Is Opera Behind the Times?

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

NEVER ....

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).

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

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...).

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.

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.

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.

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."

"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

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

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