Posted: 9/10/16 at 12:23pm
I would gladly pay fifteen dollars to see someone do Nixon in China in a shoebox, but I'd hesitate over 30 to see Marriage of Figaro from the back of a 3000-seat theater.
Posted: 9/10/16 at 1:05pm
WhizzerMarvin said: "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
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."
"
I could not disagree with you more with regard to the "good enough" statement. Like you, I am also in my early 30s and also like you, I attend the opera nearly as much as I do theater; certain seasons more the former than latter.
The young artists who have come out of the conservatory system over the past decade have been positively fantastic. The emphasis on diction and performance in conservatories around the world has created a new generation of singers who no longer (and I loath this term, but it is appropriate here) "park and bark."
I also think it's a dangerous practice to compare artists of yore with artists currently performing around the world stages. It creates a false equivalency that cannot be rebutted.
Posted: 9/10/16 at 7:07pm
Speaking just for myself, the initial attraction of Broadway musical theatre wasn't the beauty of the voices or the quality of the music, but the focus on storytelling through music. I've tried (a little) to get into opera via audio recordings and have found that, in my admittedly limited experience, opera tends to downplay this aspect, which IMO is potentially the most enticing aspect of the medium. Operas are usually recorded in languages other than English,* and even English-language audio recordings seem to use music production techniques and/or singing styles which inhibit one's ability to understand the words being sung. Probably fine if you're already intimately familiar with a given opera, but not a great gateway experience (for me at least). In fairness, it does seem that opera has got onto the video recording bandwagon far more than Broadway has managed, so maybe I should give it another try that way. However, personally I get this weird cognitive dissonance when reading English subtitles for songs when the subtitles don't rhyme with themselves and/or vaguely match the cadence of the sung lyrics being heard. Maybe opera just isn't for me and I'm wanting it to be something it's not. Opera can't tailor itself to suit the idiosyncrasies of every single potential new audience member.
*In fairness I think there are reasons for this, eg it allows international stars to go into productions around the world without having to re-learn parts in the local language each time.
Posted: 9/11/16 at 4:06am
That's an interesting point. I do prioritize the voices above all else with opera, though of course, it is nice when the performers are actually decent actors. I don't expect much from the stories themselves. A lot of operas tend to be melodramas or farces that paint in broadstrokes. I will say that I wish more companies, and the Met in particular, would make an effort to hire people to write better, more compelling subtitles. There's a difference between a direct translation (or worse a half-hearted one that is obviously skipping a lot of content) and one with its own artistry and style.
Posted: 9/11/16 at 7:38am
Fan123 said, "Speaking just for myself, the initial attraction of Broadway musical theatre wasn't the beauty of the voices or the quality of the music, but the focus on storytelling through music."
Those are usually the operatic productions and performances I respond to most. Click on some of the links I posted upthread and let me know if any of those performances click for you as they do for me.
Posted: 9/11/16 at 11:54am
I've been following this thread with interest because I'm an opera lover, but didn't think I'd get involved because I've never been able to convince anybody of opera's necessity through words. You have to just go, because it is often, at it's best, the ultimate immersive experience, deeply involving as it unfolds, in a very, very personal way. And you probably have to keep going (and listening at home), because, like any great art form, there's a learning curve, especially at first (how many of us hated Shakespeare in high school, only to become adoring devotees as growups), and also because opera isn't just one thing. I once took a newbie to La Bohème, usually a good first opera, and he was bored. But he thought Meistersinger a few months later was fantastic! My young nephew found Peter Grimes thrilling, but the following year was merely polite about Lucia di Lammermoor. You just never know. I myself thought opera was very strange, way too long, and with unpleasant screaming instead so singing, when my parents took me as a kid, and I never had that one aha! moment, but somehow over years I developed into your typical obsessed opera fanatic. It's so huge and thrilling and overwhelmingly fulfilling that I can't imagine life without it. It feels like a necessity to me, so it's hard to acknowledge that most people get along just fine without it.
Posted: 9/11/16 at 3:10pm
Sound ! when I go to opera, i do occassionally and I do dress up male-SUIT. I am there because I am slightly familiar with the music and the story--who cares-to me it is all about the SOUND-and for once diction-hate opera in English as that detracts from the vocal performance to my ears..
There is NO WAY to force anyone pay for a 'chance' these days as TV influences[controls] most on our entertainment $$s..
You hear about a song/situataion changing a persons' musical direction and that can be life-changing but oh so so rare.
There are just so many varieties in the music world that one just chooses the one that is right for their ears at the right time, place-and that's where their money goes.
If good luck-and lightning brings their ears by chance into the 'classical' music space then hopefully their presence will add one more bum to a seat, and that's really all Opera can wish for.
Long live ALL forms of musical entertainment.
SL........................x
Updated On: 9/11/16 at 03:10 PM
Posted: 9/12/16 at 4:54am
PalJoey said: Those are usually the operatic productions and performances I respond to most. Click on some of the links I posted upthread and let me know if any of those performances click for you as they do for me.
Thanks for posting those clips. I couldn't get into those either to be honest; it's the language/meaning barrier getting in my way again. The few parts with which I connected felt, to me, to be almost completely unrelated to the actual music, such as Sondra Radvanovsky's wordless acting when she looked at herself in the mirror sans wig in the second clip. Kristine Opolais and Jonas Kaufman hamming it up and reacting to one another during their duet was fun, but (for me) not particularly involving due to not knowing, in the moment, specifically what each line was about. Oh well, I might just be a lost cause.
Posted: 9/12/16 at 10:29pm
Thanks for the clips, PalJoey. I enjoyed them all; especially the Jonas pieces.
Opera is leaving the younger generation(s) behind with its ticket prices. Face value ticket prices, not Hamilton-like 3rd party resellers, are well over $300 here in Los Angeles (for a company that is nowhere near the Met in stature). Sure there are cheap nosebleed seats. When I was in my 20s I didn't buy them. It's like watching opera on a 9 inch screen. No thanks.
While taking the money and running now, many opera companies will be surprised when their older subscribers die off and there's nobody to replace them. Sad. Very sad.
Posted: 9/12/16 at 10:53pm
I bought at $20 rush ticket day off to a show at the Met and was mid-orchestra. Just to be in that space was worth the money. Didn't care for the show, and not sure Opera is totally my thing, but I love spectacle, so maybe need to start with one of the more famous operas.
Posted: 9/13/16 at 7:01pm
Fan123, have you never seen a foreign-language film with English subtitles? Opera is no different.
I promise you that opera companies are just as interested in storytelling as Lin-Manuel Miranda or Stephen Sondheim, opera creators merely work with a different set of conventions. You learned to like musical plays by getting used to their conventions; opera requires the same effort.
There was a time when opera singers were trained to sing almost everything as if it were Italian, which made nonsense out of English librettos. But the poster above is correct that young opera singers are taught better English diction these days.
But the primary reason English-speaking countries still perform the classics in their original languages is not so they can job stars in and out (though that may be a side benefit). It's because musical settings are greatly influenced by the language being set. Britten or Stravinsky or Weill don't sound like Puccini for this reason, not because they couldn't all write lush melodies. (Ask any French opera lover what translating Wagner into French does to the French language.)
Myself, I learned to love opera on TV. One can read the subtitles without taking one's eyes off the singer-actors. Sure, most of us don't have TVs with the same sound quality as a live performance, but that doesn't matter so much when one is first learning the medium.
But don't expect opera to conform to your list of requirements. Meet it at least halfway and I predict you'll be glad you did.
Posted: 9/13/16 at 8:55pm
Gaveston, do you recommend reading subtitles when watching opera? I had done some research about opera etiquette, and i was told it is always better to read the synopsis in the program before each act and then focus on the actors, the music, and the action. Perhaps that would improve my overall experience...
Posted: 9/13/16 at 9:27pm
Sally, absolutely read the subtitles. I mean you wouldn't go to a foreign film and only read a synopsis and hope to get anything out of watching whole film, right? Reading that there's a five minute scene where two characters argue and then sitting through it, not comprehending the actual fight is boring and will deprive you of any nuance in the libretto.
Posted: 9/13/16 at 9:44pm
Thank you Whizzer! I will for sure be reading subtitles next time I attend. I guess the lesson is don't believe everything you read!
Posted: 9/13/16 at 9:50pm
I read the subtitles at the Met no matter how familiar with an opera I am. (If I want a bit of a challenge I'll put on the German subtitles!)
There's a practical reason for this two. You never know which "cut" of an opera will be performed. Will that rarely performed tenor aria be including in act three? Will some of the recitative be trimmed? You may grow to think you know an opera inside an out, but you what's presented might not follow exactly what's in your mind.
Posted: 9/13/16 at 10:03pm
I'm trying to see the Met production of La Boheme - hopefully with those gorgeous (and more familiar) melodies and the subtitles I'll find a new appreciation for the art form. I'm also looking forward to Rigoletto, Don Giovanni (I've heard nothing of this score, although I love Mozart's orchestral work), Carmen, and Salome. I'm sure I'll try to see some other productions in the season as well.
Posted: 9/13/16 at 11:22pm
Seeing Zeffirelli's production of La Boheme at the Met is one of the greatest theatrical experiences you will have in your lifetime.
The spectacle, the intimacy of the love story, the interplay between the guys in the garret, the thrill of the two-story Latin Quarter set rising from the basement--and one of the greatest snow scenes ever put on stage!
And when there are great young singers in the production--which happens frequently at the Met lately!--it is heaven.
Posted: 9/13/16 at 11:34pm
Here, from the legendary 1982 video production for PBS, is Teresa Stratas, one of the greatest singing actors of all time, performing Mimi's aria, "Sì. Mi chiamano Mimi"...it doesn't get any better than this:
Posted: 9/14/16 at 3:38am
GavestonPS, FWIW I actually don't have any problem with reading subtitles for spoken foreign-language films etc; it's only singing that causes issues for me. To me, for some reason, there is a difference. I actually first encountered this when watching a foreign-language film musical; I was following along fine with the spoken dialogue subtitles, but was surprised to find myself alienated as soon as the singing began and the subtitles, which bore no resemblance to the rhythm of the sung lyrics and entirely lacked a rhyme scheme of their own, worked against the music rather than with it (in my brain at least!). As I mentioned in my first post, I'm aware that my personal cognitive dissonance with this may well just be weird and idiosyncratic, and I don't expect opera to to tailor itself to every individual's preferences. My experience is one example of why some people may not connect with opera, but it's not the answer for everyone. I might well give opera another try sometime, but life is short and at some point I'd rather just spend my leisure time and money on things that I naturally enjoy. For whatever reason, I've rarely had to struggle to appreciate Broadway-style musical theatre storytelling conventions. (Although, if anybody happens to have suggestions of opera DVDs out there with really excellent, music-attuned subtitles...?? No worries if not.)
Posted: 9/14/16 at 9:40am
Classical music/Opera are in a VERY constricted space for competition and will in this day have a much reduced appeal because of the 'instant audio appeal'--you DO have to have more than a 3min attention span.
Modern classics, a little like Japanese music, can be very grating against the usually melodious, overly loved and repeated standard Opera/music. Until something similar comes along NOTHING will entice a casual theatre goer to choose Falstaff over Fiddler.
Posted: 9/14/16 at 11:44am
PalJoey wrote: "Seeing Zeffirelli's production of La Boheme at the Met is one of the greatest theatrical experiences you will have in your lifetime."
Zeffirelli's TURANDOT is pretty jaw-dropping, too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWwJA1b2l7g
