# Harmful Stereotypical Images Of Opera In Popular Culture



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Many people who know little or nothing about opera , have never been to an opera performance anywhere,
seen an opera on DVD etc, still have stereotypical mental images of opera in their heads which keep them
from giving opera a chance . These negative stereotypes close their minds , which is terribly unfortunate .
In recent years, there have been TV commercials which exploit these negative stereotypes, and while they may be clever and amusing, they give people a highly misleading impression of opera .
Many people actually think that opera is a ridiculous affair with fat people in ridiculous pseudo Viking costumes
screaming at each other in some incomprehensible language , while wealthy bored people dressed to the nines
sit in utter boredom in their boxes ,having come for purely social reasons . 
These people have never seen Anna Netrebko, Natalie Dessay , Thomas Hampson or Jonas Kaufmann etc,
all singing actors who give the lie to the stereotype of fat opera singers .
They also don't realize that operas take place in countries all over the world, and that when you go , you will casts wearing all manner of different costumes . 
And they don't realize that most people go to the opera BECAUSE THEY LOVE IT . Far from being bored, they are caught up in the action as avidly as sports fans at games . And while SOME wealthy people attend opera performances, they probably do because they also enjoy them . 
In addition, people who know nothing about opera don't realize that you don't have ot dress formally at all , and that there is no dress code . Some people dress formally on glamorous opening nights of the season 
at the Met and other top opera houses , but that is the exception rather than the rule . 
Nor is opera in any way "elitist", as many have been misled into believing by conventional wisdom .
The term elitist implies that opera comapnies are tyring to exclude any one who is not rich and white , which is far from being th ecase . On the contrary, all opera companies very much want to expand their audiences and reach out to people, whoever they may be . The expensive tickets are not the result of "elitis", but the sheer expenses of running opera companies . Tickets to broadway shows and concerts by pop stars are also very expensive .


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Continued : So how can we debunk these pernicious myths about opera ? I try to do my part at my blog The Horn , 
at blogiversity.org , a website with blogs on a wide variety of topics where any one can volunteer to do a blog on any subject . My blog is geared toward people who are not familiar with opera and classical music in general, and one thing I try to do on it is to debunk these myths . 
I tyr to show people that opera is really cool, awesome stuff , and that people who are unfamiliar with it don't 
know what they're missing .


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hooray for cartoony opera!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well I think there are two sides to this. Since the discussions here on 'regietheater' I've given it some thought.

Opera has traditionally been a form of entertainment basically for the rich. But prior to about 1945, it was connected in some broad way to society. Eg. Verdi's operas where connected with the move to make Italy independent and united, and also Brecht-Weill's _Threepenny Opera_ made satirical comments on Weimar Republic in Germany between the wars. Even operettas, eg. by Offenbach, made comments on the idiocy of bureaucracy in the France of Napoleon III. It was an outlet for political comment in a quite conservative society.

Fast forward to today and I think that Broadway musicals, and musicals generally, are seen as the 'music theatre' for the masses, not opera. Opera has become kind of irrelevant to the mainstream of society. Not for us here, nor for those minority who go to opera (who are mostly over 60, according to statistics), but for the wider society.

So maybe its not about elitism but relevance? I think that things like the operas of John Adams, such as_ Nixon in China, _have attempted to make opera more relevant. But I don't see that much difference between that and musical theatre. Something at the level of Bernstein's _West Side Story_, which originally was a musical (but later done in a more operatic way by Bernstein toward the end of his life), its the same as_ Nixon in China_, in terms of sophistication and complexity, etc. So musical theatre done at a high level can be similar/same as opera. I won't raise Andrew Lloyd Webber, as I'd be rubbished as lowbrow, but things like his _Phantom of the OPera_ have a lot of things that 'real' operas have, eg. leitmotifs and sung parts for the leads that are no walks in the park in terms of the ability needed to pull them off well. Also, his use of a real symphony orchestra rather than things like synthesisers, which were becoming the fashion in the 1970's before orchestras made a comeback in musicals in the 1980's.

So basically I see opera being replaced by musical theater in future, or maybe it already has been? This partly why the 'elite' label has stuck. Opera is fast becoming a kind of museum piece, and as you say funding is tight, so opera companies tend to mainly do the warhorses. Its not as vital and relevant to society as it used to be before about 1945, that's for sure.


----------



## BeatOven (May 23, 2012)

Only for the last two or so years I've finally come to understand (and there for of-course enjoy) Opera. And since I just recently transitioned from ignorance to indulgence of opera I think I can offer some incite on what most people might not get.

Opera is a very common word even to people outside the understanding of real opera. Whether it is Soap Opera or Phantom of the Opera or even just a fat women dressed with a horn helmet and Viking suite while breaking a wine glass by belting a high note, the word Opera is not unfamiliar - however off target. These days I think most people would have a few common things that come to mind when asked what is involved in opera. I'm sure very loud singing in a different language, that there is some kind of story, it is an antiquated event, that going to an opera is more understood as an indication of old age and/or wealth, that perhaps it's too European, or perhaps they think it's long, or feminine (not a bad thing at all but some men are insecure..), or obnoxiously dramatic and boring are the most common conceptions i guess. Also the traits of a modern cinematic or theatrical musical might bleed over to ones idea of opera. 

But what do they need to see that they can not about opera?

First of all, it should be understood that the actors and actresses have to sing loud because most opera was before voice amplification - that is really just problem solving. There should be also found an appreciation for the task of singing so loud while following a conductor or orchestra in time while acting a role live for a long period of time. 
Second, people need to be able to find the stories. In my limited time of listening to Opera I have not yet listened to one in English which is the only language I really can understand. Even though finding the story has not been overly important for me in a literal sense, being focused on the music allows me to get the idea of what's going on. There fore I can juxtapose or join the emotion of the storyline, the emotion of the music, and my own emotional reaction. That process i think sums up what an opera experience should be about. 
Third, composers of the past need to be re-humanized to the common public. I am sure many are familiar with the names of (Baby) Mozart or Beethoven (The dog) or Tchaikovsky (Christmas music aka Nutcracker), but I think people need to identify with these artists as fellow fallible humans, with the emotional and life struggles that are really the same we all endure today. That emotional inspiration helps my reaction to the music. Relating with the indulgences, or woman or social troubles many of the composers lived through shows how even in despair one can rise above to achieve their full potential. And the idea that many of the composers were younger and edgy for their time might interest many. And realizing that inspires hope and awe that anyone would be hungry for in their own life. Without those types of understandings the image of the composer is that of disconnection, assumed loftiness, and an old world pursuit by dead out of touch men in suits. This re-humanization process in regards to the composer vs. the listener is the most important remedy against the self enforced separation and disconnect most never bridge. Connection and understanding a composer i think is essential. Would John Lennon have been nearly as great or "cool" without the emotional turmoil and struggles we liked to think he was dealing with in songs he shared with us? John Lennon just has better image control than Mozart these days, hence the difference in popularity. 

…To be continued, I got really tired…

But in a nut shell:

Somehow the Opera paradigm has to be re-established.

Author/Composer collaboration needs be understood as a special event.

Story intrigue will probably grab a modern persons interest first and foremost.

Stories should more often be in modern settings.

Production should be delivered in modern ways. 

And

The music will always take care of its self.

My two cents, Jake


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

Slightly off topic: Someone should write an opera that takes off that stereotypical view on opera. *Shrugs* Just a thought.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Slightly off topic: Someone should write an opera that takes off that stereotypical view on opera. *Shrugs* Just a thought.


Don't worry there are heaps. But I'm sure you would call them "interesting listening experiences in modern music..." :lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*Opera








It ain't over till the fat lady sings. *


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Don't worry there are heaps. But I'm sure you would call them "interesting listening experiences in modern music..." :lol:


Be quiet!  :scold:

And that picture is very bad... :lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Be quiet!  :scold:
> 
> And that picture is very bad... :lol:


Why, thank you for your kind compliments!


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Why, thank you for your kind compliments!


No worries, they were very easy to give. 

Klavierspieler might come along soon and ask again, "How do you two always manage to ruin a serious discussion?" or something.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> No worries, they were very easy to give.
> 
> Klavierspieler might come along soon and ask again, "How do you two always manage to ruin a serious discussion?" or something.


Klavierspieler was talking about _us?!?!?!_


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Klavierspieler was talking about _us?!?!?!_


I _*think*_ so, but I can't be sure...


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Don't worry there are heaps. But I'm sure you would call them "interesting listening experiences in modern music..."





MaestroViolinist said:


> Be quiet!
> And that picture is very bad...





ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Why, thank you for your kind compliments!





MaestroViolinist said:


> No worries, they were very easy to give.
> 
> Klavierspieler might come along soon and ask again, "How do you two always manage to ruin a serious discussion?" or something.





ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Klavierspieler was talking about _us?!?!?!_





MaestroViolinist said:


> I _*think*_ so, but I can't be sure...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I _*think*_ so, but I can't be sure...


Don't worry about him. He's probably just hearing those voices in his head again! :lol:


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Don't worry about him. He's probably just hearing those voices in his head again! :lol:


:lol: Probably.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> :lol: Probably.


On a different topic now, do _you_ think we spin threads off topic?


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> On a different topic now, do _you_ think we spin threads off topic?


I don't know, what do you think?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I don't know, what do you think?


I don't know, what do you think? ut:


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't know, what do you think? ut:


I don't know, what do you think? ut:ut:

Does this sort of thing get you banned?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I don't know, what do you think? ut:ut:
> 
> Does this sort of thing get you banned?


I don't know, what do you think? ut:ut:ut:

It might cause the thread to be closed and you could receive infraction points


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> It might cause the thread to be closed and you could receive infraction points


I don't know, what do you think? ut:ut:ut:ut:

Oh well.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I don't know, what do you think?
> 
> Oh well.


Well _I_ think I like you ut:ut:ut:ut:ut:

Let's get back on topic here before one of us gets banned


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

It just goes on and on....


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Let's get back on topic here before one of us gets banned


Yes, do lets get back to the topic and I shall ignore what you said above for the moment. ut:ut:ut:ut:ut:ut:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> Yes, do lets get back to the topic and I shall ignore what you said above for the moment. ut:ut:ut:ut:ut:ut:


Ignore what exactly?


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Ignore what exactly?


I give up.  We were supposed to be going back to the topic remember?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I give up.  We were supposed to be going back to the topic remember?


What was the topic again?


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What was the topic again?


THIS!!!: Harmful Stereotypical Images Of Opera In Popular Culture


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> THIS!!!: Harmful Stereotypical Images Of Opera In Popular Culture


What's that?


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What's that?


I think you need to go back to "Are you afraid of Alzheimers?" thread. ut:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> I think you need to go back to "Are you afraid of Alzheimers?" thread. ut:


I think _you_ need to go to that derailing-off-topic-chit-chat thread! ut:


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I think _you_ need to go to that derailing-off-topic-chit-chat thread! ut:


You started it! But yes, I do need to go back to that anyway... :devil:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> You started it! But yes, I do need to go back to that anyway... :devil:


Should be continue this discussion there and relieve emiellucifuge of all his worrying? Or should be stay here until the thread gets closed? :devil:


----------



## MaestroViolinist (May 22, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Should be continue this discussion there and relieve emiellucifuge of all his worrying? Or should be stay here until the thread gets closed? :devil:


There, not here. I shall go and look for it...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

MaestroViolinist said:


> There, not here. I shall go and look for it...


Sounds like a plan!


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Opera
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just...


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

the televsion seems to very influential. there is a percentage of children that enjoy classical music or do not know that they like it yet. if they discoverred a classical music channel than they would take to it.

at the moment i only see american pop music on every music channel. so there is no way a child can like opera.

i remember being captivated by piano competitions on tv and other aspects of classical music. im sure if there was dedicated station it would draw in more young people.

as far as i know the final fantasy distant worlds concerts has grown the largest amount of young attendees ever to an opera.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

There's pressure in both directions. The Met's Live in HD program is very good at getting opera out. That's actually how I came here - I was living in Spokane, and became an opera fan there in a small way, and went to the Met's Madama Butterfly, and decided to move here. Opera appears in movies, from time to time - I remember The Fifth Element had something from Lucia di Lammermoor, that I thought was very effective. To Rome with Love has music from La Traviata (Penelope Cruz' theme song lol). It goes both ways. I know some people call opera a "museum" art form but that's really an insult to museums and an untruth. There wouldn't be so much argument about how new directors are doing new things, if new directors weren't doing new things.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Not too long ago, I did a post on my blog about the many opera singers today who are as slim and good-looking as any movie star . It was entitled "The opera isn't over until the gorgeous sexy lady sings ".


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I know - Danielle de Niese, right? Kathleen Battle ... ooh Kiri Te Kanawa in Rosenkavalier! there have been some GOOD looking opera stars


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

BeatOven said:


> Only for the last two or so years I've finally come to understand (and there for of-course enjoy) Opera. And since I just recently transitioned from ignorance to indulgence of opera I think I can offer some incite on what most people might not get.
> 
> Opera is a very common word even to people outside the understanding of real opera. Whether it is Soap Opera or Phantom of the Opera or even just a fat women dressed with a horn helmet and Viking suite while breaking a wine glass by belting a high note, the word Opera is not unfamiliar - however off target. These days I think most people would have a few common things that come to mind when asked what is involved in opera. I'm sure very loud singing in a different language, that there is some kind of story, it is an antiquated event, that going to an opera is more understood as an indication of old age and/or wealth, that perhaps it's too European, or perhaps they think it's long, or feminine (not a bad thing at all but some men are insecure..), or obnoxiously dramatic and boring are the most common conceptions i guess. Also the traits of a modern cinematic or theatrical musical might bleed over to ones idea of opera.
> 
> ...


 :clap:

Jake - that is a brilliant, thought-provoking and intelligent post.

You only have to think about Giuseppe Verdi whose wife & children died when he was a young man. He became very militant (Risorgimento) & his ways round the censors:

_quand'io mi unisca a te…
avrai tu l'universo,
resti l'Italia a me._
(Ezio in Attila)

would rival anything from Wikileaks


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Here's a weird thing I've noticed - the Opera lovers on this forum are generally among my favorite people who come here. And, yet, try as I might, I can't really get into Opera as a genre. I enjoy your passion for the music you love, though.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> try as I might, I can't really get into Opera as a genre.


Have you tried Norma?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

guythegreg said:


> Have you tried Norma?


Not yet. I'll look for it. What makes it special to you?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Opera
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I saw her perform in the legendary Limburger Ring in 1968!


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> Not yet. I'll look for it. What makes it special to you?


Oh, gosh, where to begin. The music caught me first. To me the music is endlessly beautiful, just all the way through. Then when I figured out what was going on in the opera, and started paying more attention to the drama, that one moment right after Adalgisa tells Norma she's in love, when Pollione - the man they're both in love with - just walks in, it was like WHAM! This is not a sitcom. We're not going to sit around enjoying the anticipation. Oh, what's he going to do when he finds out? What's she going to do when she finds out? No. Bring it on. Here we go. And the music (I think) lives up to that promise. If you try either Sutherland/Horne (they did many) or Callas/Filippeschi I don't think you can go wrong. If you're going to like it, I mean. If you find the music not to your taste, probably no recording will get you "into" it.

Good luck!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Opera has traditionally been a form of entertainment basically for the rich.

Unfortunately... for much of the last century, it seems, this has been the perception... no matter how blatantly false is is. The first operas were indeed limited to an audience of the very wealthy... and often performed in private aristocratic theaters. Shortly after Monetverdi, however, public opera theaters were opened across Venice... often taking advantage of the bevy of tourists during Carnival. These theaters, which staged new operas by professional opera companies were accessible to anyone willing and able to spring for the cost of a ticket. Admittedly, the audience for opera was not likely to be made up of many from the lower classes. The audience was largely limited to the educated classes... but not merely aristocrats, but also the clergy, military officers, students, business owners, and the rising middle-class or Bourgeois in general. Such theaters soon spread across Europe. Handel's fortunes, for example, were dependent upon the public taste and not the opinions solely of the aristocracy.

I think that Broadway musicals, and musicals generally, are seen as the 'music theatre' for the masses, not opera. Opera has become kind of irrelevant to the mainstream of society.

Well, let's be honest here. The masses don't care any more about Broadway musicals than they do about the opera. I don't think we can suggest that opera has only recently become "irrelevant" to "mainstream society" (whatever that may be.). Opera... the whole of classical music, painting, sculpture, most serious or "classic" literature has never been overly "relevant" to the masses or the majority... and never will be.

Opera has become kind of irrelevant to the mainstream of society. Not for us here, nor for those minority who go to opera (who are mostly over 60, according to statistics), but for the wider society.

Again... who is the "wider society"? Why are they more "relevant" than the 6.6 million adults in the US alone who have attended a live opera? What of the 37.6 million adults who experienced an opera on TV, video, radio, audio recordings, or via the Internet? Contrary to the misconceptions, opera is quite healthy. The U.S. opera audience grew by 35% between 1982 and 1992. This trend continued through 2002, when the opera audience grew by an additional 8.2%, representing the largest increase of all performing arts disciplines. According to the most recent numbers from the US National Endowment for the Arts, 25.3% of the U.S. opera audience was under the age of 35 years old. According to Opera America, opera is a multi-billion dollar industry employing some 20,000 people on a full-time and part-time basis in 2005-2006. Approximately 36% of all costs were covered by box office income. Another 51% comes from private donation. Of the remaining 13% far less than 1% comes from public dollars in the forms of grants from the National Endowment of the Arts. The remaining money is raised through royalties from recordings and broadcasts, licensing fees, corporate donations, etc...

The fact that pop music has a larger audience share in no way negates the "relevance" of opera... or other less popular musical forms.

I think that things like the operas of John Adams, such as Nixon in China, have attempted to make opera more relevant.

I'm not certain that Adam's goal was to make opera "more relevant". Rather, I suspect, he simply was inspired by recent events that he imagined would be worthy of being tackled in the form of musical theater. Any number of opera composers from the past were known for staging narratives set in contemporary times... or narratives that commented upon contemporary issues.

I see opera being replaced by musical theater in future, or maybe it already has been?

How do you differentiate the two? Opera simply is musical theater. There isn't a hell of a lot of difference between the Singspiel form of Mozart's _Magic Flute_, and a Broadway musical... with the exception of aesthetic merit.

This partly why the 'elite' label has stuck.

The "elite" label has stuck to opera for no different a reason than it has also stuck to classical music in general, Shakespeare, Greek theater, the ballet, "classic" literature, films by Bergman, the paintings of Rembrandt... or Picasso. The reality is that most art of any merit places a degree of demands upon the audience because it goes beyond the tired cliches of the popular art promoted by the mass media.

Opera is fast becoming a kind of museum piece... Its not vital and relevant to society...

Billion-dollar industry with an audience in the millions... but its all irrelevant because Lady Gaga sells more records?

Just look at that elitist audience:











And does this not shoot the "fat lady" stereotype all to hell?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

...the idea that many of the composers were younger and edgy for their time might interest many. And realizing that inspires hope and awe that anyone would be hungry for in their own life. Without those types of understandings the image of the composer is that of disconnection, assumed loftiness, and an old world pursuit by dead out of touch men in suits. This re-humanization process in regards to the composer vs. the listener is the most important remedy against the self enforced separation and disconnect most never bridge.

What you are speaking on is what may be termed the "cult of personality"... which confuses the artist for the art work.

Connection and understanding a composer i think is essential.

I completely disagree. I am taking pleasure in the artistic creation... the art work... and not in the biography of the artist. Some of the greatest artists lived boring, banal lives. Some were able to create work of the most exquisite and lasting beauty... in spite of the fact that they were beasts themselves. Learning about the lives of the artists can be interesting... but it has little to do with my appreciation of their work.

Would John Lennon have been nearly as great or "cool" without the emotional turmoil and struggles we liked to think he was dealing with in songs he shared with us? John Lennon just has better image control than Mozart these days, hence the difference in popularity.

That is purely Romanticized bunk... the adolescent notion that one needs to "suffer" to create. John Lennon's biography is wholly irrelevant to the aesthetic merit of _In My Life, Girl_ or _I am the Walrus_. We all have our forms of suffering and our joys. The degree of emotional turmoil and struggle experienced by any given artist is irrelevant. What matters is his or her ability to give these a form that is original and resonates with an audience. If John Lennon's market share is larger than Mozart's it has everything to do with the PR or the mass media, and little else. One might point out that John Lennon's popularity today is less than Lady Gaga or any number of current pop stars. That has nothing to do with artistic merit... and everything to do with the market.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The reality is that most art of any merit places a degree of demands upon the audience because it goes beyond the tired cliches of the popular art promoted by the mass media.


Most of your post i think is right on. This bit, however, I'm not sure about. I think the reason more people don't start out loving classical music, or art of quote merit unquote, is not that it places demands upon them but that it's simply outside their tradition. It's a cultural thing, not an "effort" thing. We - you and I - don't listen to classic music because it has merit, but because it does something for us. No?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

"The opera isn't over until the gorgeous sexy lady sings".

I know - Danielle de Niese, right?

Ooh yes! Danielle, indeed!











And you gotta love Bellone, the God of War, as a Dee Schneider of Twisted Sister look-alike. :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Most of your post i think is right on. This bit, however, I'm not sure about. I think the reason more people don't start out loving classical music, or art of quote merit unquote, is not that it places demands upon them but that it's simply outside their tradition. It's a cultural thing, not an "effort" thing. We - you and I - don't listen to classic music because it has merit, but because it does something for us. No?

The issue is that every artistic "tradition" employs a vocabulary and/or language that must be learned. If one is raised exposed solely to Top-40 pop music or Hip-Hop, then jazz and Indian ragas and even bluegrass will probably represent as great of a difficulty as "classical music". Certain individuals eventually decide to explore other artistic possibilities. When confronting an artistic language that in new, there will be a degree of difficulty... or challenge. This, it would seem is what you are referring to.

I would take it further and point out that few people are ever truly passionate about any tradition of music. A great many will simply go along with that tradition that they were raised with... and that promoted by the mass media... without much critical thought. It's just entertainment. But to a given minority, art is something more "serious"... something they are passionate about... and they often discover that the easy pleasures after a while leave them cold... while other artistic pleasures that are more demanding are quite often worth the effort... just as some discover that the difficulties of higher math or the New York Times Sunday Crossword Puzzle gives them pleasure. Of course we all must decide whether a given artistic work (or body of work) seems likely to reward us with a degree of pleasure commensurate to the effort demanded. Many feel that opera is to much effort... or atonal music... or non-Western music, etc...


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

I'll go along with that! There's plenty of types of music I don't even try, myself ...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Well, let's be honest here. The masses don't care any more about Broadway musicals than they do about the opera. I don't think we can suggest that opera has only recently become "irrelevant" to "mainstream society" (whatever that may be.). Opera... the whole of classical music, painting, sculpture, most serious or "classic" literature has never been overly "relevant" to the masses or the majority... and never will be.


I always come across, in 'real' life, far more people who've gone - or regularly go - to see musicals than opera. Unless you're living in Milan or something, this I'd guess is generally the case.

Other forms of art are more relevant or commonly consumed by the wider society. Here in Australia, in our major cities, more people go to the big state art gallery on the average weekend than to stadiums to see sports live (well, excluding grand finals).

Then there's cinema. I was just listening to Walton's score to Olivier's _Henry V_. Yes, 'high art' type literature like Shakespeare is relevant to a lot more people than opera, through the medium of film (not opera or live theatre).

I agree that 'elites' is a catch all phrase for people I/we don't like. So I used 'rich,' but it can also be intellectuals.

So, 'high art' is relevant, but opera in live format, well it is more or less for the 'elites.' I am talking from the perspective of 'the man in the street' who has never gone to opera. But most likely, that 'common man' would have seen a Shakespeare play on film or maybe even went to an art gallery or even a symphony concert (I notice you posted Netrebko at the London Proms, well isn't that different, its a concert. If people go to classical music, it will be a symphony concert, which may include some sung items. Within classical, orchestral music is most popular, then other forms like opera and chamber, etc.).

But then again, the 'common man' could be exposed to opera through HD opera in the cinemas. I am mainly talking of the exclusivity, perceived or real, of live opera. Going to opera live costs more than cinema or the art gallery. But its probably similar to a professionally done musical in terms of ticket prices. I'd guess its more expensive than the average symphony concert though done by your pro 'home city' orchestra (not a visiting orchestra like the Berlin Phil, of course).

I am speaking as objectively as I can. WHile I am no 'opera fanatic,' I do like some operas, and I am starting to attend it and listen to it more.

& as an aside, re the 'it ain't all over till the fat lady sings' cliche, that usually happens in Wagner's operas. Unfortunately, people think what Wagner did with opera is typical of opera. Eg. very long, serious and 'Germanic,' and about mythical gods, all that kind of stuff which is hard to relate to life as it is today. I think that if people get over that stereotype and listen to other operas, they can have better perception of opera. I tend to connect with operas about real people, not gods or heroes and heroines. But that's just me. In any case, there have been attractive female opera singers way back, look at Maria Callas in her prime, she was not fat (and didn't sing much Wagner either, as I understand it, only at the very beginning of her career). So there you go.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BeatOven said:


> ...Third, composers of the past need to be re-humanized to the common public. I am sure many are familiar with the names of (Baby) Mozart or Beethoven (The dog) or Tchaikovsky (Christmas music aka Nutcracker), but I think people need to identify with these artists as *fellow fallible humans,* with the emotional and life struggles that are really the same we all endure today. That emotional inspiration helps my reaction to the music. Relating with the indulgences, or woman or social troubles many of the composers lived through shows how even in despair one can rise above to achieve their full potential. And the idea that many of the composers were younger and edgy for their time might interest many. And realizing that inspires hope and awe that anyone would be hungry for in their own life. Without those types of understandings the image of the composer is that of disconnection, *assumed loftiness*, and an old world pursuit by dead out of touch men in suits. This re-humanization process in regards to the composer vs. the listener is the most important remedy against the self enforced separation and disconnect most never bridge. *Connection and understanding a composer *i think is essential. ...


I agree with what you say there. But I think its been done for ages. Leonard Bernstein for example with his apperances on television. That was post-1945. Now there are still things like the tv series produced in Australia called 'Classical Destinations,' going into at least basic/intermediate depth about the music, lives, inspirations of the great composers, from old times to mid 20th century. It was presented and partly written by Simon Callow, the British actor who is himself a classical music fan. So it makes it all 'real.' He even revisits Prague where 'Amadeus' the movie was shot, and he actually played da Ponte, Mozart's librettist, in that film.

So I agree, composers where humans like us, not gods. The parts I put in bold in your quote speak to this. & I am just as much interested in their histories and lives as the music itself. More often than not, the music is connected to their lives. Especially in terms of composers closer to us in time, as more historical documents/facts have survived than from much more distant, earlier times.

I have encouraged acquaintances to look at that tv series, 'Classical Destinations,' now available on DVD, and they have loved it. Its a musical and visual feast.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Admittedly, the audience for opera was not likely to be made up of many from the lower classes...


Well, that's what G.B. Shaw was getting at in setting the opening scene of Pygmalion in front of Royal Opera House Covent Garden in London. There was a clash of classes there, with the rich going to the opera & right on their doorstep so to speak where the markets, with Eliza Doolittle who sold flowers being one of the sellers there. Asking the rich whether they wanted some flowers for tuppence or whatever.

What you speak to is diversity in the opera going public back then (eg. 100 years ago, in any case before 1945). Yes there was diversity, but they had one thing in common, they had spare money to go to the opera. Not only that, but also catch a cab there, or maybe be driven in their own cab, to wear the clothes for it and all the other add ons like drinks in interval. Not for a flower girl, if I may be flippant.

After 1945, opera began to be subsidised by governments wanting to preserve high art. It reminds me of an episode of the Brit comedy tv series 'Yes Minister.' In that, the minister wanted to subsidise sports, I think a football club that was going into deficit, at risk of folding (eg. going broke). But his adviser said that's not on, to which the minister replied something like 'then why do we subsidise opera then, most people don't even go there, unlike football which attracts people to matches.' Well of course, the adviser won by the end of the episode and the message of that episode was how absurd this situation is, promoting one thing over another without any clear reason. If that's how the majority of the public out there perceives it, I don't blame them. I can see where they're coming from, even though I do like opera to some degree.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ..
> Again... who is the "wider society"? Why are they more "relevant" than the 6.6 million adults in the US alone who have attended a live opera? What of the 37.6 million adults who experienced an opera on TV, video, radio, audio recordings, or via the Internet? Contrary to the misconceptions, opera is quite healthy. The U.S. opera audience grew by 35% between 1982 and 1992. This trend continued through 2002, when the opera audience grew by an additional 8.2%, representing the largest increase of all performing arts disciplines. According to the most recent numbers from the US National Endowment for the Arts, 25.3% of the U.S. opera audience was under the age of 35 years old. According to Opera America, opera is a multi-billion dollar industry employing some 20,000 people on a full-time and part-time basis in 2005-2006. Approximately 36% of all costs were covered by box office income. Another 51% comes from private donation. Of the remaining 13% far less than 1% comes from public dollars in the forms of grants from the National Endowment of the Arts. The remaining money is raised through royalties from recordings and broadcasts, licensing fees, corporate donations, etc...


Well that is news to me. It reflects info I came across somewhere here. In Australia, not much public money goes into symphony orchestras, its mostly corporate donors (encouraged by tax breaks, etc.). I would guess its the same here with opera, but I can't find stats to back that up.

If that is the case in USA, then the word should be put out that opera is largely not publicly funded. In that case it is perception.

However, re the average age of 60, I read that in relation to Metropolitan OPera house in New York. If as you say around 25 per cent of the opera audience is under 35 years old, could it be that the average age could still be around 50-60. Anecdotally that's what it appears to be at my end, but I'm not there in the USA. Statistics count all manner of things, but its what they publish, it could be the stats that give them the best 'gloss.'



> ...The fact that pop music has a larger audience share in no way negates the "relevance" of opera... or other less popular musical forms....


I think you know what I mean by opera being more relevant before 1945 compared to today. I gave examples of Verdi's and Brecht-Weill's operas. That's the kind of relevance I mean.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Other forms of art are more relevant or commonly consumed by the wider society.

OK, Sid. Let's be painfully honest. Democracy and Egalitarianism are wholly irrelevant to art. Indeed, to be simply brutal about it, the opinions and tastes of the masses have always been irrelevant to art. I would add that for the foreseeable future, this shall remain true in the sense that it is not the taste or opinions of the masses that dictates which art shall survive and be deemed "classic". The tastes of the masses are only of importance when it comes to sales figures/popularity.

If we look at the larger scope of things... considering our privileged place dwelling in one of the wealthier modernized nations of the world, we must recognize... looking at the uncounted masses in Africa, Asia, the Middle-East, South America, and elsewhere, dwelling in conditions that make those living in what is deemed "poverty" in the United States, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan... or other "first world nations" appear as aristocrats by comparison, that we too are of the "elite" class... those who have had the privilege of education, literacy, expendable wealth and time. It is not the poor, illiterate living in Appalachia or a village in Western China lacking even the luxury of proper sanitation, who will impact what literature or painting will survive.

Ultimately, art is an "elitist" endeavor. That term, "elitism" is incredibly loaded and often confused with notions of wealth and social class. To an extent, this is true. The support for art... and the luxury of the free time needed to devote to art demand a certain degree of wealth. Yet within the cultures in which we live, the "elitism" of art has more to do with an "elective affinity". Individuals choose to place a degree of value upon a given art form and to invest the time and effort and income needed to understand, appreciate and take pleasure in these... or not.

I don't see how 6 and a half million people attending the opera in the US alone can be deemed of proof of the irrelevance of opera. Indeed, I suspect those numbers are far larger than they were in the 19th or even the 18th centuries... and they may even be larger in terms of percentage of the population as a whole.

Here in Australia, in our major cities, more people go to the big state art gallery on the average weekend than to stadiums to see sports live.

I somehow question those numbers. Looking here in Cleveland the stadium for the Indians (baseball) must house 45-50,000 fans. On a given week when the team is in town, there may be 4 or 5 games... and if the team is doing well, the stadium will be closed to filled to capacity. I doubt that the Cleveland Museum of Art draws anywhere near 200-250,000 visitors on a given week. Indeed, I've heard that MoMA (the Museum of Modern Art in NY) drew somewhere near 2-million visitors for a major travelling exhibition some years back... while the Met... the largest museum in the US with the largest number of visitors attracted only "5"-million visitors. Now I have heard that the Arts as a whole bring in a far larger audience and a far larger income than sports. Considering that this includes not only the museums and theaters but also films, rock and pop concerts, etc... this makes complete sense.

Yet the issue remains that even if the audience for opera (and its market share) remain diminutive compared to the audience for Lady Gaga or Madonna, we are still speaking of an art form attended and loved by millions... this alone would suggest that it can in no way be deemed "irrelevant".

Shakespeare is relevant to a lot more people than opera, through the medium of film (not opera or live theatre).

How "relevant" is Dante... considered by most literary critics as second only to Shakespeare? How about Milton? Chaucer? the Greek playwrights?

So, 'high art' is relevant, but opera in live format, well it is more or less for the 'elites.' I am talking from the perspective of 'the man in the street' who has never gone to opera.

What is so important about the opinions of the "man on the street"... "Joe six-pack"? What makes his or her opinion the ultimate test of artistic relevance?

But most likely, that 'common man' would have seen a Shakespeare play on film or maybe even went to an art gallery...

That's debatable. The audience for the art museum does not appear (on any given day) to be any more "Egalitarian" than the audience for poetry readings, a string quartet, the theater, a foreign film festival, the classic literature discussion groups, or the opera.

as an aside, re the 'it ain't all over till the fat lady sings' cliche, that usually happens in Wagner's operas.

Again... that's merely a stereotype of Wagner.

Great Wagnerians:










-Astrid Varnay










-Sena Jurinac










-Kirsten Flagstad










-Leonie Rysanek

Certainly, Brunhilde was never imagined by Wagner as some half-comic, portly woman dressed in a horned helmet...










Not anymore that Verdi, Donizetti, Rossini, or Bellini might have imagined the heft of Pavarotti and Joan Sutherland playing any number of roles as young lovers...

And are we to imagine that Pavarotti and Sutherland come closer to Massanet's physical ideal for Manon. Can we just imagine those two rolling in bed in this scene:






having said this much, we should recognize that the ability to project and the need for stamina demanded of the lead roles in opera is not something frequently to be found in the waif-like girl with no chest cavity to speak of. We might also note that many of the best opera singers continue well into middle-age (and older... look at Placido Domingo above) and as might be expected, they, like the rest of us, tend to pack on a few pounds with the passage of the years.

Unfortunately, people think what Wagner did with opera is typical of opera. Eg. very long, serious and 'Germanic,' and about mythical gods, all that kind of stuff which is hard to relate to life as it is today.

Is this really what "people" imagine? Or is it rather a product of your personal dislike of Wager?

I think that if people get over that stereotype and listen to other operas, they can have better perception of opera.

Again... that's simply your personal bias against Wagner. Wagner composed a number of the greatest operas ever written. The individual who avoids Wagner will have just as skewed a perception of opera as if he or she avoided the operas of Mozart, Handel, Verdi, Puccini, Richard Strauss, Benjamin Britten, Donizetti, Bellini, Bizet, etc...

I tend to connect with operas about real people, not gods or heroes and heroines.

That's your personal bias. One might point out that most of the characters in Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, or Puccini are not "real people"... and a great majority of them are not written about "the man on the street".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Well that is news to me. It reflects info I came across somewhere here. In Australia, not much public money goes into symphony orchestras, its mostly corporate donors (encouraged by tax breaks, etc.). I would guess its the same here with opera, but I can't find stats to back that up.

If that is the case in USA, then the word should be put out that opera is largely not publicly funded. In that case it is perception.

Unfortunately, in the US, the "Arts" present an easy target for Neo-Con politicians. Railing against "waste" and "elitism" is certain to gain publicity and grass-roots support of the uneducated supporters, while turning the attention away from real "waste" in the form of the military budget, calls for a wall along the Mexico border, etc...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> Ultimately, art is an "elitist" endeavor. That term, "elitism" is incredibly loaded and often confused with notions of wealth and social class. To an extent, this is true. The support for art... and the luxury of the free time needed to devote to art demand a certain degree of wealth. Yet within the cultures in which we live, the "elitism" of art has more to do with an "elective affinity". Individuals choose to place a degree of value upon a given art form and to invest the time and effort and income needed to understand, appreciate and take pleasure in these... or not.


Well I think that's the issue, what are 'elites?' We could make a thread about this. When I think of them, I think of money, power, maybe education. In terms of the arts, and also sport, it can be about high achievement in a certain field.

I agree that in terms of consuming classical music, one does not have to be wealthy per se. Eg. to buy a cd or dvd. One can even save up for that special concert or opera performance. I think many of us have been/are in that kind of boat.

But re comparing sports attendance here to art galleries, I've found this online, on the following Australian government website. It shows that people in this country, like you say USA, do consume a lot of culture - incl. visual art, cinema, opera, concerts, etc.

Quote from THIS source in italics below:

_Australia has a vibrant arts scene that reflects both the nation's Indigenous cultural traditions and its rich mosaic of migrant cultures. All forms of the visual and performing arts have strong followings, including film, art, theatre, dance and music.

According to one survey, almost 13 million or 88 per cent of adult Australians attend at least one cultural event or performance every year. The most popular art form is film, attended by about 70 per cent of the population each year. More than 26 per cent attend a popular music concert; 25 per cent go to an art gallery or museum; 19 per cent see an opera or musical; 18 per cent attend live theatre; 11 per cent attend a dance performance; and 9 per cent attend a classical music concert._



> ...
> Again... that's simply your personal bias against Wagner. Wagner composed a number of the greatest operas ever written. The individual who avoids Wagner will have just as skewed a perception of opera as if he or she avoided the operas of Mozart, Handel, Verdi, Puccini, Richard Strauss, Benjamin Britten, Donizetti, Bellini, Bizet, etc...


I would not tell someone who wants to get into opera to avoid Wagner. I would tell them though to listen widely, to those composers you list as a start, maybe, incl. Wagner but not exclusively him. That's what I'm saying.



> ...
> That's your personal bias. One might point out that most of the characters in Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, or Puccini are not "real people"... and a great majority of them are not written about "the man on the street".


Yes it is my personal bias. Well, I suppose there is always an element of unreality or allegory in opera. I'd say Puccini's _La Boheme _is pretty 'real' as is verismo generally. The others, it depends. Eg. Verdi did one verismo type opera himself (eg. _La Traviata,_ his only opera set in contemporary times). But generally he did historical or literary opera. But I connect with those more than Wagner and things like _La Boheme, Aida, Carmen _and so on are more popular than Wagner's operas, they are staged here very regularly, whereas Wagner is a 'special event' type thing, a good deal of that is because of the large scale and special effects, long rehearsal times, complexity, etc. But also because many people, even those into classical, don't like him. He comes across as a love him or hate him type composer.

I see Wozzeck as a 'real' person and also Faust (in Berlioz's version), and also Florestan and Fidelio, to name some operas really I like. Mozart's Don Giovanni can be said to be another one. & I've met a number of real life 'factotums' like Rossini's _Barbiere_ (unfortunately? They are multi skilled with many things, incl. in spreading gossip).


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Personally I find the emerging trend that opera singers should be as thin and as attractive as movie stars more harmful than the idea that looks don't matter if a person is a talented singer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I would not tell someone who wants to get into opera to avoid Wagner. I would tell them though to listen widely, to those composers you list as a start, maybe, incl. Wagner but not exclusively him. That's what I'm saying.

For someone coming fresh to opera, I would never direct them to Wagner... nor nearly any post-Wagnerian opera. I think that they might do better to gain some concept of the older traditions of opera first in order to gain a full grasp of just how radical Wagner was. I'd probably recommend a Baroque opera (Handel being the most obvious choice... but also Rameau) followed by one of Mozart's operas (in Italian), a bel-canto opera, Mozart's Magic Flute, Bizet, Verdi... and then Wagner, etc...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Personally I find the emerging trend that opera singers should be as thin and as attractive as movie stars more harmful than the idea that looks don't matter if a person is a talented singer.

So Deborah Voigt is your ideal Brunhilde?










Damn good singer, by the way. I love here performances of Wagner on CD... but I don't know if she'd quite be my idea for a live performance.

She's actually far more lean today:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally I find the emerging trend that opera singers should be as thin and as attractive as movie stars more harmful than the idea that looks don't matter if a person is a talented singer.
> 
> So Deborah Voigt is your ideal Brunhilde?
> 
> ...


She's half the weight today, but she's also half the voice she used to be in the early 90's.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Obviously in Opera we have this extra and very important factor of the voice, but if you're watching opera, you hope that the 'casting' has also taken into account appearance, much like in cinema.

No matter how well she may sing, a fat and hideous Isolde, for example, is likely not someone a spectator imagines falling in love with. Any empathy with Tristan is thus lost.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> Obviously in Opera we have this extra and very important factor of the voice, but if you're watching opera, you hope that the 'casting' has also taken into account appearance, much like in cinema.
> 
> No matter how well she may sing, a fat and hideous Isolde, for example, is likely not someone a spectator imagines falling in love with. Any empathy with Tristan is thus lost.


Waltraud Meier is the perfect Isolde. Siegfried Jersusalem as Tristan and you have a match made in heaven.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm a fan of Formula 1 motor racing. Last time I went to a race (Monza 2010) my grandstand ticket was £500. I started going to see opera as it was cheaper.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Below a quote (in italics) from Andrew Ford's book 'In Defence of Classical Music' (publ. 2005 by ABC Books, pp.8-9) speaking to this issue. It reflects what I said re Wagner, I was actually thinking of what I read in this. But as with many things, the things that grab me most that I read are confirming what I already think. I went into Ford's list of cliches on this thread ages ago - http://www.talkclassical.com/12659-naming-dispelling-cliches-classical.html . I like Ford's conversational style and his humour, and he kind of says what he thinks, rather than talking ideology which some writers on music are prone to do. I have quoted this section on opera in full, just broken it up into paragraphs for better readability.

_...I have always found that going to the opera is a bit like going to the circus, and I am not just thinking of the fat ladies and elephants (which, in the case of the latter, are only in Aida, and not always then). It is probably Wagner's fault that opera has the reputation for being intellectually daunting, but remember even The Ring of the Nibelung has giants and dwarfs and a big green dragon. Indeed the imagery of The Ring - in particular those large-breasted, spear-toting sopranos with plaits and horned helmets - tends to provide the basic tabloid picture of what opera is. But Wagner's operas - which the composer himself called 'music dramas' - are the exception rather than the rule, their extreme length being only one part of the challenge for audiences. Mostly, the continuously evolving musical lines intimidate a lot of listeners, because they unfold their argument over many hours, demanding a kind of concentration that is actually rather rare in the opera house (Wagner it was, who first had the idea of dimming the theatre's house lights in order to focus the audience's attention on the stage).

Wagner's music is certainly very great, but it is no the be-all and end-all of opera, and the idea that all opera might be 'highbrow' can be held only by people who have little exposure to the genre. In contrast to Wagner's long lines, the more chopped-up recititative/aria/chorus structure of Mozart's operas and pretty much all Italian opera up to PUccini make rather fewer demands on the listener, because the scenes are comparatively short and the musical character changes every few minutes.

Far from requiring a higher degree to appreciate it, much opera benefits from suspension of intellect as well as belief. The plots of comic operas tend towards farce (with a regular admixture of slapstick), while the tragedies are frequently melodramatic tear-jerkers. Of course if you poke around beneath the surface of even the most popular operas - say, those by Donizetti or Verdi - you may begin to discover some of the same complexities that are present in Wagner. But you don't have to do this to have a good time._


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> Obviously in Opera we have this extra and very important factor of the voice, but if you're watching opera, you hope that the 'casting' has also taken into account appearance, much like in cinema.
> 
> No matter how well she may sing, a fat and hideous Isolde, for example, is likely not someone a spectator imagines falling in love with. Any empathy with Tristan is thus lost.


I remember watching a version of Lucia di Lammermoor starring Joan Sutherland in the title role. Both the roles of Lucia and Edgardo were played by singers of the 45-50 age bracket. As much as I do like Dame JS, I couldn't help but think that she wasn't exactly a catch for any nobleman, having obviously been left on the shelf for so long, never mind having a secret love affair. The singers seemed too old for that carry on!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

My apologies for ranting on this thread. I was trying to give the other side's point of view. But I went overboard & became too emotional. So basically, sorry.


----------



## Dakota (Jun 30, 2012)

I just do what I can to get folks interested in opera one by one. I was a huge opera fan in my 20s (before sub-or super-titles, even!) and now I have two daughters in their 20s and have taken them to four operas so far (all Mozart as it happens, in Santa Fe, DC, the Met and Met in HD). They seem to enjoy themselves and we have more trips planned. (I felt an absolute flush of triumph one morning when my youngest came waltzing into the bathroom singing "Se vuol ballare, Signor Contino", lol.)

I have stirred at least some faint interest in one co-worker and one acquaintance and can frequently be found calling up the few fans I know, offering rides to the nearest HD presentations or escorts to NYC. It is frustrating that there are so few opera fans around; I am not sure what else to try.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Dakota said:


> I have stirred at least some faint interest in one co-worker and one acquaintance and can frequently be found calling up the few fans I know, offering rides to the nearest HD presentations or escorts to NYC. *It is frustrating that there are so few opera fans *around; I am not sure what else to try.


Wow, I know exactly what you mean. Where I live opera is almost a dirty word. I know one fan but his interest is limited to Wagner, and another who spends her whole time travelling.


----------



## Dakota (Jun 30, 2012)

mamascarlatti said:


> Wow, I know exactly what you mean. Where I love opera is almost a dirty word. I know one fan but his interest is limited to Wagner, and another who spends her whole time travelling.


I know; I have even seriously considered taking out an ad: "Opera lover seeks other local lunatics for chat, amicable debate, area and NYC performances", LOL.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dakota said:


> I know; I have even seriously considered taking out an ad: "Opera lover seeks other local lunatics for chat, amicable debate, area and NYC performances", LOL.


I am not from there but how about something like the New York Opera Society? - http://www.newyorkoperasociety.com/default.aspx


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Dakota said:


> I just do what I can to get folks interested in opera one by one. I was a huge opera fan in my 20s (before sub-or super-titles, even!) and now I have two daughters in their 20s and have taken them to four operas so far (all Mozart as it happens, in Santa Fe, DC, the Met and Met in HD). They seem to enjoy themselves and we have more trips planned. (I felt an absolute flush of triumph one morning when my youngest came waltzing into the bathroom singing "Se vuol ballare, Signor Contino", lol.)


That's so lovely! Think of yourself as an 'opera missionary' 



Dakota said:


> I have stirred at least some faint interest in one co-worker and one acquaintance and can frequently be found calling up the few fans I know, offering rides to the nearest HD presentations or escorts to NYC. It is frustrating that there are so few opera fans around; I am not sure what else to try.


I had one co-worker who shared my passion but he retired earlier this year. This forum has been an oasis in the desert & I've now been lucky enough to actually meet several fellow members.

It may sound a bit 'dodgy' but I've also made several friends at the Stage Door. Everyone waiting for autographs is a fan & it's very easy to get into conversation.


----------



## Dakota (Jun 30, 2012)

sospiro said:


> It may sound a bit 'dodgy' but I've also made several friends at the Stage Door. Everyone waiting for autographs is a fan & it's very easy to get into conversation.


Wow, I don't think I would ever have the courage for that! One place I _*have*_ gotten into conversations is the new visitor center Lincoln Center opened up across the street from its buildings. The lunch tables are so few that one is forced to share with strangers, lol.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Dakota said:


> Wow, I don't think I would ever have the courage for that! One place I _*have*_ gotten into conversations is the new visitor center Lincoln Center opened up across the street from its buildings. The lunch tables are so few that one is forced to share with strangers, lol.


I just _have_ to go to the Met soon!!


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

sospiro said:


> I just _have_ to go to the Met soon!!


Yes!! and you, me, and Dakota will all have lunch!!


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

guythegreg said:


> Yes!! and you, me, and Dakota will all have lunch!!


Yeah!!!!!!

....................................................


----------



## Dakota (Jun 30, 2012)

sospiro said:


> Yeah!!!!!!


You bet yer boots!!


----------



## Hesoos (Jun 9, 2012)

A lot of stereotypes about opera are true, we can face it. But others are false.

Opera in these days is a little weird, I mean that is not so normal, it's not so popular. The people knows so little about opera, is a strange entertainment. Is weird only because the people is not used to. For exemple, Europeans can think that African foos is strange, they can be scared of taste it; but maybe if you have curiosity you can taste it and understand that it is delicious. I think a lot of people are scared of taste opera... but these days, thanks to the supertitles and the dvds with subtitles taste opera is more easy and the popularity is growing. Anyway, Opera is weird yet, there are so few opera houses in the world.

I don't think that the plots are old fashioned, I think it's not use to new strange productions for lure the contemporary public. I think that the plots are universal, they speak about universal feelings. The old productions are more effective, I think. Can you imagine a Walt Disney movie about Cinderella where all the characters are dressed like office workers and instead of the king there is the boss of the office?Do you think that the little children could like this?Maybe a little? But the exotic old medieval settings are more magic and the story is more understandable. And what about the lord of the rings? that is a popular movie where the plot is similar at the old Der Ring des Nibelungen, it's popular and it's not use to invent contemporary dresses for the characters... Who would like Gandalf with gangster's dress?. And the Donizetti's English trilogy? Why it would be old fashioned if nowadays the Tudors and English queens movies are so popular?
The new opera productions are sometimes difficult to understand the plot, they are no good for luring new public, I think.

Opera has been more or less snob depends on the case. Yes, a bit snob it is yet.
In the XVIII century opera seria was in Italian and that was for the elite in all Europe. In Germany the genre for the masses was the singspiel sung in german, and in Italy the genre was opera buffa, sometimes sung in dialect (In Naples they where sung in neapolitan dialect, Italian was for the italians difficult to understand in this time).
In the XIX cebtury opera composers wrote in their own language (russian, French, German, Check,...) usually, and they wrote their operas as entertainment for the masses, for the normal people and for the rich, for all the humanity. The people wore casual clothes and took along food and drinks. But in some places, for exemple in Barcelona (Catalonia) the operas were all in foreign languages, they were accessible only for the educated classes. In The Liceu opera house assisted only the elites. in Italy all the people liked Rossini, Rossini was popular, but in Catalonia only the elite liked Rossini, Rossini was for the snobs.
From 1980's this is changed a lot because of the surtitles. But the traditional rich classes keep going to the opera with their fancy clothes. Anyway, some people like to dress up , maybe they are not snob, they just like to show their best dresses, other people do the same when they go to the church. For me it's not important, I like to wear casual clothes.

About the fat singers. There are a lot of fat singers in the opera. And ugly ones as well. The body is not the important in the opera, the important is the voice. In the movies or in the pop music the body is important, but that is a bit wrong. Anyway, there are a lot of great looking singers like Gheorghiu, Alagna, Nebretko or Ramey.


----------



## Hesoos (Jun 9, 2012)

I was explaining about that in Barcelona in the past, opera was really snob, but at the sometime in Italy it was not. I wanted to say a little history. That happened when in Catalonia there were fighting the work class against the bourgeois class (the elite). The bourgeoisie used to go to the opera, not the work class. A lot of workers hated the rich and most of the catalan workers belong to anarchist sindicates who attacked constantly the elite. About 1900, where was the club of the elite in Barcelona?? The opera house!!

"On November 7, 1893, on the opening night of the season and during the second act of the opera Guillaume Tell by Rossini, two Orsini bombs were thrown into the stalls of the opera house. Only one of the bombs exploded and some twenty people were killed with many more being injured. The attack was the work of the anarchist Santiago Salvador and it deeply shocked Barcelona, becoming the symbol of the turbulent social unrest of the time. The Liceu reopened its doors on January 18, 1894, but the seats occupied by those killed by the bombs were not used for a number of years." (from Wikipedia)









In these days there is a lot of normal people in the opera house of Liceu in Barcelona, you can see for exemple young people with heavy metal clothes...but the traditional elite class is present yet. The snob age is over but the snob people is present yet. In these days an anarchist couldn't think about throwing bombs there, because in the public there are normal people, not only the elite. In Italy always in its history normal people assisted at the operas.


----------



## Hesoos (Jun 9, 2012)

Sorry... When I wrote This:
"For exemple, Europeans can think that African foos is strange"
I wanted to say FOOD no FOOS


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Hesoos said:


> I was explaining about that in Barcelona in the past, opera was really snob, but at the sometime in Italy it was not. I wanted to say a little history. That happened when in Catalonia there were fighting the work class against the bourgeois class (the elite). The bourgeoisie used to go to the opera, not the work class. A lot of workers hated the rich and most of the catalan workers belong to anarchist sindicates who attacked constantly the elite. About 1900, where was the club of the elite in Barcelona?? The opera house!!


that's very interesting ... makes you kind of think about class differences and where they come from. Some class differences come from the color of your skin, or what language you speak, and are just disguised prejudice. Other class differences come from how much money you make or who your friends are, or "tradition", and aren't much better as an indicator of personal value. Then there are class differences that have to do with education, and the willingness to work at something in the hopes that something good will come out of it; and you know, looking back on it, I never would have imagined how much work I would have to put into opera to get the good out of it that I've got. There's quite a hurdle there. You have to understand what's being said; you have to understand the plot well enough to get something out of it; you have to find a production good enough to bring out what's good in the plot; we all know how many productions there are that just don't do it for us! These differences are class differences too, aren't they?

So Greg, what's your point? I don't know. Just that enjoying opera has been a lot more work than I thought it would be - and if people who don't yet enjoy opera don't want to put in the effort, well, I understand. But it is a class difference, I think.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

guythegreg said:


> that's very interesting ... makes you kind of think about class differences and where they come from. Some class differences come from the color of your skin, or what language you speak, and are just disguised prejudice. Other class differences come from how much money you make or who your friends are, or "tradition", and aren't much better as an indicator of personal value. Then there are class differences that have to do with education, and the willingness to work at something in the hopes that something good will come out of it; and you know, looking back on it, I never would have imagined how much work I would have to put into opera to get the good out of it that I've got. There's quite a hurdle there. You have to understand what's being said; you have to understand the plot well enough to get something out of it; you have to find a production good enough to bring out what's good in the plot; we all know how many productions there are that just don't do it for us! These differences are class differences too, aren't they?
> 
> So Greg, what's your point? I don't know. Just that enjoying opera has been a lot more work than I thought it would be - and if people who don't yet enjoy opera don't want to put in the effort, well, I understand. But it is a class difference, I think.


You only realise as you get into it further, that the more "work" you put into opera the more enjoyment you get out of it. ("") because I spend time & effort but it's not anything like my 9 - 5!

I'm not sure it's exactly class, but you do need a basic education, to be able to read anyway. I had an uncle & aunt who both left school at 15 without formal qualifications. They lived in a council house in a deprived area & were socialists to their core. He was a car mechanic & she was a cleaner & they both had a deep love & understanding of opera.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

sospiro said:


> You only realise as you get into it further, that the more "work" you put into opera the more enjoyment you get out of it. ("") because I spend time & effort but it's not anything like my 9 - 5!
> 
> I'm not sure it's exactly class, but you do need a basic education, to be able to read anyway. I had an uncle & aunt who both left school at 15 without formal qualifications. They lived in a council house in a deprived area & were socialists to their core. He was a car mechanic & she was a cleaner & they both had a deep love & understanding of opera.


Funny how you leap to the jobs your parents did to define their class ... if they were opera lovers that puts them in MY class! lol although if they knew me they might not agree ... and did you always love opera, growing up, as a result of hearing so much of it?


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

guythegreg said:


> Funny how you leap to the jobs your parents did to define their class ... if they were opera lovers that puts them in MY class! lol although if they knew me they might not agree ... and did you always love opera, growing up, as a result of hearing so much of it?


Uncle & Aunt not parents. My parents liked some opera but I hated it & came to opera very late.

I still have a newcomer's childlike enthusiasm & passion & hope I never end up looking bored like some people I see at live opera.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

sospiro said:


> Uncle & Aunt not parents. My parents liked some opera but I hated it & came to opera very late.
> 
> I still have a newcomer's childlike enthusiasm & passion & hope I never end up looking bored like some people I see at live opera.


Oh right, uncle & aunt, you said that. Sorry. Yeah opera didn't even exist, for my parents. They had a lot of music but I don't remember them ever listening to it much.

Live opera surely OUGHT to be exciting and wonderful. Sometimes it isn't ...


----------



## tonydcomposer (Jul 17, 2017)

*Have you a list?*



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Don't worry there are heaps. But I'm sure you would call them "interesting listening experiences in modern music..." :lol:


Hmm, like what? Care to compile a list???


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

sospiro said:


> It may sound a bit 'dodgy' but I've also made several friends at the Stage Door. Everyone waiting for autographs is a fan & it's very easy to get into conversation.


I've done that too. When I first discovered I enjoyed opera, I didn't know anyone who felt the same way about it. It was a means of meeting like minded people and being able to talk about it. In my case it was always a little fraught however as I don't have the kind of personality that enjoys meeting performers, however much I admire their singing. In fact the more I admire their singing, the more nerve wracking I find the idea of meeting them!

On one occasion, after a José Carreras concert, I felt I was very safe going round to the stage door afterwards. At the last minute it had been decided to record the concert for television and Carreras had had to repeat a number of things for them (not any of the singing though). He looked exhausted at the end, so I felt absolutely certain that he wouldn't be hanging around to sign autographs. I guessed that if I went to the Stage Door I'd be able to chat away for about 45 minutes and then someone would come and tell us that Carreras had left. Perfect as far as I was concerned. I was right up to a point. I did spend 45 minutes chatting and almost on the dot, someone came to the Stage Door. Confidently expecting to hear that we were wasting our time standing around any longer, I was appalled to hear him say that they were setting up a table and chair inside the building and in a few minutes we'd all be able to file in and meet the man. My face must have been a picture. I've never been to a Stage Door after a performance since! But the couple I spent most of the time chatting to that evening have now been good friends of mine for nearly 30 years.

(By the way, I hope Sospiro is all right. I spent some time trawling through and even resurrecting the occasional old post when I first signed up here and we seemed to have a lot in common. I was disappointed to find that she hasn't posted for a couple of years now.)


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

tonydcomposer said:


> Hmm, like what? Care to compile a list???


Sorry he can not make the list. He was banned from this site.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Annied said:


> (By the way, I hope Sospiro is all right. I spent some time trawling through and even resurrecting the occasional old post when I first signed up here and we seemed to have a lot in common. I was disappointed to find that she hasn't posted for a couple of years now.)


Totally agree, I miss her. I'm pretty sure she told us she was retiring from her day job and now hope her days are fuller than ever with things she enjoys. She had a bright and sunny disposition and thats always welcome on here. I recall telleing her I was surprised she'd used the word hate.

Also hope she resumes posting soon...

PS I'm also pretty sure she shares a name with you.


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

Belowpar said:


> Totally agree, I miss her. I'm pretty sure she told us she was retiring from her day job and now hope her days are fuller than ever with things she enjoys. She had a bright and sunny disposition and thats always welcome on here. I recall telleing her I was surprised she'd used the word hate.
> 
> Also hope she resumes posting soon...
> 
> PS I'm also pretty sure she shares a name with you.


Yes, I picked up on the name too, along with José Carreras introducing us both to opera and Joseph Calleja being our favourite of the current tenors. Also, it seems, the capacity to strike up a conversation with total strangers! I'd have liked to get to know her better. As you say, let's hope her life is filled up with all sorts of other enjoyable things.


----------



## BalalaikaBoy (Sep 25, 2014)

I haven't read the responses in this thread yet, but in all honesty....I quite like the elitism of opera. I love
- an excuse to dress up
- being around people able to make intelligent conversation
- being able to appreciate something of *quality* for a low price. I love luxury, treating myself to the best 
- the combination of high class and dignity with more artistic flair and expression. most high class people in America are so DRY, like they lack functioning sexuality, while most artistic types lack ambition or competence. opulence requires both of these sets of characteristics
- the sound of a mature, formidable voice rather than an unsupported pop sound


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I hope nobody is offended by this...

The recent ROH Turandot live stream had one overtly camp presenter (Gok Wan) handing over to another overtly camp presenter, and that was the first 40 minutes of the broadcast. Not the ideal way to present opera's broad appeal.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Setting aside the humorous stereotype of a fat lady singing Wagner in a Viking helmet, I would guess those who don't like opera have never had the good fortune to _fall in love_ with someone's magical voice. Too bad! Before I was interested in opera, I unexpectedly heard Anna Moffo singing a Puccini aria and Carl Bergonzi singing something else with his incredible voice on radio. _It was love at first hear_. Only thereafter came the interest in a complete opera... Evidently, some listeners will never be lucky enough to have that experience of divine serendipity, _fall in love with a voice_, and enjoy the beauty, challenge and fantasy of opera as part of their destiny. 
:wave:


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> Setting aside the humorous stereotype of a fat lady singing Wagner in a Viking helmet, I would guess those who don't like opera have never had the good fortune to _fall in love_ with someone's magical voice. Too bad! Before I was interested in opera, I unexpectedly heard Anna Moffo singing a Puccini aria and Carl Bergonzi singing something else with his incredible voice on radio. _It was love at first hear_. Only thereafter came the interest in a complete opera... Evidently, some listeners will never be lucky enough to have that experience of divine serendipity, _fall in love with a voice_, and enjoy the beauty, challenge and fantasy of opera as part of their destiny.
> :wave:


I had the same thing with Fleming singing opposite Doming as Desdemona, I was 11 years and now years later I still love her .
( The voice and personalty that is)


----------

