# Opera: art form or entertainment (or both)?



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Don't know if any of you have seen this website, but I found it a couple years ago and it's interesting to read the arguments of someone whose views are so extreme in the opposite direction from mine (although I agree about "crossover" singers and whatnot)
www.saveopera.com
This page in particular: http://saveopera.com/Articles/OperavsEntertainment/OperavsEntertainment.html
is bizarre. Opera isn't entertainment? So we should *not* be entertained while listening to it ... what then, bored? I think it's possible to have it both be entertaining and preserve the complexities and vocal standards, though perhaps not to the author's exacting demands (though, I'd guess there's only a half dozen singers at any one time that the author would approve of).
I mean, taking his argument to its logical end point means that there's no point in presenting operas as anything other than concert versions ... or better yet, only on cd. And that's a view I can never agree with.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

rgz, I thought that what you said above is interesting enough to deserve its own thread, so I took the liberty of moving it to a new one.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

_Opera is complex and appreciated only by those capable of grasping its complexity_ 

So much for that article's insightfulness with that nonsense. Probably written by someone who never really read much about the history of opera; in particular, opera since Monterverdi through to the Baroque and Classical, but was imbued by neo-Romantic and modernism views.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I see opera as a multi-media art form that can be entertaining (as can all art).

So basically I see no difference between artistic expression and enjoyment/entertainment.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> rgz, I thought that what you said above is interesting enough to deserve its own thread, so I took the liberty of moving it to a new one.


I'm flattered :tiphat:
To flesh it out a bit, then, I'd say that in my opinion the general consensus here would be that singing is absolutely an important factor and if you can't sing to at least a certain standard of expectation, no amount of acting will fix that. That said, opera as an artform (and yes, entertainment) is far more than simply the singing. Would that be an accurate summary of views here?

I'm actually kind of hopeful that a more hardline view on singing -- someone who might generally agree with the above but thinks that in many cases the bar set for acceptable singing is set too low -- will chime in here to get a dialogue going. *Is* opera going too far towards facile sex appeal at the expense of singing? I don't think so but would be interested in debating the issue.

Long ago I sent an email to the guy who runs that website to discuss the issue more thoroughly but he never replied.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Critiques would have a field day with mediocre singers, so I don't think the article's view on quality trade-off holds water.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

rgz, I spent a good hour reading all articles on that site. I came out with the impression that the author is a snob elitist bore. While there are a few statements here and there that I agree with (hey, he lavishly praises Anna Netrebko!), most of what he says is nonsense. 

He seems to believe that opera is only singing. While few would doubt that singing is the most important aspect of opera, it is far from being the only one.

He also seems fixated on *his* notion of opera, dismissing everything that came before Mozart and after Stravinsky.

I on the other hand enjoy opera of all eras including contemporary opera.

Like you, the only part in which I'd agree with him is when he talks about crossover. Unfortunately he picked a bad example to criticize crossover: Sissel, who is indeed a crossover singer, but happens to be, in my opinion, a very good one. Sissel actually has a very beautiful voice with good range and good technique, and *is* able to sing with operatic standards, in my opinion (unlike Bocceli, for one). I believe that Sissel made her career choice not because she would not be able to have an operatic career, but rather because she wanted to make more money. I don't know if she's got the endurance for a 3-hour opera on stage, but certainly some of the operatic arias that she sings are very well done (I remember hearing her in some arias from Rusalka and I really liked it).


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

Yeah, he's annoying. He actually has some valid points here and there but he takes them to extremes and demands that his way is the only right way. I even agree with some of his issues with surtitles; I find I get more enjoyment out of performances when I know the aria and its meaning well enough that I can concentrate on the performer exclusively, ignoring the translation. I can't help but think that my sister in law, who is an opera fan (though not terribly familiar with opera in general) would have gotten more out of the Lucia mad scene we saw last night if she didn't have to read the subtitles the whole time. But in the run-up to reaching that level of comfort with an aria or opera, they are invaluable, and saying "I don't care about / am familiar enough with the libretto to not need a translation, therefore we don't need a translation" is extremely pompous and naive.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Yes, and also, some high quality libretti add to the enjoyment with exquisite poetry, like for example in Berlioz's operas. The surtitles are important to give access to this other aspect of opera to those who don't speak the language or are not familiar with the libretto.


----------



## MAuer (Feb 6, 2011)

To borrow a line from Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!" If one follows this turkey's logic -- that opera is art, entertainment is business, and never the twain shall meet -- than opera isn't business. Uh, yeah, tell that to the management at any opera house.
Actually, I believe all art forms, and especially the performing arts, have an element of entertainment in them. It's entertainment that engages us intellectually, makes us think. Because something is entertaining does not mean that it must also be mindless.
But, hey, viewing this goofy web site at least gave me another opportunity to see and hear el Guapo!


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Some crossover stuff ain't that bad. Pavarotti singing "O Sole Mio" or Kiri Te Kanawa singing Maria in "West Side Story", I don't see any harm in that. In fact I rather enjoy it. A lot of crossover work is mediocre or very poor, but there are exceptions. Of course it's a different matter when the're trying to sell people like Bocelli or the Jenkins girl as 'legitimate' opera singers, sometimes going so far as to advertise them as "the greatest tenor and soprano" to a public that wouldn't know the difference if you payed them. Or when you have someone like Vanessa-Mae playing Bach with a dance beat and people who wouldn't know Mutter or Perlman from a hole in the ground think she's the greatest fiddler on the planet. 

He has a point about some of the more outrageous productions they put on these days though. When you are already familiar with the opera in question you at least know what is going on - or at least what's supposed to be going on, but I can imagine that a first time opera goer wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of the worst of them.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> Some crossover stuff ain't that bad. Pavarotti singing "O Sole Mio" or Kiri Te Kanawa singing Maria in "West Side Story", I don't see any harm in that. In fact I rather enjoy it. A lot of crossover work is mediocre or very poor, but there are exceptions. Of course it's a different matter when the're trying to sell people like Bocelli or the Jenkins girl as 'legitimate' opera singers, sometimes going so far as to advertise them as "the greatest tenor and soprano" to a public that wouldn't know the difference if you payed them. Or when you have someone like Vanessa-Mae playing Bach with a dance beat and people who wouldn't know Mutter or Perlman from a hole in the ground think she's the greatest fiddler on the planet.
> 
> He has a point about some of the more outrageous productions they put on these days though. When you are already familiar with the opera in question you at least know what is going on - or at least what's supposed to be going on, but I can imagine that a first time opera goer wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of the worst of them.


Yes, the Regietheater part found myself agreeing more with him, although he does go to extremes when he worries about Carmen pushing down Don Jose when Bizet is engaged and some heart-beat stuff. This seems like a small detail to me, not enough to invalidate the stage direction. I think the author just wanted to appear smart and knowledgeable by picking up on this small detail.


----------

