The Future of Opera

[Nullifidian]

As a singer, I am worried about the future of opera. I'm trying to start a new company here for singers who are based around the university here, and I thought that before I pursued this idea too aggressively, I'd see what people think of opera here.

It's my belief that the average opera production doesn't sufficiently tap into the interest that might be there if companies seriously worked on outreach and programmed more interesting works in their seasons. There seems to me to be a disconnect between the opera world and the real world that's often cultivated by opera patrons, where we have a culture that can't renew and extend itself which is just fine to the very rich upon whose sponsorship opera companies depend. They're content, indeed happy, with the state of affairs where they go the opera, see their favorite arias played out in a 'traditional staging' that owes much to old 1950s nostalgia, and if it cannot pay for itself, so much the better. They think it shows them in a good light that they're able to throw millions of dollars down this sinkhole; how rich and cultured they all are that they can sustain this white elephant.

So, there's my perhaps cynical view, but formed from my experience. I would like to see a company which would, if not directly challenge the old houses on their own turf, at least exist beside them, devoted to modern operas and modern sensibilities, where the tickets would be priced cheaply, and the settings would not be ones designed for years of revivals, but be rather cheap, expendable, and innovative. In short, I'd like to see an avant-garde opera company, the way one sees avant-garde theatre companies. Does anyone think this is possible, and if possible is it something which should be pursued?

I'd love to hear what you'd all like to see, even (or especially) if you've never seen an opera.

 

[Ouled Nails]

Very nice topic, filled with difficult but also intriguing issues! It's hard to address in one message and I reserve the right to come back to it after one or two attempts :grin:

From a classical music lover, which I am, I will first confess that I came to the opera, as well as to melodies, after having fallen in love with composers to such an extent that I wanted to hear everything they ever created. Opera was not at all part of my "farm boy" culture and my family couldn't tolerate the very sound of an operatic voice. (To this day, I must be alone to fully enjoy opera). But once I got hooked on half a dozen composers to such an extent that I wanted to hear all of their intrumental/orchestral works, I reached melodies and opera. The moral of this bio-story is that the quality of the human voice, as an instrument for the composer, is not so easily assimilated as the piano voice, the violin voice, and the cello voice (but the cello is sure a good way to get to the human voice ) Once assimilated, however, it is truly intoxicating. Some instruments, like the flute's linear melodic line, are more accessible than others; the operatic voice, perhaps not unlike the organ, does not belong in that category.

Rationale: It is not that opera is elitist. Rather, it is more like it's one of the upper steps on one's stairway to heaven.

I could suggest "populist' ways to make the opera more accessible. For instance, in 2008, Quebec City will celebrate its 400th anniversary with, among other attractions, a "public opera" unraveling for several days on the streets of the old city, inclusive of Quebec "citizens" dressed as old settlers and acting out the history of colonial New France. Great! Yet, I remain convinced that melodies and operas are not, and never will be, the opening salvo in classical music appreciation. I'm afraid to say, by experience, they are for those who want to expand their connaissances of classical music up to and into the human voice.

 

[Nullifidian]

I can see what you're saying, although my acquaintance with opera was made differently than yours was.

When I was ten, I grew bored with the traditional 19th century canon, hated 80s pop, and had only jazz to console myself. Also, when I was bored with reading, and didn't know what I felt like reading elsewhere, I would pick out books randomly from the library and read them (mainly nonfiction). These two things collided one day when I decided to take home on LP from the classical section at random (I liked the abstract art on the cover). It was Charles Ives' 1st Piano Sonata, and at first I was bewildered, turning it off after only about fifteen seconds. I went back, went back, went back, then finally decided that if I wasn't hearing what I expected (namely traditional melody and harmony), then I should listen for what the composer might be trying to say--a pretty sophisticated thought, perhaps, for a ten year-old, but it saved my interest in classical music. I listened again and heard a range of rhythms and timbres that I had never heard before, and I was hooked.

From then on, I read books on modern music and started teaching myself music theory in order to understand what I heard on that LP. One name that kept on coming up over and over again was Wozzeck by Alban Berg. Previous to this, my experience with opera was limited to a live production of Boris Goudonov where I was forced to leave by my chaperones at the start of the final act, and a teacher on a six-week, one hour per day stint of "music appreciation" class whose idea of music appreciation was to play a scratchy LP of Madama Butterfly in class without libretto, synopsis, or any kind of explanation or analysis. Then when it was over, he'd start the opera again.

You can imagine this wasn't conducive to liking opera.

But when I learned that Wozzeck was based on a play that I had seen in a modern adaptation called Blow Out the Sun when I was nine (I was a child with unusual tastes :grin, I couldn't wait to listen, and I was blown away at the very first listening. It helped that listening to modern music for a year softened the 'rough edges' of Berg's harmonies, but I hadn't listened to any vocal music at all prior to that except for the abortive Boris and tedious Butterfly. I was about as close to a tabula rasa for vocal music as could be imagined, and I took to opera immediately thanks to Wozzeck.

Plus, I've also had experience of people just wandering by and being captivated by someone's vocal performance [revision: since I know people are going to be wondering, yes, often times that voice happens to be mine ], so I think there's nothing uniquely difficult to appreciate about the classically trained human voice. It is certainly a distinctive sound, and I think much of the problem is that people associate that distinctive sound with a set of preconceptions which are unflattering but perhaps accurate. I really doubt that if the classically trained voice were hard for the "uninitiated" to accept that so much opera would be featured in movies made to reach a mass audience, like the sublime scene in The Shawshank Redemption where Tim Robbins' character broadcasts the Letter Duet from Le Nozze di Figaro over the prison speaker system.

I'm not sure I really want to turn opera into a populist art, although I would love for it to be as popular as possible, but it always seems that for any opera (unless you're going to beam opera straight into theatres, like The Metropolitan Opera is doing and which I applaud :clap, the people outside the 'theatre' will always outnumber those inside. I'm just wondering if it will be possible to create a type of opera that makes the inside more like a random sampling of the outside, rather than an overwhelmingly rich or upper middle-class, white, and elderly crowd of seasoned opera-goers.

One more thing to clarify a potentially ambiguous point: while I mentioned an avant-garde opera, that's not meant to suggest that every production will be devoted to wild experimentalism, but that it be produced in a context different from the context of most modern productions; in its literal translation as an advance guard for a new way of doing opera. Some experimenting will be necessary, but not at the expense of the opera itself. George Tsypin's and Peter Sellars' Le Grand Macabre was a real travesty of the opera. Setting it in a post-apocalyptic future not only emptied the opera of its humor, playing out over such a bleak landscape (could anyone call it Breughelland?!), but completely reversed the point of the opera. In the opera, Nekrotzar fails because of the irrepressible life of the residents of Breughelland. They sleep through his apocalypse and wake up unchanged and unkilled, because life itself is profligate and the love of life, in all its richness and bawdiness, can keep one sustained. If they had wanted to work in a modern angle, then Nekrotzar perhaps could have been a politician with his finger on the button and an oppressive manner to his lackey Piet the Pot, but who is defeated by the power of a poor community living life and loving it. That would have been revolutionary. Instead when Nekrotzar wanders around muttering "Have I not laid waste to the whole goddamn world?", the answer in the Sellars-Tsypin production was "Yes, undoubtedly, and you did even before the first note." It gave the opera no room to breathe and grow.

(Sorry for the lengthy digression, but I just read George Tsypin Opera Factory: Building in the Black Void and it was the first time I'd seen the infamous post-Apocalyptic production Ligeti hated. In fact, I confess that I can't take the man seriously as a set designer. I started giggling early on and broke out into loud guffaws when I saw the staging for Les Troyens. I feared I was going to be asked to leave the university library.)

Well, those are my two cents. That buys a lot of words these days.

 

[Krummhorn]

Superb topic for discussion - thanks for the post :clap:
One of my favorites is Tannhauser which I saw live at a theatre in Budapest some years back. It was strictly a black tie presentation, and it was all of that and more.

In some parts of the country we are not afforded the opportunities to see such wonderful masterpieces as that Wangerian opera ... about the closest we have ever come is a toss up between Oklahoma or Lion King, neither of which are opera, but for this one horse town of almost a million people, that's the extent of the "high brow" classics we get here. We have the elaborate halls and stages, but never seem to attract the likes of La Boheme, Swan Lake, or Tannhauser, for instance.

We have a rich diverse community here - lots of classical concert happenings, but nothing really major - something that I would have to travel 8-10 hours in a car to take in that kind of opportunity of classic opera.

It will be interesting to watch this discussion grow, as I think it will.

KH

 

[Gary Blanchard]

I also find this an interesting topic, especially since I have come into opera through the modern door - Einstein on the Beach, Satyagraha, and Ahknaten. I have since seen Aida and several others. I appreciate the older operas for what they are; marvelous works of art, but very much of their time.

I think there can be an audience for modern opera, and I like the idea of a more stripped down (might I say minimalist ) staging. I think that taking some of the "specialness" away from attending opera is also important. I like dressing up to go out, but not many people seem to, anymore. If the opera is presented in a more casual atmosphere, with less pomp, there might be more people willing to give it a try.

I also find this interseting as I have often toyed with the idea of writing an opera, but recognize the difficulty of having new works performed; I am sure it would be harder for someone like me who lacks credentials. If your idea works, it may become a model for more such companies around the country. Keep us posted on this; it sounds great.

 

[Nullifidian]

Superb topic for discussion - thanks for the post :clap:

Thanks.

In some parts of the country we are not afforded the opportunities to see such wonderful masterpieces as that Wangerian opera ... about the closest we have ever come is a toss up between Oklahoma or Lion King, neither of which are opera, but for this one horse town of almost a million people, that's the extent of the "high brow" classics we get here. We have the elaborate halls and stages, but never seem to attract the likes of La Boheme, Swan Lake, or Tannhauser, for instance.

Have you tried the Arizona Opera? It looks like a high-quality operation.

We have a rich diverse community here - lots of classical concert happenings, but nothing really major - something that I would have to travel 8-10 hours in a car to take in that kind of opportunity of classic opera.

It will be interesting to watch this discussion grow, as I think it will.

KH

Indeed, and I hope that my program, if successful, might encourage some good synchronicity between universities with their vocal programs, and communities which are starved for opera or good theatre. I don't see why it's necessary to break the bank for an operatic production, and a more 'throwaway' approach would free us from the oppression of the Standard Repertory, where one spends $1 million on a production, then revives it three or four times in ten to fifteen years simply to justify the expense. I've seen La Traviata four times already, La Boheme five times, and I'm getting exceedingly bored with them. And since we're not breaking the bank, most communities would be able to afford opera.

 

[Nullifidian]

I also find this an interesting topic, especially since I have come into opera through the modern door - Einstein on the Beach, Satyagraha, and Ahknaten. I have since seen Aida and several others. I appreciate the older operas for what they are; marvelous works of art, but very much of their time.

Indeed, although I think that some have retained some relevance, but overwhelmingly these are not the works that are presented (Pikovaya Dama for example retains a relevance in the way that Yevgeny Onegin doesn't, IMO), or if they are they're presented in ways which serve to alienate people from what they're seeing. I'd like to take this to older operas, too, just to see which ones might still retain a sense of modernity. Certainly Wozzeck is about now.

I think there can be an audience for modern opera, and I like the idea of a more stripped down (might I say minimalist ) staging. I think that taking some of the "specialness" away from attending opera is also important. I like dressing up to go out, but not many people seem to, anymore. If the opera is presented in a more casual atmosphere, with less pomp, there might be more people willing to give it a try.

That's one of the things that makes the idea of doing site-specific productions interesting to me. Graham Vick has done several around the area of Birmingham, UK, so there is a precedent for it. If you were to do a production of Monk's Atlas at night, outside, for example, then formal wear would be ridiculous and it would have a sense of openness just by getting rid of the theatre structure.

I also find this interseting as I have often toyed with the idea of writing an opera, but recognize the difficulty of having new works performed; I am sure it would be harder for someone like me who lacks credentials. If your idea works, it may become a model for more such companies around the country. Keep us posted on this; it sounds great.

I will do that. I'm writing an opera myself, an adaptation of The House of Mirth by Edith Wharton for my local university company. Writing an opera is another thing that's brought home the lack of diversity among opera-goers to me, since opera-goers or children of opera-goers tend to be those who think in terms of pursuing opera as a career. And, despite the examples of Shirley Verrett, Leontyne Price, Jessye Norman, Denyce Graves, Paul Robeson, Robert McFerrin, Willard White, Kevin Short, etc., there just aren't many Afro-American singers in our university opera company, which makes it profoundly difficult for me to write operas about certain subjects. I chose The House of Mirth because it was something I was interested in, granted, but I was far more interested in writing an opera about The Battle of Blair Mountain, a militant miner's strike in the Appalachian region of West Virginia in 1921, but I can't do it without a fair number of Afro-American singers.

I'll probably still write that opera, especially if I build a career and clout as a singer. It's in my blood. I'm directly descended from a miner in that battle, and related to Sid Hatfield, the martyred police chief of Matewan, WV, but I wish I were doing that now. So I think you should write your opera, as I certainly will write this one whether I can get it performed or not. Who knows? I might be interested in premiering yours, if I can get this opera company off the ground.

 

[Ouled Nails]

Wozzeck and Lulu (Berg), The Rake's Progress (Stravinsky), Le dialogue des Carmélites and La voix humaine (Poulenc), Padmavati (Roussel), Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (Shostakovich), St. François d'Assise (Messiaen), Porgy and Bess (Gershwin), Peter Grimes and Billy Budd (Britten), Jenufa, the Cunning Little Vixen, Katya Kabanova, Vec Makrpulos (Janacek), Bluebeard's Castle (Bartok), and more.... I would love to see a production of all these operas before my candle burns out! I don't know if these works should also be considered a part of the standard repertoire but from what I hear on the radio, they are not all that frequently offered as public performances in North America. I can understand one becoming saturated after attending four or five performances of the same work. But consider that the brief list, above, roughly corresponds to four decades of opera composition (with the exception of Messiaen's) and there's another half century of opera composition afterward! How many very good operas were created during the twentieth century and, of these, how many have made it into the standard repertoire of the Mozart's, Verdi's, Puccini's, Bizet's and Wagner's?

I am guessing that public response to most of these 20th century works has not been as profitable as with the older classics. And because outstanding singers cost a lot of money (no less than outstanding instrumental soloists), the command of money continues to shape and to dictate what is successful and not so successful in the world of opera. I am also willing to bet that the range of the opera repertoire varies geographically, probably being of a greater span in France, in the UK and in eastern Europe than in the USA. In other words, the notion of a standard repertoire is itself a very relative concept depending on national cultures and, who knows, the demographics of classical music.

And then there are all the song cycles which don't seem to enjoy widespread public success either! Surely, song cycles by composers such as Ned Rorem, for example, do not immediately come to mind when speaking of a standard repertoire. There are hundreds of these, far too many to enumerate here, and they too await greater public "appreciation." Given this abundance, I fail to see a lack of available works. Rather, one is led to the conclusion that, like chamber music players, most opera singers are confronted with a social reality wherein their audience will all too often be limited to a small number of dedicated listeners who probably don't care about the dress code, etc.

 

[Nullifidian]

Wozzeck and Lulu (Berg), The Rake's Progress (Stravinsky), Le dialogue des Carmélites and La voix humaine (Poulenc), Padmavati (Roussel), Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (Shostakovich), St. François d'Assise (Messiaen), Porgy and Bess (Gershwin), Peter Grimes and Billy Budd (Britten), Jenufa, the Cunning Little Vixen, Katya Kabanova, Vec Makrpulos (Janacek), Bluebeard's Castle (Bartok), and more.... I would love to see a production of all these operas before my candle burns out!

Me too, although I have seen many I saw The Dialogues of the Carmelites at the Lyric Opera of Chicago this year, and La Voix Humane at the Houston Grand Opera also this year at the Houston Grand Opera, plus Jenufa a few years back at the San Diego Opera. I've been thinking about going back home to San Diego for their production of Wozzeck this April, but may give it a miss for X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X by Anthony Davis at the Oakland Opera in May.

As you can see by this, my viewing of modern opera tends to be related to a willingness to travel over state lines for the sake of art. It's a harmless hobby, and since I don't spend much on myself otherwise, I can manage it. It keeps me inspired, but also frustrated at the rigamarole of making sure I'm free to leave for days at a time and drive ten hours or more for the sake of an opera.

I don't know if these works should also be considered a part of the standard repertoire but from what I hear on the radio, they are not all that frequently offered as public performances in North America. I can understand one becoming saturated after attending four or five performances of the same work. But consider that the brief list, above, roughly corresponds to four decades of opera composition (with the exception of Messiaen's) and there's another half century of opera composition afterward! How many very good operas were created during the twentieth century and, of these, how many have made it into the standard repertoire of the Mozart's, Verdi's, Puccini's, Bizet's and Wagner's?

Well, there are, as you have guessed, several ideas of the standard repertoire. In the United States, the repertoire hasn't changed significantly since robber barons built opera houses for themselves (although allegedly for the "good of the people") as a gesture of nobless oblige. In Europe, the repertoire contains the works of composers I would give my left arm to see, and they see it as a matter of course. I'll likely never see a Henze opera in the United States, but it's easy to see them in Europe, for example.

I am guessing that public response to most of these 20th century works has not been as profitable as with the older classics. And because outstanding singers cost a lot of money (no less than outstanding instrumental soloists), the command of money continues to shape and to dictate what is successful and not so successful in the world of opera. I am also willing to bet that the range of the opera repertoire varies geographically, probably being of a greater span in France, in the UK and in eastern Europe than in the USA. In other words, the notion of a standard repertoire is itself a very relative concept depending on national cultures and, who knows, the demographics of classical music.

To a certain extent, that's true, and yet it depends on what the definition of "profitable" is. For a small company like the Oakland Opera, which performed its Akhnaten in a 100 seat opera house, it can turn a profit doing modern music. In fact, their 2006 production of X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X was so successful that they're reviving it this year. This demonstrates that a season based on modern works can be profitable, even in America, if one keeps the budgets within reason and searches outside the traditional conception of what an opera audience is and what it would like to see.

I believe that Graham Vick put his finger on the problem when he wrote:

Until now, we have perpetuated the civic heritage of the 19th century: a privileged elite opening the doors of its great institutions for the education and enlightenment of the people. In the 1950s and early 1960s, this ethos created the series of structures and institutions that we now call opera companies.

Surely it is not surprising that such values are now at best irrelevant and at worst alienating? The rules of opera-going, which are the guarded privilege of an ever-smaller section of British society, are in growing conflict with the need for openness - that is, open channels of communication and exchange between art and the society that sustains it and that it is, in return, bound to nourish.

The challenge of responding to this tension has, however, largely been devolved to outreach departments, education workers, studio theatres and, most recently, strategic partnerships. Anything, in fact, to keep it away from what is called the "work itself". I have yet to see any real impact made by this activity on either the audiences or the stages of our main theatres. This convenient separation - intended to protect the core work - has only succeeded in isolating it.

And then there are all the song cycles which don't seem to enjoy widespread public success either! Surely, song cycles by composers such as Ned Rorem, for example, do not immediately come to mind when speaking of a standard repertoire. There are hundreds of these, far too many to enumerate here, and they too await greater public "appreciation." Given this abundance, I fail to see a lack of available works. Rather, one is led to the conclusion that, like chamber music players, most opera singers are confronted with a social reality wherein their audience will all too often be limited to a small number of dedicated listeners who probably don't care about the dress code, etc.

Well, to defend some opera singers, as well as opera companies, there is less of an emphasis on dress code, and yet still I see the wealthy audiences dressed to the nines and there only to enjoy their favorite arias and ensembles, however dated and alien the original production. And opera singers have championed modern music now and earlier. Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau certainly made one of his life goals premiering new works and forcing reevaluations of modern works. It's a testament to his success that there are so many modern productions in Europe these days, although it probably did limit his American career, where anyone, if they heard him, mainly heard him in recitals. Ian Bostridge is also very much interested in modern music, and I respect him for that.

 

[Ouled Nails]

All good points and I sure would like to hear a socially-grounded opera like the topic you have suggested about the miners' strike. Just for the fun of it, let's imagine some very realistic, quite dramatic, and yet most unusual opera topics and scenarios Feel free to be creative. As I have mostly invested my life in history, you can expect a number of "old" stories

From Native America: Among horticultural tribes such as the Iroquois, Genesis is of female origin, a "first woman" who falls from the sky. While this "God" is female her two descendants are male twins, both of whom create the physical world as we know it but with very different, and inevitably clashing perspectives. The man of fire wishes to generate a world of ease, of comfort, of effortless access to abundant resources. Rivers, for instance, flow both ways; berries are not only plentiful but huge; maple trees don't merely produce maple water but maple syrup, and everything is so plentiful that it is immediately renewable. The man of flint, on the other hand, wishes to create difficulties, hardships, and constantly undoes what his twin brother creates. The rivers became raging elements where humans can drown. The animals are now afraid of hunters and become more difficult to kill. The giant fruits become minuscule berries which require labour-intensive harvesting, and the land of honey is transformed into more treacherous and desolate terrains.

To Christians who first heard this story, the man of fire was associated with Abel and the man of flint with Caen; the forces of good in a struggle against the forces of evil. But the curious outcome of this indigenous story is that, in their ultimate clash, when the twin brothers fought for who would prevail as the ultimate creator, the "good" man of fire lied and the "evil" man of flint said the truth. "What are you most afraid of," asked the good brother? The "evil" man of flint replied honestly but, in order to win, his twin brother dissimilated the truth. Another curious moral twist to this story is that the first mother, the woman who fell from the sky, showed her maternal support for the defeated "evil" brother.

How could anyone even begin to identify "goodness" without the existence of its opposite, "evilness"? And how could human beings ever achieve goodness without being faced with adversity? Can one imagine becoming "good" in a land where everything is readily available without any effort, replenishable without any thought about the consequences of one's acts, and forever present without any need for foresight?

 

[Nullifidian]

That sounds like a very interesting concept for an opera.

Personally, I've been thinking about something which is, in its way, a very strange concept for an opera: an operatic cycle about the 1960s in America. It sounds straightforward, but when one thinks about it, one can quickly see that the idea skates on the edge of an abyss, and it wouldn't take too much to plunge one down it, and write the worst operatic cycle ever written. That's why it attracts me.


Or if one combines the sensibility of Adès' Powder Her Face with one of John Adams' CNN operas, we get an opera about the Mapplethorpe controversy. :grin: I think that actually might have some dramatic merit (probably more than the planned Kerrigan-Harding opera I've heard about).

 

[Miz_ai]

great topic!!!!

since i live in Indonesia.. i can't even imagine seeing opera around here... T_T;;;
it's so sad...because i love opera!!! i only hear opera and arias through net radio and mp3s..

>_<;;;

yeah i guess the world need affordable opera...ppl of the world think opera as an elitist type of show..because of the price and all the dress code..

broadway musicals are affordable.. why not make opera as affordable as musical?
>_<;; can't say more.. i feel i don't have enough knowledge to say anything @_@;;;

T_T;;;

btw, nullifidian>> are you an opera singer?? @_@ i really need to hear about ur experience~
i'd love to be a singer too >0<

 

[Nullifidian]

great topic!!!!

since i live in Indonesia.. i can't even imagine seeing opera around here... T_T;;;
it's so sad...because i love opera!!! i only hear opera and arias through net radio and mp3s..

I'm very sorry to hear that you don't have any opera at all, but if you listen over the internet radio, Operacast.com is a terrific resource for finding all sorts of wonderful music (operas, oratorios, and even some traditional concerts).

yeah i guess the world need affordable opera...ppl of the world think opera as an elitist type of show..because of the price and all the dress code..

broadway musicals are affordable.. why not make opera as affordable as musical?

Most opera in the world is affordable, to a certain extent, since many houses make sure that they have cheap seats somewhere far away from the stage with bad sight lines, but I would like to start a little company where we eliminate these class distinctions entirely and charge an affordable, flat rate for nearly everyone, perhaps with the usual students' and seniors' discounts. The company does have to be small for this to happen, but I think that can be a virtue.

btw, nullifidian>> are you an opera singer?? @_@ i really need to hear about ur experience~
i'd love to be a singer too >0<

I don't want to give any false impressions. I'm a semi-professional singer at best. I've been paid both here and in San Diego to sing solos, as well as having been in the San Diego Opera chorus (and I've auditioned for the Lyric Opera of Kansas City chorus), but all my actual roles in opera have been in my universities' opera productions only.

However my experience, such as it is, is this:

I didn't sing in high school. I was busy enough just being in band, as well as the (American) football team in Fall , soccer (football to the rest of the English-speaking world) team in Spring, and convincing my band teacher to start an Advanced Placement Music Theory class, where I acquired my experience in organizing and getting people with every right and reason to say "no" to me to do what I wanted them to do. :grin: I was also heavily involved in theatre, where I was fascinated with all sides of the production, from acting to directing to designing and stagecraft. This is how I initally got involved with what I call the San Diego Theatrical Mafia , since everyone in San Diego theatre knows everybody else and hires from that pool of people, so I've been an assistant director, stage and lighting designer, and actor professionally too. I even have an Actor's Equity card somewhere, although I haven't had much use for it since moving out to Lawrence.

I started singing in college, because I needed performance credits for my planned music major in composition. I could have tested out of it by my profiency in piano, but I wanted to stretch myself. I started out as a baritone, even a bass-baritone, but eventually I found out what was a baritone's "top" for me was actually the upper limit of my passagio, before I switched to head voice--at about high F-sharp/G! (Jon Vickers had a similarly high passagio.) So I started retraining my voice to be a tenor, and that's what I am today.

My first voice class was a sort of combination between individual instruction and a regular class, a kind of master class every day, and my community college had a program where they'd pay for my lessons if I auditioned for a certain class and then took other core classes in music history or theory, which suited me fine. I had to re-audition every semester, and I have a funny story about that. I'm fluent in German, so my choices for audition pieces were lieder or German arias, because they were easiest to learn and perform for me. They got sick of seeing this after three semesters, so one of the panel of professors told me explicitly before the third semester ended not to audition with a German piece next semester. I'm also a fan of world music and I toyed with the thought of being an ethnomusicologist, so my audition piece next semester was a song in Yoruba (the most widely spoken of the three major tribal languages of Nigeria) by Ayo Bankole.

All this would have gone smoothly, except for my depression, which caused a crisis of confidence, and I switched majors entirely (and again--music wasn't my first major either) and went into biology when I transferred to UCSD. Still, I liked singing and I have a good voice, so I got private lessons while at UCSD and did a little work in their music department, since Revelle College liked its majors to have a breadth of education. Then I was convinced by my voice teacher to audition for the San Diego Opera chorus, which I did, and got in. By the time of graduation rolled around, I was very certain that I didn't want to give up music, but I also didn't want to give up biology, so I found the University of Kansas where I can do both.

However, the KU Opera department, while good, focuses on giving traditional productions from the repertoire, for the very simple reason that if its students pursue a career in opera, this is what they'll be most likely to sing. Yet I love modern music, including modern opera, and I want to start a small company which will give myself and my fellow students more experience while doing more contemporary works.

 

[ArtsWom]

I have only recently had the opportunity to visit the opera, which was something I never truly expected to experience in my life - mainly because I come from quite a working class background in the UK and there is still the misconception that opera is only suitable for 'lords and ladies'. In fact, I was rather annoyed to find that my attempts to look respectable (smart trousers and shiny shoes) was completely unnecessary as the other patrons were all clad in comfortable jeans and trainers!

The performance I was watching was La Boheme and I absolutely loved it. It was a fantastic night and I'm looking forward to going to see Satyagraha later this week. I find it hard to believe that many people who deride the opera would honestly feel the same if they have the chance to go and watch one.

In response to your question about exposing opera to a wider audience, the site I write for is sponsored by a British television channel called Sky Arts who cover the opera daily. The channel is available to millions of people in the UK, but I still think that a large factor of what is stopping people enjoying this (at least in England, where the class system still essentially exists, at least within the mass consciousness) is a perceived view that as opera is traditionally for the upper classes there must be something wrong with it and they don't want to know. Does that make sense!?

To further illustrate my point, I believe that if someone went onto X Factor and knocked out an amazing bit of opera - millions would love it, but still not be willing to pay £21 for a cheap seat viewing of a whole performance.

Has anyone else from the UK picked up on this, or am I speaking nonsense ?

 

[CMB]

I can't believe I missed this thread until now! Yikes!
(considering I'm known as Opera-Gal in the blogosphere)

As host of What's Opera, Doc, I deal with trying to bring opera to regular people all the time.

There is no quick solution, and I applaud Peter Gelb (Met) for bringing opera into the movie theaters - the fact that EVERY SINGLE TICKET has sold says a lot about the demand.

What I find interesting about this thread that it is on an international board, but we don't have anyone on either side of the pond weighing in.

There was an "Opera Idol" type of contest in England where the winners performed in a fully staged production, and it has often been shown in repeats on PBS here in the States, so there *is* some interest.

My understanding (which is culled from reading and opera-l) is that Opera in Europe/UK is more accepted as a popular art form, and that only here in the states has it been elevated to a "hoi-polloi" art form.

Of course I welcome everyone to visit the WOD blog at Classical Music Broadcast.com, and of course you can ALWAYS ask me for recommendations, etc.

I could babble on forever, but I will turn the discussion back over to the list before this becomes the Opera-Gal show.

 

[Norman]

I also live in Indonesia and have a few opera loving friends here, but as you say, not much to listen to around here.

 

[Nullifidian]

I can't believe I missed this thread until now! Yikes!
(considering I'm known as Opera-Gal in the blogosphere)

As host of What's Opera, Doc, I deal with trying to bring opera to regular people all the time.

There is no quick solution, and I applaud Peter Gelb (Met) for bringing opera into the movie theaters - the fact that EVERY SINGLE TICKET has sold says a lot about the demand.

I hate to pour cold water on this, but I have no idea why they're claiming every single ticket has been sold. When I've been there, in Lenexa, KS, there's been no problem getting tickets at all, and the theatre is about half full.

My understanding (which is culled from reading and opera-l) is that Opera in Europe/UK is more accepted as a popular art form, and that only here in the states has it been elevated to a "hoi-polloi" art form.

True, but it wasn't always a popular form. The interest in it eclipsed through the 1960s and 1970s (as did anything associated with [SIZE=-1]bourgeois culture)[/SIZE], and I hope we are going through just a temporary eclipse, but I am depressed to see is general managers doing the same things over and over again.

I think if I had my way, I'd go around every season and ask ourselves "Why are we doing this?" and "What do we really want to see?" rather than trying to get people to come to the umpteenth revival of Madama Butterfly and expecting to make a case to them why they should see it if we cannot make it to ourselves.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but at this point weighing my options, all my music professors want me to pursue singing, and yet I'm just thinking what a terrible and unrewarding slog I'm going to have.

 

[zlya]

I don't think the answer is in changing the repertoire. I mean, I don't want to see an opera about real life, here and now. I get enough of that just living! For me, opera is about escapism, huge, grandiose, gorgeous escapism to a world where people sing their emotions while time stands still. I want huge sets! I want red velvet curtains! I want black tie! To me, THAT is opera. I have no interest in seeing a minimalist production of random sixties politics and druggies. Give me Madame Butterfly any day.

Ok, so we want to make more people come. How do the Proms work? I know its not opera, but I saw thousands of people standing in line for hours to see classical music, real classical music, not modern art music. Is it just the cheap tickets? I would think one of the major obstacles to seeing opera for most people is the price. At least, that's the main reason I don't see more. (Well, that and living in South Korea, where I hear there are some opera performances somewhere, but certainly not in my little town).

 

[Nullifidian]

I don't write minimalist music, so my 1960s opera cycle would not be minimalist. And when you have people blowing up the U.S. Capitol building, I'd certainly say those are some big emotions.

I was using Butterfly as an example, and if you like it I'm sure there's no reason why you can't see it. I travel to get my fill of modern operas, and I've seen half a dozen this year, but I could have seen, in that time, twenty separate productions of Madama Butterfly alone in the USA. I did see one, which had all the traditional Orientalist cant and all the burden to justify why I should see this was shifted to the outreach department, not decided ahead by the opera board. I don't want to ban Madama Butterfly (although I'd be happy to not see it again in my life), but merely change the way we look at opera so that every season can be a journey of (re)discovery.

I do not think American opera companies should go on producing Madama Butterfly forever without addressing Said's critiques of Orientalism and America's own treatment of the people of Asia, nor without addressing challenges from people who would like to see other things produced (Chausson's Le Roi Arthus, for example, would be a wonderful piece to produce). The way the operas I see now go is that they are derivative of stagings produced 100 years ago, and do not address the changing moods and opinions (including political as well as aesthetic opinions) of the audience. It's the most reactionary art for I've ever seen.

 

[zlya]

I don't write minimalist music, so my 1960s opera cycle would not be minimalist.

Sorry, by "minimalist production" I didn't meant the music would be minimalist, I meant the PRODUCTION would be minimalist. In some earlier posts people were mentioning that they wanted simpler sets and costumes. That's what I meant by minimalist--almost empty stages with the actors all in nondescript black.

Now that I think about it, such a production style does work for some operas--Bluebeard's Castle springs immediately to mind.

I didn't mean modern operas are all bad, and I certainly have no way of knowing the quality of yours. However, at the end of the day, I hear about politics and terrorism every day in the news, and of course they contain lots of strong emotions. But when I go to the opera, I want to get away from all of that. I want fantasy.

I was using Butterfly as an example, and if you like it I'm sure there's no reason why you can't see it.

There is. Money. Both travel and tickets cost serious amounts.

I do not think American opera companies should go on producing Madama Butterfly forever without addressing Said's critiques of Orientalism and America's own treatment of the people of Asia,

That's an interesting point. Actually, Miss Saigon came to Korea last month. (Ok, musical not opera, but same story) I didn't get a chance to see it--money and travel again--but from what I heard they played it straight, focusing on the love story rather than the politics.

Hmm. Maybe I just don't like politics. Never did care for 20th C history. I suppose it's just a matter of opinion.

Personally, I love the glamour and decadence of the 19th C repertoire and fin de siecle inspired stagings. I guess there are those who don't.