Is Opera Behind the Times?

[NZBOY2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 4:35am

https://www.thestage.co.uk/features/2016/how-opera-is-extending-its-reach/

[newintown]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 8:17am

I think the clearer version of the question is "Is opera popular culture?," and the answer is definitely "NO." The same holds true for theatre, musical theatre, ballet, fine/visual art, literature, and more. These forms are enjoyed by a minority of the populace.

Today's popular entertainment is pop music (in its various, arbitrarily named forms: pop, rock, rap, hip hop, R&B, etc.), TV, and maybe movies.

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 08:17 AM

[LarryD2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 8:42am

These think pieces about "extending" opera's reach are being written with alarming regularity mostly because the core audience of operagoers (and donors) are aging -- and either dying off or reducing their contributions. The holy grail for opera companies is to tap into some heretofore undiscovered wellspring of young, educated, and financially comfortable opera fans in waiting. But as someone who worked for a major opera company for many years, I can say that unfortunately, such a group doesn't exist. People find their way to opera or they don't, and no amount of prodding changes opinions much. I can attest to this because I've been on the frontlines of trying in a professional capacity.

[kooky]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 8:44am

NEVER ....

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 9:04am

It's interesting that these opera companies want to blame outside factors, but never want to look within at the quality of the work they're presenting. This article is the first time I've ever heard someone blaming the amount of light in an atrium for a reason people are hesitant to go to the opera. 

Why aren't they asking questions like, "Are the productions we're putting on exciting, respectful of the material and well-sung?" "Are singers dynamic and thrilling, or are they merely adequate in their roles?" 

I understand needing to bring in new fans, but why don't they ever try to energize the base as well. If they get fans buzzing about a performer or production then maybe the excitement will able to entice some people on the fence about going. Instead they seem to actively turn off their base (speaking for myself and the friends I've discussed these issues with) and at the same time fail to rope in the new fans they so desperately crave. 

And why are all the efforts to get a new, younger audience all focused on a three ring circus of special events rather than on the actual music and performances. I didn't fall in love with opera because of gimmicks to hoodwink me into the theater. I fell in love because I couldn't catch my breath after hearing (on disc) Callas tearing up the finale of Sonnambula or Sutherland trilling her way through Les oiseaux dans la charmille. You can gussy a production of Hoffmann up all you want. You can use any means necessary to fill the seats with new patrons. But if the magic doesn't happen when Olympia opens her mouth then it's all for naught: new potential converts won't be converted and those already in love will leave unhappy and decide it's more satisfying to stay home with their recordings. 

[newintown]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 9:21am

Whizzer, I have to say that you are in the minority I referred to above; the vast majority of young people aren't listening to Callas, Sutherland, Fleming, Voight, Netrebko, or any classical music at all.

I don't think the problem with opera attendance has anything to do with marketing; it's that the experience of opera doesn't meet the desires of multiple generations of consumers for whom a satisfying night out is standing at a Bon Jovi (as a random example) concert while screaming louder than the performers. This is the way the masses enjoy their entertainment - look at American Idol, The Voice, X Factor, etc. - the singers barely get four notes out of their mouth before the audience erupts into screams; listening is no longer the paradigm; participating is. Sitting quietly in rapt attention is passé. And that's the kind of attention that opera needs (and theatre, and "classical" music, and etc.).

I'm also interested in the evolution of opera as a popular but relatively small form (Monteverdi) into the behemoth it's become at warehouses like The Met and the Sydney opera House - these airplane hangars have 3,800 and 6,000 seats respectively. Compare that to the gorgeous classical opera houses: La Fenice (1,000 seats), Vienna Staatsoper (1,700), La Scala (2,800) - opera has become a gargantuan, cold, distant spectacle. Perhaps returning to a sense of more intimacy might be advisable (although that would make it even more difficult to make it financially feasible).

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 9:44am

@newintown (responding to 2 of your posts)--

1. If Broadway musicals are not pop culture then what are they? If you landed on this planet fro outer space and looked at the genre, you would say they are.

2. I agree that the vast majority of young people pay no mind to opera or classical music. Vast majorities of all age groups don't. But that misapprehends the point because even the largest opera houses can only accommodate a tiny fraction of the population and it is that rarefied audience that opera needs to find a way of exciting. 

[newintown]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 10:05am

Well, Hogan, those are perfectly valid questions, but I think the answers are obvious, if you consider that I use the phrase "popular culture" to mean "of interest to at least more than 50% of the populace." Or, to clarify further, the difference between "popular" and "elitist" would be a question of appealing to a majority or to a minority. Or, to clarify still further, a definition of "popular" is "intended for or suited to the taste, understanding, or means of the general public rather than specialists." Broadway theatre seems significant to Broadway fans; however, even you must be aware that at least 95% of Americans have never seen and will never see a Broadway show. And a smaller but equally significant percentage of Americans have never seen and will never see live theatre anywhere. Which, by definition, means it isn't "popular."

Regarding your second point - yes, opera houses obviously can only hold a small fraction of the populace at any given moment. That doesn't change the fact that, at times in history, the masses filled opera houses and theatres because opera was popular (consider Die Zauberflöte as a perfect example of working class Austrians flocking to an event, or the operas of Verdi, which were hugely popular among the Italian masses when current, in way they certainly aren't now).

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 10:05 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 10:38am

newintown, I know I'm probably in the minority of young-ish people (I'm 33) walking around with multiple versions of I puritani on their iPods, but I do think there is a subset of the greater populace who could be open to going to the opera who are not currently going, or who have been turned off by their past experiences.  

A roommate of mine from a few years back never really listened to opera recordings, but he wasn't averse to the idea of attending the opera either. He and a friend, both my age, decided to get a 6 opera subscription to the Met one season to see if they liked it. Well, they walked out of Aida and were bored during Un ballo in maschera. Needless to say, I don't think either has attended an opera since. Perhaps they just were never going to fall in love with the repertoire, but seeing as how they enjoy other dance and NY Phil concerts I don't think that's really the answer here.  My suspicion is that the singing was mediocre and the productions didn't connect with them. If you walk in wanting to like Un ballo and walk out bored then I'm more apt to blame the opera company over the patron. 

I agree that it's futile to convince people who don't have a sensibility for opera to like the art form, but I think there is a substantial group of people who are open to opera and those are the people we should be roping in. (That, and I think if we cultivated a love of the music earlier on in arts education then we would see an increase in excited young people.)

[newintown]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 10:46am

Thanks for that, Whizzer. I confess no surprise that your friends weren't turned on by those Met productions; as I hinted above, I think no one is done any favors by that gargantuan barn of a house. The voices of even the most thrilling singers get lost in the airspace.

I think if your friends had seen/heard good singers/orchestras in a more intimate (say 1,000) seat house, they would have experienced the physical thrill of great music passing through them in a way that can't be done at the Met or in Sydney. Opera is a live physical (in the sense of "physics" experience; amplified, it just doesn't operate in the same physical way (but then, I would say the same thing about musical theatre, and look how they even mike 100-seat houses these days for that...).

[Kad]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 10:51am

Opera's never really been a populist artform, though, has it? It began in the courts and then moved to the wealthy merchant classes.

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 10:55am

I remember there was that 60 minutes segment on NY Met and how before they got their new head director they were only playing to houses of elderly people and were in the red financially. Then they started putting their operas on fathom and modernized them. Like for one opera they set it in Las Vegas. So I guess the solution is make opera more accessible and relatable to moder viewers. 

Someone can probably explain this segment in greater detail. 

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:10am

Whizzer, I don't think the problem is the production or the singers. The singers at the Met Opera will all be good enough. Sure, some are certainly better than others but I wouldn't expect a person attending his first opera to discern the difference. He could certainly tell the difference between a bad singer and a good singer but no "bad" singers are leads at the Met.

As far as production goes, as you no doubt know since you attend operas, most of them just have a set in the background for the duration of an act and people singing in front of it. It's not like Broadway where there's dancing and set pieces constantly come and go. The music truly carries an opera. If someone doesn't like one, it's far more likely it's because of the music than anything else.

[Oak2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:11am

I see the same kind of thing that jorge is talking about re: Opera with Orchestras/Symphonies and classical music (or at least the styles) - they're finding the best way to get younger people into Classical music and orchestrations is to play more mainstream/popular music - I've seen several symphonies and orchestras playing movie scores or orchestrated versions of video game music, which really draws in the younger people, and in many cases can then get them interested in classical works. Using the mainstream as a "gateway" or "jumping-off point" is the best way to try to get younger audiences in. Once you've hooked them with something that's already familiar to them, you keep going with more of the mixture, then try to get them further into the medium, and can then lure them to go deeper into it and look into older and more traditional works as well.

[After Eight]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:13am

Talk about trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. It's a fool's errand.

And why try to force people to see something they don't want to, or make them like something they don't? A complete exercise in futility.

 

 

[newintown]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:15am

Kad asked, "Opera's never really been a populist artform, though, has it?"

It has. The first public opera houses opened in Venice in the early 17th century, and were attended by all but the very poor. Small opera companies toured Europe, often playing in town squares (usually bowdlerized versions of works, which would have been judged vulgar by the upper classes). The previously mentioned Die Zauberflöte (called a "Singspiel" at the time) was first performed at Schikaneder's "suburban" theatre to "enormous audiences" for "hundreds of performances." Verdi's operas, with a new focus on storytelling, and linked to Italian nationalism, were enormously popular with the masses. In the 19th century, nationalism also boosted opera attendance in Germany, and even small towns built opera houses (that housed other forms of entertainment as well).

The current idea that opera has always been a rather dead, boring, elitist form is insidious. As recently as the 60s, variety shows on U.S. television frequently featured performances of arias and entire operatic scenes. Popular songs (like Della Reese's "Don't You Know" were based on operatic themes.

[Oak2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:23am

After Eight - It's not trying to "force" them to enjoy it - it's exposing them to aspects of an art form that they may have misconceptions about, and allowing them to make their own opinion of it. If they don't like it, that's fine. If they end up liking it, they'll be grateful they gave it a chance, that the art form managed to make itself accessible to let them have that exposure, and boom, the medium has a new fan.

Again, I know a lot of people who would have NEVER gotten into Classical music if it weren't for those Video Game Music Symphonies, which then got them hooked. I also know people who are now fans of 1940's hits and the only reason they got exposed to it was because those songs were featured in a video game that took place in the 40's. It was non-obtrusive, they were already hooked due to there being something they had an interest in, and thus didn't feel like they were "forced" into it, and then they got exposed to something they otherwise wouldn't try, found they enjoyed it, and now had a new interest. It's a win for both the medium which has a new fan, and the fan who now has another reason to enjoy life.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 11:34am

spidernight said: "Whizzer, I don't think the problem is the production or the singers. The singers at the Met Opera will all be good enough. Sure, some are certainly better than others but I wouldn't expect a person attending his first opera to discern the difference. He could certainly tell the difference between a bad singer and a good singer but no "bad" singers are leads at the Met.

 

I agree with you that the Met singers are "good enough," but rarely do I find them thrilling, and that includes some of the big names. I'm sure my roommate and his friend didn't know the difference between their Amelia in ballo and the Amelias of Milanov or Callas or Tebaldi. They didn't sit there comparing and contrasting true, but they also weren't excited and thrilled by the performance they did see the way I suspect they would have been had they seen a modern day equivalent of one of those divas.

If the companies want to infect new patrons with the opera bug then they need to really excite when they have the opportunity rather than just be good enough. I saw Natalie Dessay perform in the abysmal new Sonnambula production- she walked on holding a Starbucks cup- but aside from the ugly resetting of the piece she was positively underwhelming. A new operagoer may have walked out saying, "Well that was a pleasant little evening," but it shouldn't be a pleasant evening! Listen to one of the live Callas recordings and no one in the audience was having a pleasant little evening. They were ready to start rioting after some of the vocal embellishments she tossed off!

newintown is correct when she says that opera requires intense listening, but that shouldn't be misinterpreted for a performance not being pulse-pounding and heated. Even a silly comedy like Fille du regiment can have you holding your breath listening to Sills run up and down the scales during the music lesson sequence. 

I think the problem with many of the Met performers is a newbie walks out saying, "That was nice, but what's the big deal here? Why are you so gaga over this art form? Why do you own 8 different recordings of Un ballo?" One dynamo performance though could have them instead saying, "Wow, I get it! It may not completely be for me, but I at least get why people love this so much." 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 1:12pm

@newintown, 

Unquestionably, Broadway musicals have a "popular" issue, but it is again getting better. For more than a generation, what began as a popular art form tried to pretend it was high art, to disastrous effect. Opera, like dance, classical music, museums, and other "culture" are not commercial enterprises; Broadway musicals, with rare exceptions, are. And while opera may or may not have been "high brow" in earlier centuries, it was never mass entertainment because arithmetic prevents it from being anything of the sort. Ditto the theatre. Indeed, if you check the data, you will see that the majority of Americans have never stepped foot in a movie theatre. The only great equalizer has been TV,  radio and now the internet but none of those are forms of live entertainment.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 1:34pm

"Opera, like dance, classical music, museums, and other "culture" are not commercial enterprises..."

Oh really? Tell that to Gian-Carlo Menotti, Marc Blitzstein, Kurt Weill, George Gershwin, and Stephen Sondheim, all of whom had commercial operas on Broadway and in other commercial venues (not to mention that La Scala, La Fenice, Bayreuth, and other opera houses are not nonprofit entities). Tell it to Jerome Robbins and Matthew Bourne, who had commercial dance shows on Broadway and the West End. Tell it to Beethoven, Mozart, Britten, Bernstein and hundreds of others who wrote and performed "classical" music for profit.

But enough. Already this thread has descended too far into uninformed opinion that has little wish to become informed.

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 01:34 PM

[Oak2]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 1:43pm

Sorry for my ignorance, but are operettas still opera, or are they considered a separate beast altogether? Because I would say a lot of operettas are still pretty popular today - Gilbert and Sullivan's works especially still have a good chunk of recognition in pop culture, and they can still get some decent success. And I feel that those works also tend to be more likely to keep people interested when they go in compared to the more serious works. They could serve as another possible kind of jumping off point.

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 2:14pm

For what it's worth, I attended my first operas this year. I'm 60. Up to this point, my only experience with opera was seeing opera stars like Beverly Sills singing in front of some columns on variety and late night shows. I hated those segments as a kid and I avoided opera since.

As I got older, I was somewhat interested in what I heard was huge staging and spectacle, but was still afraid of giving it a try because I had heard old stories of opera decorum and was afraid I'd not know what to do.

Finally, a year ago, SF Opera put on Sweeney Todd. I gave it a try. Not the best production I had seen, but it was enjoyable. Aside from a different emphasis in performance (lots of stand downstage center and sing to the audience, no singing over each other with emphasis on the notes) and looong curtain calls, it was pretty much the same thing as musical theatre. 

Based upon that experience, I decided to see two more shows. SFO had a visually interesting, well-reviewed staging of The Magic Flute. (I had seen and enjoyed the movie back in the 70s) and a rough and sexy Carmen. Hated them both. Could not wait to leave the opera house. Not for me. 

Before that, there had been special productions in the summer with outreach to younger audiences (even when I WAS a younger audience) and free broadcasts at the ball field. Neither interested me (although I had friends who regularly attended). It took a title I wanted to see to give it a try.

And it didn't stick. However, now I know.

Updated On: 9/7/16 at 02:14 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 9/7/16 at 2:35pm

newintown said: ""Opera, like dance, classical music, museums, and other "culture" are not commercial enterprises..."

Oh really? Tell that to Gian-Carlo Menotti, Marc Blitzstein, Kurt Weill, George Gershwin, and Stephen Sondheim, all of whom had commercial operas on Broadway and in other commercial venues (not to mention that La Scala, La Fenice, Bayreuth, and other opera houses are not nonprofit entities). Tell it to Jerome Robbins and Matthew Bourne, who had commercial dance shows on Broadway and the West End. Tell it to Beethoven, Mozart, Britten, Bernstein and hundreds of others who wrote and performed "classical" music for profit.

But enough. Already this thread has descended too far into uninformed opinion that has little wish to become informed."

I am sure you are informed enough to know that the list of opera or dance on Broadway is microscopic, even if we assume that all of the people you mention have had one performed there, commercially or otherwise. (Hint: all of them have not.) 

I am sure you are informed enough to understand that we are talking about America in the 21st Century, and that virtually no composer of classical music has presented a commercial concert  (and certainly none of the ones you name, all of whom are dead).

I am sure you are informed enough that you are not confounding a composer being paid for the right to play his or her music (or to perform it) renders that performance a commercial enterprise.

Or perhaps you are so busy struggling futilely to aggrandize yourself at my expense (very much a joke) that you are actually not very informed at all.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 9/8/16 at 12:08pm

I think a certain amount of blame for the decline of the arts has to be placed on the parents.

I introduced my three grandchildren to theater, opera and orchestral music at very early ages and it's paying off. They WANT to join me at the Philharmonic and look forward to the Young Peoples Concerts at Geffen Hall. I was thrilled last December when my 11 year old granddaughter learned of a local presentation of The Messiah and begged me to take her. She enjoyed it, too. We watch opera on video and as they mature, I take them to matinees at the Met. Of course, they have a great time at Broadway musicals but my granddaugtour has also enjoyed The Elephant Man and Curious Incident.

I should add that these kids aren't nerds. They like Taylor Swift and popular music as well as the shows on the Disney Channel. It's just that they've been exposed to the arts and have come to enjoy them. I hope it continues to grow in them after I'm gone.

Updated On: 9/8/16 at 12:08 PM

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 9/8/16 at 1:09pm

I'm certainly not a seasoned opera-goer. I own a few recordings, the more famous ones such as Freni, Harwood, and Pavarotti in "La Boheme", Sutherland in "Rigoletto", and a hour-long selection from the Solti "Ring" recording. I listen to them with varying regularity, often marveling at their voices and the gorgeous orchestrations (and those full orchestras!). I've only seen one opera live, last seasons "Tosca" at the Met. While it was thrilling to hear the orchestra and singers without any amplification, the entire experience was distancing. Even though I had a pretty good seat and could clearly see everything onstage, it was odd for me, a regular musical theatre-goer who does not speak Italian, French, or German to have to read the synopsis before each act (unless I wanted to read the translation, which I opted out of). I thought the lead was very good, but I'm not experienced enough to judge. All I know is I never got chills the way I do when listening to Nilsson in "Brunnhilde's Immolation".

While "Porgy and Bess" can thrill me regularly, a large part of opera is based on the voice and not the words, which is very odd when coming from the musical theatre world, where words are just as important as the music. While you might think that fans of opera and musical theatre should have some overlap, I think the fact that most operas are in different languages put off the young people who enjoy musicals. I'm not suggesting that operas should be translated, I'm just pointing out a reason why someone like me is put off by seeing operas, even though it might seem to be a natural fit.

Perhaps if my Tosca has enraptured and thrilled me, I would have instantly fallen in love with the opulent art form, but as of now, I still feel on the outside looking in when it comes to opera.