{"title":"The Creation of an Operatic Canon in Nineteenth-Century Europe","authors":"C. Charle","doi":"10.4000/bssg.655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The numerous monographs centred on the evolution of the repertoires of nineteenth–and twentieth–century opera houses make possible a statistical measure of the increasing ageing process of the most frequently performed operas. The canonisation of early successes takes place mainly from the second half of the 19th century onwards and becomes more pronounced in the 20th century. This refusal of novelty is due to the rising costs of performance, to the emergence of a pantheon of composers that has been little renewed over the generations, and to the growing influence of show organisers, singing stars and theatre directors. The dissemination of the most famous arias, which made certain composers particularly popular, notably in Italy (Verdi), France (Gounod, Bizet), Germany (Wagner), and later in Russia and Central Europe, also encouraged the repeated performances, for the widest possible audiences at festivals or in the media, of works gradually selected by posterity. This process is reminiscent of the emergence of the great masters of classical music or painting before the advent of modernity, but it has its own specific features due to the weight of a show mobilising several arts (theatre, set, costume, music, dance) and the early internationalisation of the most frequently performed works. A few reference scenes serve as test beds for the future canonisation process, which is rarely called into question, as can be the case for other arts that are less dependent on the major European cultural capitals’ institutions. However, this canon is never definitively stabilised: discontinuation may still happen, particularly when the conditions of production make it impossible to revive works that were once central. This marginal renewal implies a very strong selectivity for new works and significantly slows down the recognition of the most innovative ones.","PeriodicalId":300699,"journal":{"name":"Biens Symboliques / Symbolic Goods","volume":"382 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biens Symboliques / Symbolic Goods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/bssg.655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The numerous monographs centred on the evolution of the repertoires of nineteenth–and twentieth–century opera houses make possible a statistical measure of the increasing ageing process of the most frequently performed operas. The canonisation of early successes takes place mainly from the second half of the 19th century onwards and becomes more pronounced in the 20th century. This refusal of novelty is due to the rising costs of performance, to the emergence of a pantheon of composers that has been little renewed over the generations, and to the growing influence of show organisers, singing stars and theatre directors. The dissemination of the most famous arias, which made certain composers particularly popular, notably in Italy (Verdi), France (Gounod, Bizet), Germany (Wagner), and later in Russia and Central Europe, also encouraged the repeated performances, for the widest possible audiences at festivals or in the media, of works gradually selected by posterity. This process is reminiscent of the emergence of the great masters of classical music or painting before the advent of modernity, but it has its own specific features due to the weight of a show mobilising several arts (theatre, set, costume, music, dance) and the early internationalisation of the most frequently performed works. A few reference scenes serve as test beds for the future canonisation process, which is rarely called into question, as can be the case for other arts that are less dependent on the major European cultural capitals’ institutions. However, this canon is never definitively stabilised: discontinuation may still happen, particularly when the conditions of production make it impossible to revive works that were once central. This marginal renewal implies a very strong selectivity for new works and significantly slows down the recognition of the most innovative ones.