Is opera a kind of literature?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nossa

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=VQ8Cu...eature=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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brasil;569558
[B

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

And I consider French the most beautiful language in the world, ;)

---

Yeah, but you're biased. Your husband's french. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

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:

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.