# Opera Companies Doing Musicals



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

Anyone else sensing this trend or is this unique to Chicago? This year the Lyric Opera tacked a non-subscription production of "Oklahoma" to the end of the season and last year "Show Boat" was part of the subscription season. These are billed as full productions with the considerable resources of the opera house behind them and faithful to the original scoring. Both shows seem to have gotten alot more local media play than their standard opera productions tend to.

I've noticed some American summer festivals (Central City, Aspen, Glimmerglass just to name a few) doing this too.

Given a choice, I'd still pick _Aida_ over "Annie Get Your Gun", but I guess I've warmed to the idea. If it gets notoriety and attracts the attention of folks who might not otherwise venture into the opera house, it's a good thing. And certainly some of the classic musicals merit the opera house treatment. I haven't attended any of the Chicago productions, but I did attend a festival production of West Side Story, and it was a treat to have a full orchestra in the pit rather than the skeleton crew or synthesized sounds typical of modern productions.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Opera houses must have profit. I don't see anything wrong with that. I, myself, am very fond of musicals. (Although i'm more inclined to opera without any doubt)

Some opera venues today have operas, musicals, ballets and theatre plays staged.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

To be clear, I'm not talking about multi-use opera venues or opera houses that occasionally host non-opera events. I'm talking about nominally musical theater pieces produced by the opera company, under their name, and promoted as an integral part of the opera season. 

This year's "Oklahoma" presented as an add-on rather than part of the regular subscription series (as "Showboat" was) seems to a happy medium. Interestingly, it's being presented on a 7-show-a-week Broadway type schedule rather than the more spread out ~2-show-a-week opera schedule. It will definitely be interesting to hear how it works out financially for them.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Anything that allows opera to continue flourishing by providing additional funds seems good to me. As long as I am not expected to attend.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Not at all a fan, yet of their sort, these are great popular pieces, from an era when the pit orchestra was often forty or more players. There is a dearth of that in contemporary Broadway productions, and even less 'full use' of both voice and orchestral palette in the newer works.

These are also clearly NOT part of any subscription season, so 'using the house and the performers' for another function is a win / win situation.

For those who want the 'original' productions of these older and larger Musical Theater pieces, this is _the place_ to hear them _done 'as they were,' full orchestrations, singers who did not use microphones, staging, etc._

Repeating that I'm generally not a fan: even if you are also not a fan, I'd urge you to recognize these are a large part of 'sophisticated' American popular musical culture, and I believe strongly, as long as they are not a substitute for other classical music, they more than deserve a decent presentation. Such presentations only pull up the now lowered standards and expectations of the current state of musical theater.

Go to a contemporary Broadway production: there are but a handful of actual acoustic musicians in the pit, a synthesizer is used to 'fill out' that pit band with samples, brass, string section pads, etc. The entirety is heavily over-amplified, the singers amplified, the whole under the watchful ears of a 'mix' control engineer, sometimes with auto tune and auto cut-offs re: the singers intonation and dynamic balance -- blech :-/

Compare that to singers who can sing, a real pit orchestra, the fuller orchestrations of those shows, and then 'reviving' these things for the public becomes a real service -- many do not know what they were missing until they hear such a production, and of that audience, some would never be in an opera house for anything more 'opera' like.

not at all a bad thing in my book, though if you gave me a ticket, my personal level of interest would be to give it to someone upon whom that seat is not wasted


----------



## suteetat (Feb 25, 2013)

I have no problem with that. Many musicals were originally staged without any amplifications and you really need to have a well trained singers. Showboat recording with Ramey, Stratas, von Stade, Hadley also showed that it is very well suited to opera singers, at least those who can scale down their voice sing in a more musical style, not like what Carreras or Te Kanawa did in West Side Story!.

My only caution would be that not every musical will work in a large auditorium like Civic Opera House or the Met.
Showboat works well I think in large theater. I saw Carousel at Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center with Shirley Verrett. 
In a small inimate space, it was fantastic but I feel that much would be lost if it is moved into the Met.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

My first exposure to musical theater as an immensely pleasurable pastime was in Fiddler on the Roof, which I saw in my twenties in Lexington, Kentucky. It was really astonishingly fun. I later wound up in San Francisco and tried to pursue the idea a bit there, with no success. The shows I selected did nothing for me.

But really, I'm an opera SNOB. I look down on musicals. It's irrational; they're perfectly worthwhile, there's no "higher good" that opera serves; I know all that. That doesn't change how I feel. I would be embarrassed if the Met suddenly started doing musicals. But I would probably go anyway, with a sneaking sense of guilty shame. I would admit to no one that I had been. :lol:


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> My first exposure to musical theater as an immensely pleasurable pastime was in Fiddler on the Roof, which I saw in my twenties in Lexington, Kentucky. It was really astonishingly fun. I later wound up in San Francisco and tried to pursue the idea a bit there, with no success. The shows I selected did nothing for me.
> 
> But really, I'm an opera SNOB. I look down on musicals. It's irrational; they're perfectly worthwhile, there's no "higher good" that opera serves; I know all that. That doesn't change how I feel. I would be embarrassed if the Met suddenly started doing musicals. But I would probably go anyway, with a sneaking sense of guilty shame. I would admit to no one that I had been. :lol:


I understand you, guythegreg. But i don't look down on musicals. I don't consider myself snob. I grew up with musicals because of my family (my father was the exception that showed me Bach, who, above everything, he adored. And he also taught me a bit of what opera is.) From where i grew up there is no opera houses, however musicals are common. Thus i saw, as a kid, several musicals.

Musicals are simply enjoying the music as it is. I enjoy Jesus Christ Superstar and The Phantom the most. I don't look up for imperfections nor i compare with opera. I enjoy the play and the music. I'm aware however that not everybody has the capacity to understand an opera.

And if musicals put food on the table of those who work in this business. Then musicals have a higher good. People first. Opera and other high arts come after.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

dionisio said:


> I understand you, guythegreg. But i don't look down on musicals. I don't consider myself snob. I grew up with musicals because of my family (my father was the exception that showed me Bach, who, above everything, he adored. And he also taught me a bit of what opera is.) From where i grew up there is no opera houses, however musicals are common. Thus i saw, as a kid, several musicals.
> 
> Musicals are simply enjoying the music as it is. I enjoy Jesus Christ Superstar and The Phantom the most. I don't look up for imperfections nor i compare with opera. I enjoy the play and the music. I'm aware however that not everybody has the capacity to understand an opera.
> 
> And if musicals put food on the table of those who work in this business. Then musicals have a higher good. People first. Opera and other high arts come after.


Oh gosh yes! Jesus Christ Superstar was great - I wore those records out, when I was a kid. I knew a nurse at the UK medical center who went to every performance of Les Mis she could get to and never got used to it. Musicals get under people's skin the same way opera does.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Fan of both genres*

Since my wife and I are fans of both genres, we have no problem with lt. Washington opera will be doing _Showboat_ and we are and are planning to see it.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

suteetat said:


> My only caution would be that not every musical will work in a large auditorium like Civic Opera House or the Met. Showboat works well I think in large theater. I saw Carousel at Vivian Beaumont Theater at Lincoln Center with Shirley Verrett. In a small inimate space, it was fantastic but I feel that much would be lost if it is moved into the Met.


Y'know I've been assuming performances are unmic'ed, this being the Lyric Opera and all, but I was mistaken. That's a deal breaker for me. It also occurred to me that we have a well-established company here (Light Opera Works) that fills the niche for traditional productions of musicals with full orchestra in a more appropriate 1000 seat venue.

I've also learned that this will be the first of five post-season Rogers & Hammerstein productions by the Lyric Opera over the next five years. I absolutely do support the effort, though I like that the post-season format gives opera purists the ability to opt-out. Heck, I'll probably go see their 'South Pacific' when it comes around.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Cavaradossi said:


> Y'know I've been assuming performances are unmic'ed, this being the Lyric Opera and all, but I was mistaken. That's a deal breaker for me. It also occurred to me that we have a well-established company here (Light Opera Works) that fills the niche for traditional productions of musicals with full orchestra in a more appropriate 1000 seat venue.
> 
> I've also learned that this will be the first of five post-season Rogers & Hammerstein productions by the Lyric Opera over the next five years. I absolutely do support the effort, though I like that the post-season format gives opera purists the ability to opt-out. Heck, I'll probably go see their 'South Pacific' when it comes around.


If they are mic'ed, I'm agin it. That simple. The whole idea (in my concept) was reviving 'the way they were done' - unmic'ed singers, no mix board / limiter engineering, full pit of acoustic musicians, also unmic'ed. Not only a joy for those who have never heard anything like that, 'like ever,' but an 'education' as well. Pity.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

From the listings I've seen for a number of European opera houses -- both larger ones and the small, regional theaters -- it's not uncommon for them to include musicals in their season schedules. The opera company where I live only stages four productions a year, and all of them are operas. If the season program were considerably larger, I might attend a musical. It would depend what's being performed.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I'd go to Jesus Christ Superstar. I like the songs. A lot of them are quite robust.

But Phantom? After he pinched the best bit from Puccini and schmaltzified it? No way.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> I'd go to Jrsus Christ Superstar. I like the songs. A lot of them are quite robust.


and surprisingly subtle ... I can still hear "always dreamed that I'd be an apostle ..." lol and the music kind of reminds me of that spot in Tales of Hoffmann when they're all settling in for a wonderful talk in the bar ...


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> I'd go to Jrsus Christ Superstar. I like the songs. A lot of them are quite robust.
> 
> But Phantom? After he pinched the best bit from Puccini and schmaltzified it? No way.


OK people. I love JCS too, but I think a line needs to be drawn on what constitutes opera-house-worthy musical theater. Rogers and Hammerstein? Of course. Cole Porter? De-lightful. Sondheim? I'll buy it. (The Lyric did "Sweeney Tood" in the 2002/3 regular season.) But Lloyd-Weber? Give it another 50 years and _maybe_ we can talk about Evita, but nothing after that.

As PetrB points out, modern musicals aren't set up for the opera house treatment. I once went out with the clarinet player of the long-running production of Wicked between his matinee and evening shows. He was one of a woodwind section of two and was expected to play like five different instruments during the course of the show. The string section was a switch on the synthesizer console.

I did play for a community theater production of "The Producers" a few years ago. Now _there's_ a musical worthy of the opera house treatment!


----------



## suteetat (Feb 25, 2013)

Cavaradossi said:


> OK people. I love JCS too, but I think a line needs to be drawn on what constitutes opera-house-worthy musical theater. Rogers and Hammerstein? Of course. Cole Porter? De-lightful. Sondheim? I'll buy it. (The Lyric did "Sweeney Tood" in the 2002/3 regular season.) But Lloyd-Weber? Give it another 50 years and _maybe_ we can talk about Evita, but nothing after that.
> 
> As PetrB points out, modern musicals aren't set up for the opera house treatment. I once went out with the clarinet player of the long-running production of Wicked between his matinee and evening shows. He was one of a woodwind section of two and was expected to play like five different instruments during the course of the show. The string section was a switch on the synthesizer console.
> 
> I did play for a community theater production of "The Producers" a few years ago. Now _there's_ a musical worthy of the opera house treatment!


I agree JCS is not going to work well in opera house. The music is really more pop genre and while requiring good singers, would not go well with operatic style of singing though. I think JCS probably will always require mike in large theatre.
Evita and may be Aspects of Love might have a better chance of being performed unamplified in a theatre. 
Lyric did Candid in the 1990's that also worked very well in opera house. However, if Lyric Opera does a musical with amplification, it would not be much different from say a touring company performing a musical at Auditorium Theatre, I think.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> I'd go to Jesus Christ Superstar. I like the songs. A lot of them are quite robust.
> 
> But Phantom? After he pinched the best bit from Puccini and schmaltzified it? No way.


mamascarlatti, i have to confess that i knew The phantom way before than Pucinni and i became really suprised when i knew about that detail. Nevertheless i rushed in to see the film version in 2004.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

The dark side of opera companies doing musicals:

Opera Australia cuts back on key opera principals in order to accommodate another musical.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

gosh ... kind of makes Opera Australia look like an ongoing scam to keep the administration in work, doesn't it ...


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

We get this occasionally here, with Houston Grand Opera. The 2013-14 season includes "A Little Night Music" in its regular lineup. It's done to boost revenue, as Americans are normally receptive to well-produced Broadway-style quality level musicals.

When you look at the actual differences between musicals and opera, there really aren't many: 1- spoken dialogue vs sung recitative, and 2- performers being miked vs no mike. Other than that, it's just a case of the quality of the music, and there are plenty of awful operas and plenty of good musicals out there.

I don't much care for musicals, solely due to the lower quality of the music. After all, if you consider Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, and Wagner, how many Broadway composers compare? Gershwin maybe?

But of course I don't like all opera either. I'm fairly picky.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

One does not simply compare opera composers with musical composers...except Bernstein!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

mamascarlatti said:


> The dark side of opera companies doing musicals:
> 
> Opera Australia cuts back on key opera principals in order to accommodate another musical.






limelightmagazine said:


> Terracini attempted to contradict the Equity claim citing casting and financial motives. "When you're paying someone for 12 months, you can't have them sitting there and not singing," Terracini told The Australian on Saturday. "You will put them into things that, often, they are not suited for, because you simply have to use them. It's not good for singers, it's not good for the audience and it's not good for the company."


^ somehow I don't think it's that simple. It's not like they can hire the entire cast by production. Pretty lame attitude.


----------

