good lawyer might be able to plead it down to stat rape)
Don Giovanni -- serial attempted rape
Così fan tutte -- mate-swapping
Marriage of Figaro -- sexual harassment of employees
Il Trovatore -- infanticide
Faust -- demonic possession, illegitimacy, infanticide
Oedipus Rex (Stravinsky) -- don't get me started

And that's without going into Lulu or Wozzeck...

You are mistaking my comments upon the "trashy" source materials for a suggestion that there are appropriate or inappropriate themes in art... this in spite of the fact that I have suggested on more than one occasion that the whole of art can almost be reduced to meditations upon sex and death (with a few exceptions:D). Yes... there are some dirty little goings-on happening in just about every opera... but you miss the fact that almost every opera you list above was based on a literary source of real merit (Salomé-The Bible/Oscar Wilde, Elektra- Sophocles, Euripides, Giraudoux, Hofmannsthal, Lulu- Frank Wedekind, Faust... do we really need to trace that? Every one of these literary sources are works of art that stand upon their own. It would seem a valid criticism to ask why an artist would not choose to work with a source material of the greatest quality... but again... it all comes down to the end result. I doubt I'll be ever reading any of Puccini's source materials... (and I actually own a copy of John Luther Long's Madame Butterfly) but I will continue to enjoy Puccini's operas.

[stlukesguild]

Music does not need to be Literature, it is Music and this is enough. We do not need to validate everything by calling it literature.

It often seems that we break down the whole of ART into three distinct categories: (Visual) Art, Music, and Literature. The reality is that the arts are far more complex than this. A play by Shakespeare is one work of art. It is a magnificent work of literature. A theatrical performance of the same play is a second work of art altogether. It employs Shakespeare's text but adds the acting, stage sets, direction, costume, etc... A film of the same play is still another beast again. It includes the text, the acting, the staging, music, direction, costume, cinematography, special effects, etc... A great many works of art combine multiple disciplines or cross disciplines. In some instances the individual parts stand as brilliant works on their own. For example... William Blake's Illuminated books can stand on their own as works of visual art... or as literature. On the other hand there are (for example) marvelous examples of the book as an art form such as Aldus Manutius' Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, which stand as marvelous examples of book binding, printing, letter type and page design, and illustration... but the actual work as literature doesn't stand on its own. I agree with the JCamilo's statement: "We do not need to validate everything by calling it literature." Each art form should be looked at for what it is... not dissected and judged for what it isn't or what it was never intended to be.

[slobone]

Stlukesguild -- I tried hard to figure out a way to tell you that my last post was not directed at you personally. The fact that you chose to misinterpret me tips me off that you're one of those Internet people who loves pissing contests -- which I don't. So this will be the last time I respond to you.

[Brasil]

For me, this lyrics by John Lennon are literature too:

I- Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.

II- Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.

repeat I

III- No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low.
That is you can't you know tune in but it's all right.
That is I think it's not too bad.

repeat I

IV- Always no sometimes think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream.
I think I know I mean "Yes," but it's all wrong.
That is I think I disagree.

repeat I

[stlukesguild]

slobone- The fact that you chose to misinterpret me tips me off that you're one of those Internet people who loves pissing contests -- which I don't.

Ah... a "pissing contest" is it? Let's make a brief review:

Someone (not even myself) posts a comment about the literary merits of Puccini's librettos:

JBI-Puccini's libretti all seem to be mediocre at best (he had a love of taking popular pulp fiction and turning it into an opera)

You offered a contrary opinion: "I think Puccini's librettos are among the greatest ever written (he usually employed whole teams of writers to do them, and he was very demanding.) You can't beat his operas for tightness of pacing, for capturing a character or an emotion in just a few words."

While musing upon the topic at hand I offered my own opinion... in line with that of the first poster: "Puccini's librettos taken on their own are among the absolute worst... often based upon the latest trashy popular novels. It is the music which raises these to such a level. Certainly the words are part of the experience... but the music raises them well above what they offer on their own."

For this audacious act I earned the following comment:

slobone- I can see from your comments about Puccini that you don't know much about him.

To this you added another posting begining: "Stlukesguild, I'm not picking on you personally, but I wanted to add a couple more thoughts on Puccini..." followed by a a series of arguments intended as proof of your opinion... and one might presume evidence of my own ignorance about the topic at hand. Fine with me. Well and good. The primary reason I engage in such internet forums is for the dialog... even when such leads to disagreement. Such disagreements, after all, can force me to think about my position... to clarify my thoughts... perhaps even to rethink or re-evaluate my position in light of strong arguments contrary to my own initial thoughts.

I then offered a post in which I countered your arguments... not once suggesting that I underestimate you or your knowledge of Puccini... to which I earned the final response branding me as one of "those types" who likes to engage in internet "pissing contests". So no one may question your opinions? So anyone else's competency or knowledge may be freely questioned... but if they dare to counter these comments they may be easily dismissed as "one of those internet people... etc..."? Obviously I have the wrong idea as to why we are here and as to what educated discussion and debate is all about.:rolleyes: Then you announce in closing... taking the obvious high road, no doubt... "this will be the last time I respond to you."

Ah! me! I'm deeply wounded!:rolleyes:

[stlukesguild]

For me, this lyrics by John Lennon are literature too:

I- Let me take you down, 'cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.

II- Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me.

repeat I... etc...


Can you honestly read this and find it to be a well written poem without the benefit of music? Honestly? Personally I still like the Beatles in spite of the fact that I tend to listen far more to classical music... but this in no way is a good "poem".

[Brasil]

How do you define a good poem?

What is good and what is bad?

What is literature?

And more: What is art?

Would Salvador Dali's pictures be seen as art if his pictures were made at the same period of Leonardo Da Vinci?

Would exist Picasso out off his own historic context?

What is classical music?
That's why I love eastern culture, western culture is full of labels!

[JBI]

Eastern culture isn't full of labels? Have you read any Eastern poetry? the 5 line Tankas of Japan usually contain at least one allusion. All their aesthetic labeling seems to be rooted in classical texts, to the point that if you check their references in poetry (meaning where their sense of metaphor comes from), everything seems to be emulating this 6 line excerpt from a poem I believe called "The Bride"(I haven't read my anthologies of Chinese verse in a while), which set the president for the entire Chinese aesthetic code, and the subsequent Japanese code.

Eastern poetry, whether Arabian, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Persian, or Japanese (or anything else in between) has the same labels as Western poetry. Each country has developed its own forms, the same way English, and French, and the West in general have. Each culture has created also, its own canon. Labels exist there too, genres exist there too, and classical reverence exists their too. Memorizing poems is part of the Japanese school program, where kids are supposed to have memorized I think it is 100 of the major canonical works. Poetry was written in closed forms there too, and with aesthetic expectations there too.

Salvador Dali also, as you try to presume, would not have drawn the same thing in the period of Leonardo Da Vinci. He was subject to influences, the same way Leonardo would not have painted the same way if he lived in the Medieval times, and the Medieval painter would not have painted the same way, had he lived in Antiquity.

The period is essential to the art work, and what comes before or after.

Classical music is rooted in that concept, in the sense that it is a selection of the best written in a specific time period (Bach, Handel etc. - Baroque, Haydn, Mozart etc. - Classical, Beethoven, Wagner etc - Romantic). What classical music is, essentially, is a selection of the greatest pieces written spanning from the renaissance to the almost present.

By the way, the East as well has a classical music Canon, with the same labeling.

You ask what is good and bad? Nothing, I don't believe in that as a judge of literature, to quote Oscar Wilde:


Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.

That being said, one may find beautiful things in beautiful music. One can at the same time find mediocre lyrics with beautiful music, and mediocre music with beautiful lyrics.

Your argument, that you seem to be pasting in every post, in every thread, that taste is relative, and not objective is true enough. Some of us have good taste, some of us have bad taste. That doesn't mean the quality of art, however, is subjective, merely that some readers (listeners?) do not have the insight/desire/strength to acknowledge beauty when they are presented with it, and merely replace "taste" with personal ideology, or idiosyncratic preference.

[Brasil]

I was not talking about eastern poetry, but eastern philosophy.
Literature is not the only source of knowledge I know.
I don't know if you read philosophy, but maybe if you knew more about eastern philosophy, you would understand my ironic commentary.
For the eastern philosophers, to nominate something is ignorance. If someone want to know something, must discard labels. The philosophers did not have even a name for god.

You only gave the answers I already know. But sometimes I pretend unknownledge to make a "Socratic Irony". That makes you confess:

"Some of us have good taste, some of us have bad taste"
- And you want to make me belive that kind of thinking is not a belief in superiority?


"That doesn't mean the quality of art, however, is subjective"
- That is the point, quality is a totally subjective concept. It depends of the time (in history) and space (in geographical postition).
That's why Picasso could not be seen as a great painter if he was born in Ancient Greece, for example. The taste, the quality, was totally different from the XX century.
That's why a modernist poet could not be seen as a great writer if he was born in Medieval Times, for example. The taste, the quality, was totally different from the XX century.
The concept of art is always changing from period to period.
Some survive (Dante, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Leonardo) and they were great (still are) but that does not mean Beethoven is a influence to hip hop "musicians", or Shakespeare is the basis of modern literature.
So, opera or rock, Shakespeare or Machado, Dali or Da Vinci...each art has his own value (even the art you do not consider art because of your personal taste).
Maybe, there are people here that think hip hop is a poor art. But not for the ghetto people. For them, hip hop is most important than Mozart. Who am I (and who are you) to say the opposite?

[stlukesguild]

Psst... in case no one has told you as of yet art has always been "elitist". Artists struggle for superiority... to create better and better works... to garner attention and an audience. Arguments that all art is subjective on the basis of the fact that "good art"... or even art itself cannot be qualitatively defined have been bandied about for generations... if not longer. It is simply weak argument. Art cannot be defined because artists are continually redefining what art is. That does not mean that there is no good nor bad in art or that one cannot discern such. Of course each work must be judged upon its own merits... by the standards and goals that are central to that work. It would be unfair to judge a medieval work of art by the standards of naturalistic, anatomically-correct drawing as established during the Renaissance. It would be equally unfair to fault an artist such as Rembrandt for his conservative use of color in contrast to Matisse for the simple fact that the intentions were different... as were the standards... the established means. To present "Strawberry Fields Forever" for consideration as a lyrical poem is to present it as something it was never intended to be. As a song it's quite nice. As a poem... it's rather lame. The same would hold true of "Yesterday". As a popular song it's quite good... but we don't really want to place the string quartet up against a quartet by Beethoven or Brahms, do we? The comparison would be laughable.

Eastern culture is not full of labels? That's why you like Eastern culture? My first thought is to point out that we live in Western culture and must deal with the culture we live in. But then again... there's long been a Western fascination with all things Eastern. It's just an extension of Romanticism and the illusory quest for the "natural" man in his or her primal state. It led to some great art as Western artists confronted the "exoticism" or "newness" of the East... but it also led to some weak misinterpretations and idealization of the "other". Eastern culture avoids labels and standards and measures of good and bad? Perhaps such is true of a few individual philosophers... but c'mon... Eastern thought and art is just as based in values and standards as anything in the West.

Recently, I have been studying Islamic and Japanese painting. It is fascinating to recognize stylistic elements that would have been completely incomprehensible to Western culture of the same time-frame... but this is not due to the fact that there were no standards/values, etc... In many ways their training of artists were as rigorous... and less open to individualism... than anything to be found in the West.

quality is a totally subjective concept. It depends of the time (in history) and space (in geographical postition). That's why Picasso could not be seen as a great painter if he was born in Ancient Greece, for example. The taste, the quality, was totally different from the XX century.

What you fail to recognize is that Picasso would not have painted as he did had he been born in another era/culture. His influences would have been different. His artistic precedents would not have been the same. His training would have been far different. His expectations and his own knowledge of what was acceptable and what he might attempt as an artist would have been vastly different. Artists always speak in the vocabulary of their own time because that is the time and place they live in... that does not mean that the strongest art of a given time or place will not maintain relevance outside of this context, nor that one cannot compare works of art of quite different intentions.

Maybe, there are people here that think hip hop is a poor art. But not for the ghetto people. For them, hip hop is most important than Mozart. Who am I (and who are you) to say the opposite?

Come on! That's just pure hippy-dippy intellectual mush. All art is subjective... and as such there is no way to judge or compare art? If I simply smear some crap on an old broken piece of masonite and proclaim it to be art... well who is anyone to claim otherwise? And who is anyone to suggest that my art is not on the same level as the works of Rembrandt, Michelangelo, or Hokusai? Of course as there is no good nor bad... what is the use of even attempting to improve? What is the use of these discussions? Its all relevant, after all. There's no need to develop one's eye... or one's ear... or one's literary understanding... taste (?) because there are no standards... every opinion is of the same value. Indeed, I cannot fathom for the life of me why any artist (and we're all artists, right?) would even take the time to master language or color or harmony or any such thing... because its all subjective... relevant... and as such, irrelevant. No matter where one is... no matter what one does... someone is bound to like it... if only the artist him/herself... and that is all that matters... that is all that is needed to prove the equal merit of all art.

I'm sorry... art is NOT DEMOCRATIC and NOT EGALITARIAN... it is "elitist". It is based upon standards and value judgments by its very nature. The very finite nature of our lives makes such judgments necessary. I have long admired Walter Pater's Conclusion to his marvelous book, The Renaissance. This brief bit of musing on art and life has long seemed to me to perfectly sum up why I spend my time with the arts... and why judgments regarding art are necessary:

"Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or
intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive for us,--for
that moment only. Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is
the end. A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated,
dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to be seen in them by
the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point,
and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital
forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy,
is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is
to form habits: for, after all, habit is relative to a stereotyped world,
and meantime it is only the roughness of the eye that makes any two
persons, things, situations, seem alike. While all melts under our feet,
we may well catch at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to
knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a
moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and
curious odours, or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's
friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in
those about us, and in the brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing
of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep
before evening. With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of
its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see
and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we
see and touch...

One of the most beautiful passages in the writings of Rousseau is that in
the sixth book of the Confessions, where he describes the awakening in
him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had always clung
about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal
disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the
interval that remained; and he was not biased by anything in his
previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement,
which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well!
we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve--les hommes sont tous
condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness,
some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this
world," in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that
interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time.
Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and
sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested
or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is
passion--that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied
consciousness. Of this wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty,
the love of art for art's sake, has most; for art comes to you professing
frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they
pass, and simply for those moments' sake."

[JCamilo]

I am telling you Brasil, you mix the subjective experice that Art provide, with the impossibility of Objetive observantion of Art. There is whole history of Aesthetic Theories and Criticism which you must be aware before attempting to define anything art is.
It is not because in the XX century the perception have been changed when defining "what is beauty" that we have no internal and coherent notions to arrive such definition.
And you must consider that the words have meaning, what Stlukesguild have been telling you about Beatles is not that there is no quality in their lyrics, but this quality exist because it is a music. If was only for literature sake, you are reducing Lennon to a bad poet.
We do not need to call everyone a great poet (you can, it is obviously a great compliment), but a great musician is as well.

Plus, Eastern Philosophy and culture is not a bag where 5000 years, several different cultures, have developed in whole. They are too different Hindus didn't the same as the Arabians.
And really, save Democracy for social fight. For knowledge and culture, selection will happens. Memory itself is selective.

[Brasil]

"Eastern Philosophy: Hindus didn't the same as the Arabians. "
I agree.
But my point was about chinese ancient philosophy, and a little of Hindu.

"Memory itself is selective."
I totally agree!

That's just one point that makes our conscience subjective. Even philosophy and science can be subjective (I am not being contradictory, the context here is different).

So, at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.

The best philosopher for me is the greek Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".

I am not tell that for you, but for all (includin myself).

Socrates, maybe, had a contact with the eastern philosophies. It is possible? I don't know, just maybe, but the fact is: it seems.

Returning to the point: at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.
I will respect and consider everybody's oppinion but not necessary agree with all, because of one main point: everybody' view (oppinion) here is very categorical.

Being categorical is the same of prejudice (in this case). Everybody try to make his own point of view the only truth, considering that as if knowing something.

It is not our conscience that guide us to our oppinions, but our feelings. Our conscience just try to explain for us the reason why we choose something.

I am disapointed with the forum, and with my self cause I've been polemic for making people think about their own conceptions, thinkings, values, etc.

It has not worked. The more I've tried to make people think in another point of view, more people have caught on to their own values, being categorical.

If sometimes a passed the limities, sorry.

[stlukesguild]

I am disapointed with the forum, and with my self cause I've been polemic for making people think about their own conceptions, thinkings, values, etc.

It has not worked. The more I've tried to make people think in another point of view, more people have caught on to their own values, being categorical.

You are disappointed... why? Because you have not been successful at converting others over to your point of view? You suggest you just offer another point of view, but perhaps some of us have been exposed to that point of view more times than you can imagine. I must say that from my experiences with JBI here I would never underestimate what he/she? has or has not read. My own reading experience is not so limited itself, and to this I add an experience with art, art criticism, and art theory... a great deal of which has centered on your expressed notions that all is relative/subjective. The argument is quite old... and tired by now... and in the visual arts it probably pre-dates Duchamp who at least threw it out there with a sense of humor and irony.

[Petrarch's Love]

Some survive (Dante, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Leonardo) and they were great (still are) but that does not mean Beethoven is a influence to hip hop "musicians"

Ha! Shows what you know. Time for a little history lesson. As you can see in this rare archival Disney footage, Beethoven was sporting a funky beat as early as the 1930's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8XnON3rCU4&feature=related

As everyone knows, this soundtrack gained wild popularity in the '70's when it was showcased in Saturday Night Fever, and it couldn't be long until we started getting a little hip hop mixed in to this euphonious blend of classical disco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fM8llpDvOw&feature=related

And of course Kanye's gotta get a piece of that in a video decidedly less kid friendly than the first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jumopYHTTw&feature=related

So you see how wrong you are to exclude a consideration of Beethoven from the history of hip hop? :D


Maybe, there are people here that think hip hop is a poor art. But not for the ghetto people. For them, hip hop is most important than Mozart. Who am I (and who are you) to say the opposite?

OK, now I'm going to be a little more serious. As St. Luke's and other regulars know, I agree with the pith of his opinion that all art is not equal and that some is better than others. The problem I sometimes have with these "elitism" vs. "relativism" discussions is that taking the elitist side can be so quickly misinterpreted as a closed minded socially elitist stance that wants to make everyone listen to nothing but Bach. I think there has to be a more nuanced series of questions rather than simply the one question people tend to focus on in such discussions: "is it art?" When people ask if something is art, they're really asking a whole load of different questions: What kind of art is it? What level of art is it? How seriously should it be taken? Is it worth listening to/reading/viewing at all? What kind of use does it have? What kind of value does it have? What kind of experiences does it offer?

I completely understand the social value of the relativist idea that any creative output can be considered a kind of art, because it prevents art from becoming an exclusionary and stagnant monolith of canonical works. I agree with you that both Hip Hop artists and Beethoven should be considered art. This does not, however mean that they are the same kind of art or have the same value, or rather the same kind of value. There are many different kinds of value. There's the value of entertainment in the moment, nostalgic value, historical value, the value of representing a certain culture, transcendental value etc. There are also different uses for art. Music, for example can be used for (among many other things): dancing, religious meditation, other kinds of spiritual expression, goofing off with friends at a party, comfort in times of sorrow, karaoke, opening communication with those different from ourselves, something to fill in the space while you put someone on hold and (to get back to the subject of this thread) as a piece of other art forms such as film or opera. If you're judging the value of a piece of musical art by its use for a dance mix at a party, I'll readily concede that hip hop is better hands down than Beethoven in that context. If you're judging it by your own nostalgic personal associations, the most valuable song is going to be different for everyone, since the guy who danced with his wife for the first time to Vanilla Ice may find that the most nostalgically valuable piece he can think of, while someone else may have fallen in love at a concert of Gregorian chant. If you're looking for something that represents modern urban street life, Beethoven again loses out. If you're judging the value of a piece of art in terms of its ability to transcend time and culture and to offer something that will still be unique and satisfying on the thousandth time you experience it (part of what St. Luke's and others mean when they talk about "great art"), I think Beethoven's got it over most hip hop artists I've heard (though I'm no expert in the genre and may well have missed something mind blowing).

A final point: one problem, of course, with the above comparison is that Beethoven is one artist, whereas "hip hop" is an entire genre of music. While, as I said above, I haven't yet run across a hip hop artist who I think has the lasting quality that Beethoven has, I wouldn't for a minute say that it is impossible that something as good as Beethoven could emerge in some way from the hip hop genre. I posted the youtube clips above in a spirit of levity, but they also are a good representation of something I think is wonderful and exciting about youtube, which is the way it functions as a leveling place where all art is equal. The openness of a forum that allows people to play around with combining things as different as Mickey Mouse, Beethoven, Kanye West etc. is an active demonstration of the sort of open minded experimentation that has always been the basis for the production of great art. So, while I wouldn't agree with the claim that any of the clips I posted above has any lasting value as transcendent works of art, I would still say that they are invaluable in terms of their use as the type of artistic experimentation that the production of such art is based on (and invaluable as well, of course, as humorous entertainment for bored lit net browsers ;))

[stlukesguild]

Petrarch... you are surely wasting your time with this Literature thing. You should be surely applying your skills as a diplomat somewhere... perhaps the Middle east?:nod:

[JCamilo]

"Eastern Philosophy: Hindus didn't the same as the Arabians. "
I agree.
But my point was about chinese ancient philosophy, and a little of Hindu.

Even chinese philosophy is rooted in different views, but that is the point of using specific words - You are communicating with others, if you do not specify and put all in a bag, stuff completely different, what you are saying will always sound strange to those who are well informed about the subject.


"Memory itself is selective."
I totally agree!

That's just one point that makes our conscience subjective. Even philosophy and science can be subjective (I am not being contradictory, the context here is different).

So, at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.

In the end it is all quite simple, we may have philosophical systems or products that represent the subjective side, and one for objective, but entire universes like Philosophy or Art, they are always both. It depends the aspect you are analysing.



The best philosopher for me is the greek Socrates: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".

I am not tell that for you, but for all (includin myself).

I may be mistaken, but Socrates system is a bit more complex and that was just a part of it, the instigation for futher investigation, the non-acceptance of "truths", specially those accepted already as real without proper verification or capacity to be explained. The context of Socrates is more important that his quote.


Socratesybe, had a contact with the eastern philosophies. It is possible? I don't know, just maybe, but the fact is: it seems.

I do not think there is much doubt, considering Socrates is pretty much what Plato saw of him and Plato had pitagorean influence and Pitagoras seems to have oriental influence...


Returning to the point: at the end, all resume to dogma and prejudice.
I will respect and consider everybody's oppinion but not necessary agree with all, because of one main point: everybody' view (oppinion) here is very categorical.

I think, was it was pointed, your judgment of other's vallues and experience are out of place. Some of us maybe categorical because it is a style of discuss, but some just because they have a vast experience in those fields and you sometimes seems to lack it, but already conclusions that you wish to be accepted. Also, you seem to think that certain about something is a negative thing, this roots you relativism and in the end relativism is dangerous because it only grows strength if you accept all can be equally false. As a admirer of Plato, you should consider how relativism is a danger and there is possibility to be "sure" about something.


Being categorical is the same of prejudice (in this case). Everybody try to make his own point of view the only truth, considering that as if knowing something.

See, that is not true.Being categorical is nothing but assuming a discuss of authority and some people are authorities. They have studied for years, they have mistakes but much of what they produced is accepted or tested for years, with a big experience behind it. Not everyone have the same amount of knowledge and I think you said you are a teacher, a Teacher must be categorical to teach.


I am disapointed with the forum, and with my self cause I've been polemic for making people think about their own conceptions, thinkings, values, etc.

It has not worked. The more I've tried to make people think in another point of view, more people have caught on to their own values, being categorical.

That have been asnwered because you overvallue yourself a lot here. We all here have experiences and knowledge to be respected.
I think you have good intentions, but must be more careful of how you use your words.

[Petrarch's Love]

Petrarch... you are surely wasting your time with this Literature thing. You should be surely applying your skills as a diplomat somewhere... perhaps the Middle east?:nod:

:lol: Surely great progress could be made if we just got Olmert and Abbas to loosen up and boogie down to "A Fifth of Beethoven." :nod:

[stlukesguild]

Surely great progress could be made if we just got Olmert and Abbas to loosen up and boogie down to "."

I don't know... I mean I actually like what the Jacques Loussier Trio does with Bach and Vivaldi, but A Fifth of Beethoven just makes me want to hurt somebody.:crash: :smash: :sick: :brow:

[Petrarch's Love]

I don't know... I mean I actually like what the Jacques Loussier Trio does with Bach and Vivaldi, but A Fifth of Beethoven just makes me want to hurt somebody.

Even when Mickey Mouse is dancing to it? :lol:(See my first link in original post above if you haven't already.) See, this is a practical case in point as to why we need to carefully define what music has universal and transcendent qualities to put to use in peacemaking. Wanting to hurt somebody not being the goal of diplomacy, I'll have to stick with nothing but Mozart when I'm appointed Middle East ambassador. :D

[Brasil]

For anyone
I respect all point of view here, but I do not agree with everyone.
It is important each one have your own point of view. It shows how relative is the human being.

I've learned a lot with all of you and I hope my posts arouse the interest about other cultures (specially Brazilian, cause it is still unknown)

I will not have the time to reply here every post. I will leave the forum for a while and maybe, when I get the time, I come back. I must reduce my participation for keep myself studing and working.
Perhaps once in a week I can participate.


For JCamilo
Some values like "human's life value" or "the mutual respect" or "love your neighbor as you love yourself"... etc.... are not relative. Those kind of values are perfect, they must remain for ever.

But the values about art, about styles, about what is good literature, which writer is best... are abstract and relative values. Thouse kind of values can be studied, but it is impossible to separate the person who study and the object of study. It is the consciousness that tends to give meaning.
Even in science and more on art.
That is what Phenomenology says.

[JCamilo]

For anyone

For JCamilo
Some values like "human's life value" or "the mutual respect" or "love your neighbor as you love yourself"... etc.... are not relative. Those kind of values are perfect, they must remain for ever.

This short of ethics, are ethics. So what


But the values about art, about styles, about what is good literature, which writer is best...

No sense. If you ask an artists that is trying to draw a human with realistic approch and for no perspective reason his human figure looks like Frida's portraits, you know about someone who does not domain the technique he proposed to use - Techniques analyse are not subjective. And that would made his work a bad work.
Aesthetical vallues may change with societies, but it is not about comparing which one is better (this would be "my son is prettier than others") but which one had domain over it or not.
For those reason, One can safelly say that Dante is much better than Dan Brown, and no group or 558 fans of Dan Brown will be able to change a notion, a status, a influece build in 600 years and that one critic like Umberto Eco, can show you the reasons of why.


are abstract and relative values. Thouse kind of values can be studied, but it is impossible to separate the person who study and the object of study. It is the consciousness that tends to give meaning.
Even in science and more on art.
That is what Phenomenology says.[/QUOTE]

And still I want to see you coming to Biologist and use "It is all relative, that dude thinks never happened evolution. Since *insert here your list of reasons about relativism*, he may be write. It is impossible to tell. Good luck on that.

[Brasil]

O Guarani (Overture):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UMkLchCMNfo&feature=related



For anyone in this forum
I have posted in this very forum some images about Brazilian art:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...559#post583559

There are paintings (from Brazilian Romanticism, Modernism and other styles), examples of Baroque sculpture and futuristic architecture.