Thus, Penelopes insistence on speaking rather than singing, one of the most striking features of Il ritorno (discussed in Chapter 9), signifies her joylessness and rejection of love just as forcefully as Poppeas triple-time melodies become her chief tool for achieving her seduction in Lincoronazione (Chapter 10). Thus the question: when is an aria not an aria in Monteverdis works? Moreover, once its characteristics are agreed upon (and even in the late works this is no easy task), what meaning do they impart? Carter rightly addresses these questions not as independent problems, but as they become relevant to the discussion of individual works, each of which receives its own chapter. These pieces are often given short shrift in the Monteverdi literature, and Carter goes a long way to restoring their integrity and importance in the composers works for the theater.Ģ.2 A different sort of genre problem, having more to do with aesthetic than dramatic definitions, is Monteverdis continuous shifting of the boundaries between theatrical recitation and song, between expressive recitative and aria. And he does not neglect to comment on the balli included within larger works, namely intermedi and opera, such as Lasciate i monti from Act I of Orfeo. This genre, he reminds us, transgresses numerous generic and other boundaries between courtly life and courtly art in that the space in which the Ballo delle ingrate and Il sacrificio dIfigenia were performed was both theater and ballroom, merging context, content and function (166). Not only does he discuss the works whose genres are problematic-does the fate of Arianna properly belong to tragedy? is the Combattimento, for all Monteverdis attempts to turn epic into drama, truly a work in the genere rappresentativo?-but he also devotes a welcome chapter to the sung ballo. Problems of GenreĢ.1 Carter takes the widest possible approach to genre. But one might wish for the more frequent appearance of such direct and pithy statements as, The chief problem of opera throughout its history best expressed in a simple question: why should people sing? (297). And perhaps it is Carters understandable desire to respond to and gloss these many, internalized voices that imparts a characteristic, almost rambling quality to his brilliant discourse. It is as though the author, who has long been pondering, teaching, and writing about this material himself, had assembled his colleagues around a great, imaginary round table and engaged them individually and as a group in a wide-ranging dialogue, only one side of which, generally speaking, is audible to the reader. Most of these scholars are duly mentioned at one point or another in the book, but many of their ideas are embedded in the fabric of Carters arguments more frequently through implication rather than overt citation. Pirrotta is the only scholar so privileged by Carter, although there are indeed many others who have worked on Monteverdi in the thirty-five years since the publication of Pirrottas seminal article. 1 In this way, the entire work is, in effect, a dialogue with one of the pioneer scholars in the field, whose very definition of the issues established a frame for Carters own essays. Acknowledging that it was Nino Pirrotta who first explored some of these issues, he borrows Pirrottas phrase problems of opera for the title of his opening chapter and returns, at the end of the book, to compare and review his list of problems-examined in the nine intervening chapters-with those originally identified by Pirrotta. Reviewed by Barbara Russano Hanning *ġ.1 In this set of critical essays about Monteverdis theatrical works, Carter develops issues that, by his own declaration, have become the predominant focus of his work on music in early seventeenth-century Italy. ‹‹ Table of Contents Volume 12 (2006) No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |