The general definitions are these; opera is a sung story, and musicals are a plays (book) with songs. (Test yourself operas have musical interludes that can stand on their own, musicals have underscoring that heightens the spoken drama).
We might ask this; why does the most popular living “opera” composer, Philip Glass, compose neither of the above yet is acclaimed for writing opera? Mr. Glass’s works, as well as Robert Wilson’s, seem to be tableau with music rather than opera. In their works visually stunning imagery is featured rather than character interaction or understandable sung text. These stage pieces are similar to his work as a movie composer where Mr. Glass showed his ability to enhance visual images. “Let’s go to the tableau” would seem an excellent marketing phrase. Why not call their works tableau? Why does Yanni claim his concerts represent the “new classical music”. It must be remembered that Mr. Glass himself calls his theater works operas and went to the trouble of renting the Metropolitan Opera in New York for his first production! Well, is there any advantage to calling something an “opera”? Lets see.
Opera, the magic word
Sgt. Peppers Beatles and George Martin was considered the first rock concept album. Though the concept was unclear and unstated, it featured the some of the best rock music at the time. Others imitated — Spirit’s 12 Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus and many others including the Who. The Who’s Tommy preceded by their own “a quick one while he’s away” was billed as the first rock “opera” (though I believe there was a rock n’ roll Carmen that preceded it). Tommy featured the Who at the top of their game and some great songs and was very successful. Its true that Tommy had something of a story line but it was constrained by the conventions of rock music. (Rock music conventional? Did I say that?) If the operatic nature of Tommy was not particularly clear from the music or song lyrics the LINER NOTES EXPLAINED IT ALL!! This is the benchmark of what is opera. In the world of visual art, in museums today you will find recent works of art that seem to be afterthoughts to their written explanations by their curators. These explanations, liner notes, give the work of art its meaning and are far more important than the art itself. Any work of art is merely an example of something far more important — the editorial. The stranger and more unintelligible the work is the more straight forward the editorial will be. For this reason the motion music composers are much closer in language to rock music than classical music.
The point??
Ok. The question is this; did the Who gain any cultural significance by calling Tommy an opera rather than a musical (which it eventually became) or a concept album? You bet they did!!! The term “opera” gave the Who a degree of serious credibility among music critics that art rock bands with classical training like ELP never had. Opera is a magic word — tableau and concept album are not. Opera has history, institutions, fans, money, and an artistic cachet that tableau, concept album, or even music theater lack.
Who composes opera??
One problem with music theater today is that career paths for composers have been institutionalized. A Ph.D. in composition from Yale does not compose musicals, they compose opera. (Apologies to former theorist Maury Yeston, and I suppose that Ph.D.’s in literature don’t write trashy novels either? Anyone for Love Story?)
So composers who are on the academic track and might have a talent for musicals don’t try or wouldn’t consider it. This is strange thinking because I for one can’t think of any significant American operas composed recently, but I can think of many important and interesting musicals. Of course there is a great deal of difference compositionally between opera and “Broadway”. Its also true that the French, Les Six combined popular and serious styles before many of us were born. Sphor the serious composer is forgotten while Sir Arthur Sullivan’s light comedies live on ( Sullivan’s serious music is also gone).
OK opera composers are supported by different institutions (university, non profit) than theater composers (Broadway —profit) and at least for appearances opera composers are more high class than theater composers. Really??? Well for one thing its not true – for example has any recent American opera come close to Sondheim?
So what is up? It is this: you must be true to your style. As Menotti is. Ambition does not imply ability, and the knack of getting performances does not necessarily create artistic achievement. On the other hand, so called lighter music needs no apology.
We continue to live in a time with a plurality of musical styles, and in music nothing, in theory, is impossible. That said, unless the theater composers find the right medium of expression their works are destined to fail. Schoenberg and Berg have both entered the operatic repertory so even if you despise their music they can’t be ignored. That is, their innovations of character and music can’t be displaced. Younger composers ignore this to their peril. Yet many composers are commissioned to write operas precisely because they don’t know or understand Schoenberg or Berg.
This answers another question: Why do so many recent operas sound like musicals, (bad musicals at that)? None of these kinds of works would exist if it were not for gate keepers and music directors who keep commissioning them. All of these half baked musicals marketed as operas would never survive a day on Broadway and they only exist because the public does not directly pay for their commission,creation, and inception. At best, these administrators and composers believe that their job is too bring in the audiences, not to challenge them, at least no sonically, — “make ’em happy.” Familiar is what they desire, even at BAM where the same pieces and composers are played year after year. At worst, they create and dispense power, reward friends, and create alliances so mediocrity is ensured. Great opera would be beyond their control.