1) Take a look
at the rough plot summary below. Is there anything in today’s readings that
doesn’t seem to match up, or that you need more information about?
http://www.cockaigne.org.uk/research/IndianQueen.html
http://www.cockaigne.org.uk/research/IndianQueen.html
or
2) Watch the
brief clip about the music of The Indian
Queen and about Purcell. What questions do you have about the music +
theater form, after reading some of the play in the traditional way and also
viewing this clip?
or
3) What did
Samuel Pepys think of the play? Look at his reaction and comment on what he
says. What sense of playgoing does it give you?
or
4) Discuss another part of today’s reading that
seems to be in need of exploration, elucidation, or comment.
I watched the video clip about the musical adaptation, after I'd skimmed the Dryden play. First off, I thought the music was beautiful, but very European. (I liked that Purcell paid attention to the violas, which get neglected a lot.) The European-ness of it made me wonder, because I'd thought the play should have a really Mexican or Native American feel. To me, watching and listening to the Purcell version would kill the exoticness of the setting. The picture I had after reading the Dryden was sort of fierce and warlike, but the music from the Purcell was so beautifully structured and pleasant that I felt like I was in someone's parlor, not a battlefield or a tribal court. On a more practical note, I had a really hard time making out a lot of the words in the songs, so I think that the Dryden version would have the advantage in that everyone could appreciate the language.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to see the clip about music in “The Indian Queen.” I hadn’t noticed many songs in the play itself, aside from the scene with Zempoala and Ismeron. The clip said (as far as I understood), however, that Purcell wrote the music based on Dryden’s play. The play, with all its rhyming, does seem suited to a conversion into an opera or a “Les Miserables” sort of production. The clip claimed that Purcell’s version is not an opera per se, more of a play enhanced by music. That led me to think it was sort of like a modern-day Broadway show or musical. Yet the text itself doesn’t indicate that the characters are occasionally bursting into song, aside from the magic scene in Act III. I’d be interested to know if there are records of how musical the play was originally – was it like a musical, like an opera, or just lightly interspersed with singing like some of the other plays we’ve read? It is interesting that this play does give musical stage direction – ever so often, it says to heighten the music before a character comes on or something exciting happens. These directions certainly lend to the idea that this play was far more conscious of the power and effect of music, not just in terms of singing but also as background sound for emphasis. It also makes me wonder what sort of musical capacity they had – did they have an orchestra? One man on a fiddle? Or something in between? Someone had to be providing the music in the stage direction, not to mention accompanying the singing.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in reading Pepys’ point of view, mostly because I worked closely with the EBBA last semester and most of his collection is featured there, so I felt a mild connection to him.
ReplyDeleteHe himself went to the theatre only once a month--was this a common practice?
He does call the show “pleasant,” although that’s never really elaborated. It’s a bit of a shame that he doesn’t like the rhyme (although it was annoying to me as well), mostly because that must have been very difficult for Dryden and Howard to achieve and the fact that the entire play is in some sort of rhyming verse is truly astounding.
He also comments on a specific actress, especially on her singing. It seems that they didn’t allot these parts to singers or those familiar with opera-like productions, rather to general actors and actresses? I looked up Marshall, and it seems that she acted in mostly spoken parts without music. I find it a bit odd that a musical wouldn’t be cast with more musically talented cast members, such as Betterton (who Pepys mentions).
Pepys doesn’t mention much else. For one who goes to the theatre only once a month and takes such care to keep a diary, one would think that he’d talk more about the experience. And knowing that he was /very/ involved in the crossovers of music, poetry and art from his extensive illustrated broadside ballad collection, I’m surprised that he didn’t talk more extensively about the music and costuming. His only comment is on his disdain for the verse and his opinion of a single actress. What is more interesting to him than the play itself is the hearsay that came before it: the commendation from his friend, and what happened concerning the King (and a “scandalous” lady) at an earlier showing. This aligns with the rest of his diary entry, which mostly discusses social goings on; perhaps he didn’t write more of his criticisms on the play itself because they were not deemed important in this journalistic context-- what happened socially /at/ the theatre was more important than what was actually showing, in many ways.
I watched the video of the music after reading the first half of the play. The music is somewhat ethereal; so many beautiful harmonies, and runs. I don't know if I have ever encountered another play like this that incorporates music as if the show is a modern day musical, as opposed to something like The Tempest, where the music is part of the plot, as opposed to singing where dialogue could be. The first song in the video was about coming to see the Queen, which seems to me that the music was incorporated much like a modern day musical. Is that progressive for the time? Also, the play itself is not hugely compelling which leads me to wonder why it was chosen to be made into a musical assuming that one would choose a play that is compelling in plot etc. I also want to comment on what Deena wrote about the music sounding very European. I think it is interesting, with these plays in general, that there is not a real effort to stay accurate when it comes to cultural characteristics , for example, in Oroonoko, I thought there would be some sort of foreign sounding accent, or speech difference in the prince’s speech, and I was struck when he didn’t speak any differently. So too, in this play, there doesn’t seem to be much effort to be culturally realistic. Was that even something that was ever done at the time, or did the playwright simply change the names to make them sound foreign, and any accent or costume was merely ignored?
ReplyDeleteI watched the clip about Purcell and the Indian Queen, and although I do agree that the music has a calming effect to it (at least the last part where the play does become tragic and so it is definitely fitting), it did make me feel like it lined up with the play. The music has a dramatic component to it which is very appropriate for a battle-like scene and as mentioned in the clip, it has a very strong emotional component to it as well. It's also mentioned in the clip that Purcell's music is not opera, but to me it sounded very much like opera. It does a great job in making you feel like you're experiencing the scenes in the play as though they are happening right in front of your eyes, simply because the music itself is so all-encompassing.
ReplyDeleteEven though the play is not modern, watching the clip did give me a modern sense, and so the only thing I had trouble with was difficulty envisioning the early parts of the play in the time period that it was in- when I was listening to the music.