# Why I don't go to the Opera



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

I thought I would start this thread to see some other opinions after a conversation I had with a friend earlier. This person is a huge fan of the modern school of singing while my preferences lie with the old school. He is someone who likes Anna Netrebko, but hates Callas so much he joked he's "glad she died". As a current student at a conservatoire I work with a lot of vocal students and the way I see it is that teaching nowadays doesn't do as much to develop a voice to it's full potential, the voice is not cultivated into an operatic instrument as it was in the past. Learning to sing operatically should be akin to becoming a professional athlete, you do not just run when training to be an olympic sprinter, there are a whole host of other aspects you need to consider. A lack of proper chest voice, squillo and volume plagues the modern school, which, for me, inhibits the drama of operatic performance. Our conversation was mainly focused on 'bel canto' sopranos and he was quick to point out that bel canto means beautiful singing and therefore a voice such as Callas's which can be harsh and strident is inappropriate. To this I would say, yes, 'bel canto' does mean beautiful singing. Not pretty singing. Beautiful singing. Singing not only with emotional truth and dramatic meaning, but also with power and force when needed. If a voice is sometimes harsh or metallic but the overall power of the performance remains then it can be easily excused. To me, the less developed voices of today just don't do it, although this is broadly speaking as there are singers I do like, and others that I may like but just have not heard.

There has also been an increasing intellectualisation of opera, as if singers are trying to give this totally unrealistic artform some realistic credebility. Im my opinion, the less stupid you are with opera, the more stupid it seems. In other words, if you don't overplay and overact the dramatics, if your goal is subtelty, you make the drama in the music seem limpid and in a way, more silly. Think of all of the non-sensical plots specifically used because it adds dramatic flare, not because it's realistic. Azucena hasn't thrown a baby in a fire because it makes sense, but it gives a chance for the composer to really delve deep into the characters emotional state if she has done something so horrific. If you downplay that, if you don't just go along with the histrionics, if you try to make it about more than just the raw emotions, it looses the point. 

Finally the other problem I have is reggietheatre. For the most part I prefer traditional productions. It is what the composer, and the librettist had in mind when writing the opera. Don't try to make it something it's not because, again, it begins to lose the point. They are a product of their time and should be treated as such. If you want a modern setting then can some of these opera companies please take a risk and programme more modern operas. Do we really need how ever many thousands of performances of Traviata every year over and over again? Yes it's a beautiful opera, we get it. I have nothing against Traviata, in fact it's one of my favourite operas, but I'd love to see more of the operas written in the last 30-40 years staged more frequently. Not only does it give a new opportunity to directors but also is often more suited to the capabilities of modern singers. Unfortunately it seems people would rather see Tosca set behind a dumpster and pass that off as "modernising opera" than actually go to see a modern opera!! 

I feel like a lot of people go to the opera nowadays, listen to someone like Anna Netrebko wobble around, off-key in La Forza del Destino or some other romantic warhorse and trick themselves into thinking it was beautiful because opera is supposed to be some intellectual high-point of Western art. When a friend who doesn't listen to opera says it sounds like people screaming or screeching at eachother I don't blame them if they have been exposed to the modern school of singing. With instrumental music my tastes are very varied, I like a huge range or performers from the beggining of recorded music to now, it is only with opera where the majority of what I listen to is pre-1970s performances, mostly in the 50s where the best comporimise is made between performance quality and listenable sound quality (not that that is a huge concern for me).

I love opera, but not what it has become. It's not something to half-sing. It's not an artform to intellectualise, to try to take literally, leave that to those movies which try and use it to symbolise the evils of colonialist imperialism and superiority. It's not something to modernise by merely updating the setting of old operas regardless of wether it makes sense or not. I hope the artform makes a turn-around, but as it is, I won't be paying to attend very regularly at all, and mostly it will be to see new works written by current composers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't go to the opera because I can't afford it and because there is no opera house within hundreds of miles. But if I didn't have those reasons not to attend, the current state of singing and the unlikelihood of seeing operas as their composers intended would do very nicely. If I were to go to Bayreuth, I fear I would love everything about it except the performance. But then, I am a cranky, curmudgeonly old codger, content to sit in his recliner behind drawn shades listening to his Caruso shellacs on his wind-up Victrola.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

Op.123 said:


> I thought I would start this thread to see some other opinions after a conversation I had with a friend earlier. This person is a huge fan of the modern school of singing while my preferences lie with the old school. He is someone who likes Anna Netrebko, but hates Callas so much he joked he's "glad she died". As a current student at a conservatoire I work with a lot of vocal students and the way I see it is that teaching nowadays doesn't do as much to develop a voice to it's full potential, the voice is not cultivated into an operatic instrument as it was in the past. Learning to sing operatically should be akin to becoming a professional athlete, you do not just run when training to be an olympic sprinter, there are a whole host of other aspects you need to consider. A lack of proper chest voice, squillo and volume plagues the modern school, which, for me, inhibits the drama of operatic performance. Our conversation was mainly focused on 'bel canto' sopranos and he was quick to point out that bel canto means beautiful singing and therefore a voice such as Callas's which can be harsh and strident is inappropriate. To this I would say, yes, 'bel canto' does mean beautiful singing. Not pretty singing. Beautiful singing. Singing not only with emotional truth and dramatic meaning, but also with power and force when needed. If a voice is sometimes harsh or metallic but the overall power of the performance remains then it can be easily excused. To me, the less developed voices of today just don't do it, although this is broadly speaking as there are singers I do like, and others that I may like but just have not heard.
> 
> There has also been an increasing intellectualisation of opera, as if singers are trying to give this totally unrealistic artform some realistic credebility. Im my opinion, the less stupid you are with opera, the more stupid it seems. In other words, if you don't overplay and overact the dramatics, if your goal is subtelty, you make the drama in the music seem limpid and in a way, more silly. Think of all of the non-sensical plots specifically used because it adds dramatic flare, not because it's realistic. Azucena hasn't thrown a baby in a fire because it makes sense, but it gives a chance for the composer to really delve deep into the characters emotional state if she has done something so horrific. If you downplay that, if you don't just go along with the histrionics, if you try to make it about more than just the raw emotions, it looses the point.
> 
> ...


It might be that you are friends who just don't 'get' each other artistically. Acknowledging this early could save you both that banging-your-head-off-a-wall-feeling and decide to just talk about other things.

As inspiration, you'll find a lot of support for you're own point of view in accounts like Rasponi's "The Last Prima Donnas" which privilege hard work, adherence to tradition, taking the composers and your art very seriously and taking idiosyncratic artistic decisions based on your own strengths and weaknesses. Gobbi wrote about his similar experiences and Callas' masterclasses show this too.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I live in San Francisco, a city with a great opera tradition, even before the Opera House was built (1932). I ushered there, as a volunteer from the early 1970s to the late 1990s, and attended sporadic performances during the 2000s.
That means that I’ve seen and heard the best of the best during my early years as an opera lover. 
I got jaded. I see no point in going to the opera these days, because I find the singers do not even begin to reach the levels of the singers I’d heard before, never mind the ones that are immortalized by their recordings in the 50s and 60s. 

I realized some time ago that I was looking for someone who could match or even approach my idol Callas and, naturally, no one did or could. Even today. I’d find fault in any soprano singing any of her rôles, because I’d hear Callas’s voice, her phrasing and inflections, etc., which made it impossible to enjoy others’ performances. Bad for me. 
I could, of course enjoy tenors, mezzo-soprani, baritones, basses, but not most of the soprani. After 20 or 30 years attendance at SF Opera, I developed acute prejudices and deep critical opinions, which made me even more unhappy about attending a poor or mediocre performance especially with the dearth of good soprani (since the early noughts).

So, I attend few performances, mostly in standing room, which allows me the freedom to walk in and out of the auditorium whenever I’m bored or unhappy with a singer or I'm not enjoying it. 
As far as Netrebko goes, she used to sing well, but was nothing special to me, but some people like her. That’s what it’s all about.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

This is something I have been upset about. I have only seen one opera live. It was _Tosca_ at Tri-Cities Opera in Binghamton, New York, back in October. It was a good traditional performance that followed the libretto almost exactly. So, I found that quite satisfying. The company is a small one, only doing about three productions each season. Thus, I wouldn't expect the greatest singing ever, but it's satisfying for someone who just really wants to see a live performance. Apparently Domingo sang there once. I have seen pictures of productions at the Met and am disgusted. Just 10 - 20 years ago, they were doing almost all traditional productions, but I am noticing more and more Regietheater garbage. And the Met is one of the most traditional companies in the world. I would like to see something at the Met once it becomes more feasible for me (I'm in college now and couldn't really afford that at this point in time), but I'm afraid there's not much time left. I may never see a good Wagner production. I think the only traditional performances at the Met will soon only be a few of their staples (_Aida_, _Turandot_, _La Bohème_). Actually, their _La Bohème_ isn't that traditional. I haven't seen any pictures of half-decent _Tristan und Isolde_ productions any newer than maybe the 60's. I don't understand why people think all this Regietheater nonsense is so good. People always talk about art "progressing", but art, I think, has progressed enough. Modern art doesn't bring anything exciting to the table. Just look at modern painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music. They are all evolving into a mess of random, nonsensical mishmash. People are trying to do more with art by doing less. The only real argument people who like to create Regietheater give is that doing the "same" productions over and over will get boring, but have they considered that Regietheater may be getting boring? Then they say vague things like "the art has to evolve with a changing society". What does that mean? Are they trying to appeal to young people? I'm young (I'm not your typical young person based on my interests, but still), but I'm not buying into this modern art stuff. On top of that, all my favorite singers are either dead or retired. Today's singers sound terrible to me. I hate to sound rude, but are Netrebko and Kaufmann really the best we have today?

So that's what I think. I'm not sure how much I'll be going to opera houses in the future, but if the Met turns into one of those Regietheater houses, I won't be seeing many live operas. I am in despair over this. I hope the artistic world wakes up because all of art is in need of a major Renaissance.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

adriesba said:


> This is something I have been upset about. I have only seen one opera live. It was _Tosca_ at Tri-Cities Opera in Binghamton, New York, back in October. It was a good traditional performance that followed the libretto almost exactly. So, I found that quite satisfying. The company is a small one, only doing about three productions each season. Thus, I wouldn't expect the greatest singing ever, but it's satisfying for someone who just really wants to see a live performance. Apparently Domingo sang there once. I have seen pictures of productions at the Met and am disgusted. Just 10 - 20 years ago, they were doing almost all traditional productions, but I am noticing more and more Regietheater garbage. And the Met is one of the most traditional companies in the world. I would like to see something at the Met once it becomes more feasible for me (I'm in college now and couldn't really afford that at this point in time), but I'm afraid there's not much time left. I may never see a good Wagner production. I think the only traditional performances at the Met will soon only be a few of their staples (_Aida_, _Turandot_, _La Bohème_). Actually, their _La Bohème_ isn't that traditional. I haven't seen any pictures of half-decent _Tristan und Isolde_ productions any newer than maybe the 60's. I don't understand why people think all this Regietheater nonsense is so good. People always talk about art "progressing", but art, I think, has progressed enough. Modern art doesn't bring anything exciting to the table. Just look at modern painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and music. They are all evolving into a mess of random, nonsensical mishmash. People are trying to do more with art by doing less. The only real argument people who like to create Regietheater give is that doing the "same" productions over and over will get boring, but have they considered that Regietheater may be getting boring? Then they say vague things like "the art has to evolve with a changing society". What does that mean? Are they trying to appeal to young people? I'm young (I'm not your typical young person based on my interests, but still), but I'm not buying into this modern art stuff. On top of that, all my favorite singers are either dead or retired. Today's singers sound terrible to me. I hate to sound rude, but are Netrebko and Kaufmann really the best we have today?
> 
> So that's what I think. I'm not sure how much I'll be going to opera houses in the future, but if the Met turns into one of those Regietheater houses, I won't be seeing many live operas. I am in despair over this. I hope the artistic world wakes up because all of art is in need of a major Renaissance.


I agree with all your points. I'm now in my early thirties and the so-called modernist regie productions are older than I am.

Lucky you re Tosca if it was traditional, I went to the opera and it was updated so they were fascists in WW2 Italy... How original 

Scottish Opera operate near me and there is also the Edinburgh International Festival. Honestly, I don't know what they are aiming for because I'm the only opera fan among my circle of friends and I can't find a single performance that I'd be interested going to see. As you mentioned, the cost can be prohibitive.

I attended a concert of Tristan und Isolde in separate acts with Nina Stemme who was the best thing about it, it would have been lovely if it was traditionally staged. Having said that, if there is a choice between regie and concert I'd take concerts every time now.

I'll round up my rant: Kaufmann and Netrebko are, to me, actually pretty boring singers, modern operas invariably sound horrible and I'll probably stick with my recordings thanks all the same lol


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

MAS said:


> I live in San Francisco, a city with a great opera tradition, even before the Opera House was built (1932). I ushered there, as a volunteer from the early 1970s to the late 1990s, and attended sporadic performances during the 2000s.
> That means that I've seen and heard the best of the best during my early years as an opera lover.
> I got jaded. I see no point in going to the opera these days, because I find the singers do not even begin to reach the levels of the singers I'd heard before, never mind the ones that are immortalized by their recordings in the 50s and 60s.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your experiences MAS, they are really interesting!

I'm glad your early years as an opera lover were so enjoyable - an exciting time to be there


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

> Lucky you re Tosca if it was traditional, I went to the opera and it was updated so they were fascists in WW2 Italy... How original


I know! :lol: Why do they use World War II era for everything? That's lack of creativity right there.
Like I said, Tri-Cities Opera isn't a huge company. So their sets aren't the most elaborate, but they actually tried to make the scenes look like the actual locations! This link has some pictures of their staging: https://www.tricitiesopera.com/portfolio/tosca/



> I attended a concert of Tristan und Isolde in separate acts with Nina Stemme who was the best thing about it, it would have been lovely if it was traditionally staged. Having said that, if there is a choice between regie and concert I'd take concerts every time now.


I'm still not sure what I think about Nina Stemme. Some of what I've heard of her sounds good, but some other times she sounded simply awful, at least to me. Unfortunately, _Tristan und Isolde_ gets some of the worst Regietheater. It doesn't look like it's been done right in half a century or more, and I doubt we will get to hear the likes of Birgit Nilsson or Jon Vickers sing it anytime soon.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

adriesba said:


> I know! :lol: Why do they use World War II era for everything? That's lack of creativity right there.
> Like I said, Tri-Cities Opera isn't a huge company. So their sets aren't the most elaborate, but they actually tried to make the scenes look like the actual locations! This link has some pictures of their staging: https://www.tricitiesopera.com/portfolio/tosca/
> 
> I'm still not sure what I think about Nina Stemme. Some of what I've heard of her sounds good, but some other times she sounded simply awful, at least to me. Unfortunately, _Tristan und Isolde_ gets some of the worst Regietheater. It doesn't look like it's been done right in half a century or more, and I doubt we will get to hear the likes of Birgit Nilsson or Jon Vickers sing it anytime soon.


I agree that Nina Stemme can sound terrible sometimes - perhaps her voice sounds better in some roles than others. For some reason she may suit Wagner rather than Strauss, for instance. Isolde rather than Elektra. I also think she's singing heavier repertoire than what is suited for her voice. I don't really like her sound.

As far as Tosca is concerned, the setting is so specific than anything other than a traditional production is totally "wrong!"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

If you'd seen David McVicar's production of Agrippina at the Met you would have been delighted. It was a modern update but served the plot. And was hilarious. The point is about any production is that it serves the plot and the libretto not some idea that the producer has imposed of his own.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MAS said:


> As far as Tosca is concerned, the setting is so specific than anything other than a traditional production is totally "wrong!"


Yes as the historicity is built into the libretto. This applies also to an opera like Figaro where a modern setting is idiotic as the whole thing revolves around the nobleman's privilege.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

MAS said:


> I agree that Nina Stemme can sound terrible sometimes - perhaps her voice sounds better in some roles than others. For some reason she may suit Wagner rather than Strauss, for instance. Isolde rather than Elektra. I also think she's singing heavier repertoire than what is suited for her voice. I don't really like her sound.
> 
> As far as Tosca is concerned, the setting is so specific than anything other than a traditional production is totally "wrong!"


Even while I was there, I couldn't think what else I'd like to hear Stemme sing with that flinty voice. What arguably works for Isolde wouldn't work for me even as Leonore or Turandot.

I find with updated opera that it is like paraphrasing the composer. Why have subtlety when you can use semaphores.

Let's use _Tosca_ as the example. You are right about the setting being really specific.

What is fascinating about Scarpia is that there needs to be a real complexity about the character. We are forewarned by Cavaradossi that Scarpia is twisted and awful in the exchange with Angelotti. However, what is really deadly about Scarpia is that he must appear plausible and sophisticated and erotic and even elegant to both Tosca and the audience before he reveals his true character during the Te Deum.

Literally none of this happens if Scarpia troops in looking like Mussolini. Suddenly there is no nuance, no suspense.


----------



## vivalagentenuova (Jun 11, 2019)

I think what is being said about Tosca is true with most operas. The problem for me is the dissonance between the text and music and what you see on stage. Good operas have a very strong sense of where and when they are. Updating usually destroys that. Updating basically requires you to pretend you don't hear a bunch of the text, which is a problem for me. I want the entire experience to be cohesive.

Second, the update usually involves some "concept," which is rarely as engaging as what the opera was originally about. And if the original concept isn't very interesting, it's usually at least charming or exciting if the opera is worth going to in the first place. _La Sonnambula_ isn't the deepest text, but it's quite charming if done in its original context. Trying to inflate it into some modern psychodrama with all sorts of abstractions and crazy symbolism destroys that. As Op. 123 noted, there is frequently an attempt to shoehorn in idea that are totally absent in the original. Were you referring to the Met's scheduled production of _Giulio Cesare_ for next year, which is being done "Bollywood style," as a commentary on British colonialism, no doubt with further references to today's politics to be included? For operas that do have deep ideas, the ideas of the director are usually much less interesting, yet are still substituted for the original.

Finally, the aesthetic of a lot of these directors is pure trash. Some productions I've come across are just downright insulting.




(Very subtle messaging behind Turandot there.)





(I didn't realize Berlioz was a Star Trek fan and wrote the Borg queen into his Renaissance dramedy)





(If they turned down the lights any further, we wouldn't be able to see the stage, which might be an improvement)





(Staging, aside from being horribly tacky, makes the story incomprehensible. You basically have to ignore every other word, although it's not like you could actually decipher them anyway)

And throughout them all, mediocre to downright terrible singing. It's especially amusing in Mozart productions, where you often have the orchestra playing on original instruments with a very serious attempt to be absolutely scrupulous and faithful to period style and practice, all while the characters on stage are controlled by puppet strings or are on their cell phones or whatever.

I think the main problem here is that there have been virtually no works that have become part of the repertoire since Strauss died. And virtually no works that have been very popular since Puccini died. I think the answer to that is the choices that classical music has made. It has become willfully esoteric. Some people do like modern classical music, but not nearly enough. The response from the initiates seems to be one of contempt: if you don't get it, that's your problem. But it's all our problem as opera lovers. To my mind, modern classical music, by which I am unfortunately including anything not deemed retrograde since about 1920, is simply incapable of telling a story. Endless fields of dissonances are fallow because they are permeated by constant tension, which makes the fundamental principle of musical narrative, tension and release, impossible or very difficult to perceive. If everything is tense, there's no drama. And let's face it: most people find lots of extreme dissonance very tense and off putting. Also, many of the composers, though not all, who write operas are not opera composers by trade. You miss out on repeated practice, you approach it as primarily music and not primarily drama, as all the greatest opera composers did. You don't really know how to write for the human voice:




No composer who knew anything about the proper functioning of the voice (or had respect for their audience) would write that.

Since not nearly enough people like modern works to make them consistently viable, let alone box office hits, they have to mostly perform music from over a century or more ago. This makes people who are really invested in novelty, which is the God of modern art, much more important than oh say, quality, think that we are just being creatively inert. So they dress it up in some ridiculous costume, and pretend like the fact that you wouldn't have expected it makes it deep. Well, mostly we wouldn't have expected it because it's just stupid. Very occasionally you see one done tastefully, but it's very rare. The mistake these people are making is that they think works of the past are "already done," so we have to do something new with them to be avant garde. But they're not. If they're worth performing two centuries later, it's because they are evergreen. Wagner as Wagner created it, or Puccini as Puccini created it, or Mozart etc., is just as powerful now as it ever was. By recreating in a deep way what they created, we are actually tapping into something that is always new. I find productions of _Gianni Schicchi_ that attempt to interpret the humor of Puccini and Forzano to be much fresher and funnier than productions that try to impose the ideas of the director. Just maybe, the Ring as Wagner asked for it is not only for people "for whom the theater is not a cerebral activity" or whatever the quote was. (Isn't that an odd slam on Wagner for a supposed Wagner lover to make?)

This is maybe getting a little afield, but my own opinion is that the artists of the modern revolution thought that they were going someplace deeper, but often ended up someplace shallow, because they mistook subjectivity and abstraction for relevance and depth. I think Debussy/Ravel/Puccini had a much more fruitful path to follow than the one music and opera ultimately took (though Ravel's operas are a little disappointing melodically). The other arts have suffered too, most notable architecture and painting. There are indeed many great artists from the 20th century, especially in film, which was very healthy much longer than music, but usually they are iconoclasts, who refuse to conform their work to theory or dogma. Rather, they look at human nature with honest eyes, not occluded by ideology, right or left or anything else.

All of this would be tolerable, though, if we had Carusos and Battistinis and Tetrazzinis and Pattis and Kirkby-Lunns. At its heart, opera is really about the power of the human voice, and the craftsmanship and artistry of which it is capable. That decline has been the most serious. Even coaches, conductors, and the like admit it privately. And even if the rest changed for the better, opera would not be worthwhile again until the singing came back. Fortunately, there seem to be small signs of a reaction. It can't some soon enough.


----------



## Revitalized Classics (Oct 31, 2018)

vivalagentenuova said:


> I think what is being said about Tosca is true with most operas. The problem for me is the dissonance between the text and music and what you see on stage. Good operas have a very strong sense of where and when they are. Updating usually destroys that. Updating basically requires you to pretend you don't hear a bunch of the text, which is a problem for me. I want the entire experience to be cohesive.
> 
> Second, the update usually involves some "concept," which is rarely as engaging as what the opera was originally about. And if the original concept isn't very interesting, it's usually at least charming or exciting if the opera is worth going to in the first place. _La Sonnambula_ isn't the deepest text, but it's quite charming if done in its original context. Trying to inflate it into some modern psychodrama with all sorts of abstractions and crazy symbolism destroys that. As Op. 123 noted, there is frequently an attempt to shoehorn in idea that are totally absent in the original. Were you referring to the Met's scheduled production of _Giulio Cesare_ for next year, which is being done "Bollywood style," as a commentary on British colonialism, no doubt with further references to today's politics to be included? For operas that do have deep ideas, the ideas of the director are usually much less interesting, yet are still substituted for the original.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your contribution - I agree with every point you make here, very interesting!

P.S. When that Tempest extract started, I genuinely assumed there were glitches playing back the video but no, it is just terrible music lol


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

vivalagentenuova, I won't put your whole post for my short reply, but I couldn't agree more! I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this problem. Hopefully someday opera houses will start to realize this and change their productions to better serve the composer. And, yes, it would be great if there were more new operas that could be performed. But the newest opera I'd be willing to see is probably _Dialogues des Carmélites_. I certainly don't want to see any nonsense of the likes of _Einstein on the Beach_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> If you'd seen David McVicar's production of Agrippina at the Met you would have been delighted. It was a modern update but served the plot. And was hilarious. The point is about any production is that it serves the plot and the libretto not some idea that the producer has imposed of his own.


It's easier to do updates of comedies - not to mention that Baroque opera is probably an easier sell with a bit of anachronistic zaniness.



> the historicity is built into the libretto [of Tosca]. This applies also to an opera like Figaro where a modern setting is idiotic as the whole thing revolves around the nobleman's privilege.


In a modern _Figaro_ the countess would be more likely to divorce the count than forgive him, and the happy ending would be for her winning a good settlement. I'd prefer that, actually, not being one to go all weepy over the poor kept woman's "nobility."


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I *detest* opera productions in modern dress. To me its as if I'm at a rehearsal, and the costumes are not ready! A case in point is a recent San Francisco Opera production of Händel's *Orlando*, which, instead of taking place in a mythical twelfth century with Saracens and Knights and queens of Cathay, is set in a military hospital. 
Instead of this:















We got this:














The latter photos could be a production of Doctor Atomic, or Nixon in China, and I could be happy. But *Orlando?* ***** no!

(I had an expletive there, but got blipped)


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

I enjoy all manner of productions - modern dress too.

The Met's Marriage of Figaro worked in a 30's style production.
I enjoyed Don Giovanni, when the brought a car onto the stage at the beginning, and the drama was punctuated with Leporello opening cans of lager. it was an audacious production - and all the more enjoyable for it. 

Shakespeare's been redone many times in different styles and costumes - and much of Shakespeare's work was tarting up old Italian stories and shamelessly rewriting history that would make the average Hollywood executive splutter with indignation. 

Even with Shakespeare, "traditional" has been turned on its head and now we have original pronunciation versions, where the actors say their lines with the accents and mannerisms of the time - as much as linguistic analysis will allow anyway. 

I'll go see modern productions and I'll go see traditional ones - there's enough room for both - just don't be boring.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Your point about Shakespeare is a good one. He would presumably have been open to some updating, since Renaissance art - painting in particular - tended to mix ancient stories with contemporary styles of dress and architecture. And we should remember that Verdi's _La Traviata_ and his _Un Ballo in Maschera_ had their periods and locales changed to suit the tastes of the public and the censors. The main thing is to respect the meaning of the work and avoid absurdities and confusion. Some stories make no sense when moved too far from their original setting and period - and some productions make no sense, period.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

vivalagentenuova said:


> All of this would be tolerable, though, if we had Carusos and Battistinis and Tetrazzinis and Pattis and Kirkby-Lunns. At its heart, opera is really about the power of the human voice, and the craftsmanship and artistry of which it is capable. That decline has been the most serious. Even coaches, conductors, and the like admit it privately. And even if the rest changed for the better, opera would not be worthwhile again until the singing came back. Fortunately, there seem to be small signs of a reaction. It can't some soon enough.


See here the sets are beautiful, but we have Anna Netrebko: 





I've seen a video before of her singing Tosca. This role is definitely not for her. I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too.

 Eek! ->


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

AlexD said:


> I enjoy all manner of productions - modern dress too.
> 
> The Met's Marriage of Figaro worked in a 30's style production.
> I enjoyed Don Giovanni, when the brought a car onto the stage at the beginning, and the drama was punctuated with Leporello opening cans of lager. it was an audacious production - and all the more enjoyable for it.
> ...


Agree with your sentiments and can even see that some productions that seem like genius to me might seem puerile or under-cooked to others. It is also worth pointing out that I've seen a no of traditional productions that were naff! (IMO of course).

Playing it safe is not the way to go and that said, Opera Houses when commissioning Directors, might issue a few guidelines. Like...

- Leather Trenchcoasts and general Dystopia are sooo last century. Not every Opera is telling us the same things.
- Not every production is improved by saving money on the amount of electricity you allow the lighting designer.
- If the libretto describes something specific, ignore this at your peril as it can easily point out the artificiality of your basic idea.
- If you want to introduce a new idea e.g. inflatable Crocodiles in the Rhine, you need a better justification than wanting to shock the people paying your wages. 
- Speaking of whom, i.e. the audience who have the wherewithal to buy tickets and make their way to the theatre, its safe to say they can do a little thinking for themselves and driving your ideas home relentlessly will not open minds any further. 
- when designing for Opera please make sure the props don't make a noise or (ROH Lucia e.g.) leave a tap running on stage...
- Brecht was wrong. That same audience realised when they bought their ticket that they would be watching in a theatre and the people on stage are actors. Devices that remind them of this are just a waste of time, cliched and actually distractions for the very people who are attempting to engage with this most irrational of arts.
- Finally if at any point in preparation you have even a single doubt about your ideas on the piece, just look at the names printed on the cover of the Score. If yours is there, then you have carte blanche.

Good luck.


----------



## howlingfantods (Jul 27, 2015)

MAS said:


> I live in San Francisco, a city with a great opera tradition, even before the Opera House was built (1932). I ushered there, as a volunteer from the early 1970s to the late 1990s, and attended sporadic performances during the 2000s.
> That means that I've seen and heard the best of the best during my early years as an opera lover.
> I got jaded. I see no point in going to the opera these days, because I find the singers do not even begin to reach the levels of the singers I'd heard before, never mind the ones that are immortalized by their recordings in the 50s and 60s.


But part of that is that San Francisco used to be a regular stop for the biggest stars but is no longer. When's the last time a real a-lister came through here? Maybe Gheorghiu doing Tosca like 15 years ago? It used to be part of the international circuit but is now a regional house with regional stars. We may get a stop on a fading star's farewell tour, but that's about it nowadays.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Your point about Shakespeare is a good one. He would presumably have been open to some updating, since Renaissance art - painting in particular - tended to mix ancient stories with contemporary styles of dress and architecture. And we should remember that Verdi's _La Traviata_ and his _Un Ballo in Maschera_ had their periods and locales changed to suit the tastes of the public and the censors. The main thing is to respect the meaning of the work and avoid absurdities and confusion. Some stories make no sense when moved too far from their original setting and period - and some productions make no sense, period.


I spent $175 for Walkure in DC. It was the American Ring. I left after the second act. A hillbilly Wotan was too much standing beside a settler's cabin. I could not go there.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I spent $175 for Walkure in DC. It was the American Ring. I left after the second act. A hillbilly Wotan was too much standing beside a settler's cabin. I could not go there.


I couldn't go there either. 
Seriously, what are they thinking?!


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Your point about Shakespeare is a good one. He would presumably have been open to some updating, since Renaissance art - painting in particular - tended to mix ancient stories with contemporary styles of dress and architecture. And we should remember that Verdi's _La Traviata_ and his _Un Ballo in Maschera_ had their periods and locales changed to suit the tastes of the public and the censors. The main thing is to respect the meaning of the work and avoid absurdities and confusion. Some stories make no sense when moved too far from their original setting and period - and some productions make no sense, period.


I don't know...
If I were going to see a Shakespeare play, I'd rather see a time-accurate production. I realize Shakespeare's plays are probably not all time-accurate, but It would mess with my mind too much if I saw a play with a modern setting in which the characters talk about Humoral Theory and speak in 1500s English. Too many things wouldn't make sense.

There would be three times coming together: the time-setting of the play, Shakespeare's time, and modern time. It would be better to take one of those times out of the equation. Taking _Julius Caesar_ as an example, I'd say Shakespeare's time has more in common with ancient Rome than today does. You already have to suspend some belief simply because of the time the plays were written in, but adding modern times into it is just too much.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

adriesba said:


> I don't know...
> If I were going to see a Shakespeare play, I'd rather see a time-accurate production. I realize Shakespeare's plays are probably not all time-accurate, but It would mess with my mind too much if I saw a play with a modern setting in which the characters talk about Humoral Theory and speak in 1500s English. Too many things wouldn't make sense.
> 
> There would be three times coming together: the time-setting of the play, Shakespeare's time, and modern time. It would be better to take one of those times out of the equation. Taking _Julius Caesar_ as an example, I'd say Shakespeare's time has more in common with ancient Rome than today does. You already have to suspend some belief simply because of the time the plays were written in, but adding modern times into it is just too much.


I wasn't necessarily suggesting really modern dress for Shakespeare when I said "some updating." It clashes with the language, for one thing. The comedies could tolerate it better than the tragedies; I saw a _Measure for Measure_ that was very entertaining. But a lot of Shakespeare has a timeless feel - there's no need to place it in a specific century - and so there's latitude. I feel the same way about opera; it's inherently non-realistic. The important thing is that the production make sense, aesthetically and logically.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't necessarily suggesting really modern dress for Shakespeare when I said "some updating." It clashes with the language, for one thing. The comedies could tolerate it better than the tragedies; I saw a _Measure for Measure_ that was very entertaining. But a lot of Shakespeare has a timeless feel - there's no need to place it in a specific century - and so there's latitude. I feel the same way about opera; it's inherently non-realistic. The important thing is that the production make sense, aesthetically and logically.


I see. It's just that people often do update things to modern times, and it just doesn't work. Some things are harder to move chronologically than others. With comic works it could sometimes be acceptable though since they are meant to be comedic. Updating things just doesn't typically work, in my opinion. I can't imagine _Julius Caesar_ working outside of ancient Rome for example, and I can't see most serious operas placed in different times.


----------

