# Several problems with opera and opera culture today



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

A couple years ago Robert Thicknesse, the former opera critic for the _London Times_, wrote a piece titled "How I Fell Out Of Love With Opera" that was highly critical of opera and opera culture.

He addressed 5 issues:

1. The sheer opulence of the operatic world.

2. The disproportionate funding.

3. The excuses for modernity (i.e. the emphasis on theatrical rather than musical values)

4. The festival audiences who are there unashamedly for the event rather than aesthetic pleasure.

5. The claims of the broad appeal of opera which he believes are false.

The whole piece can be read here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/20.../falling-out-of-love-opera

Let's set aside for a moment his tedious and ridiculous argument that opera is mostly "a plaything for the rich" or that opera inevitably brings a badly behaved bourgeoisie in its wake (among other contradictions and clichees) or that he seems to have had a very limited experience of opera... Is he at least partially right?

Is there anything about his curmudgeonly stance that makes you nod your head?

Regarding issues 1 and 2:

Personally I don't think that any government should be subsidizing opera under any circumstances. Opera and opera-goers (and I'm one) are one thing but subsidy is another. Opera lovers should pay for it either by buying tickets or through donations. The fact that (in Europe) large amounts of tax revenues go to opera productions makes me uncomfortable. Why? Because so many in our society today are in desperate need of the basic ingredients of physical survival. Once inequalities have been minimized and the economy is overflowing with cash then maybe there could be partial subsidy but until then I think we need a much more humane set of priorities.

To be clear: it's the ridiculously lavish and technical productions that I have have a problem with. I'd be in favor of more concert performances of opera which are much less expensive.

Also, I don't really care if opera becomes a museum. I would rather go to a museum to see great art from the past than a gallery to see bad art from the present.

Regarding issues 3, 4 and 5:

Again, if a person doesn't already love classical music why would he or she care about opera? Most operatic music similarly requires a degree of focus and concentration and a willingness to subsume oneself in the art form so why would it ever have broad appeal?

Directors and managers can spice and jazz things up all they want with outlandish Regietheater productions and other visual experimentations in their misguided attempt to lure a younger/new audience but opera is a first and foremost *a musical art form*. Very few opera libretti have much intrinsic merit as literature or poetry. Their importance is as a vehicle for the music....If one is a genuine lover than he or she should be spending much of their leisure time at home deeply assimilating the works by listening to recordings OR studying the scores, not worrying about directors and stagings.

I wish more people would invoke the old adage:

_"One expressive musical phrase is worth a thousand words of opera text"_


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Here in Australia, opera companies and symphony orchestras receive (I think?) more corporate (private) funding than government funding.

It's better than what you say is in Europe. I know that after the Global Financial Crisis in '09, several orchestras in the USA declared bankruptcy. Problem there is that they're run by spending today's budget - or money coming in from subscribers - covering debts from 5 years ago. 

The corporatisation of opera in Australia is better in ensuring budgetary responsibility. It appears that way anyway. It also ensures conservatism of programing and minimum risk taking. Can be a downside or advantage, whichever way you look at it, in terms of what operas are performed.

However, its better than what you describe in Europe, esp. with the economic problems there now, inefficient government spending on this entertainment largely for the elites comes across as Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burnt to the ground.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Personally I don't think that any government should be subsidizing opera under any circumstances. Opera and opera-goers (and I'm one) are one thing but subsidy is another. Opera lovers should pay for it either by buying tickets or through donations. The fact that (in Europe) large amounts of tax revenues go to opera productions makes me uncomfortable. Why? Because so many in our society today are in desperate need of the basic ingredients of physical survival. Once inequalities have been minimized and the economy is overflowing with cash then maybe there could be partial subsidy but until then I think we need a much more humane set of priorities.

I have mixed feelings with regard to governmental subsidies for the arts. On one level, it is difficult to criticize the money "wasted" on arts subsidies when these are embarrassingly minute amounts of money in comparison to that wasted on the military in most Western nations. At the same time, there's a sense that we as a society should set aside a certain amount of money to assist in the preservation of culture beyond that of mainstream popular culture. We do this through subsidies to public television, the ballet, the orchestra, the art museums, the preservation of historic monuments, etc... because we imagine that there are aspects of culture beyond popular culture that are important to our culture as as whole. We might also point out that there are any number of non-essentials that receive government assistance in one form or another: sports, sporting venues, sports in school, financial assistance to students majoring in non-essential courses (art, theology, philosophy, etc...), public parks, etc... The notion that we should not be supporting the arts (or other non-essentials) until all poverty and economic inequalities are eliminated is absurd... simply based upon the reality that such equality will never exist.

To be clear: it's the ridiculously lavish and technical productions that I have have a problem with. I'd be in favor of more concert performances of opera which are much less expensive.

One needs to define "lavish". I certainly agree that a production, such as the LA Opera's _Ring Cycle_, which cost some $32 Million US in order to stage the vision of some moronic director that showed little respect or concern for the original intentions of the composer should never have gotten off the ground. The fact that the city of LA (and thus the taxpayers) have had to bail the Opera out to the tune of some $5 Million US should be enough to blacklist the director from ever working in opera again... and send a warning to all opera companies about the dangers of such ostentatious productions that don't take into consideration either the intentions of the composer nor the audience.

Also, I don't really care if opera becomes a museum. I would rather go to a museum to see great art from the past than a gallery to see bad art from the present.

This depends what you mean when you speak of turning opera into a "museum". If you are speaking of showing a greater respect toward the original art form... then I am all for it. If you are speaking of the end of opera productions... well then I'm not all to thrilled with that

Again, if a person doesn't already love classical music why would he or she care about opera? Most operatic music similarly requires a degree of focus and concentration and a willingness to subsume oneself in the art form so why would it ever have broad appeal?

Directors and managers can spice and jazz things up all they want with outlandish Regietheater productions and other visual experimentations in their misguided attempt to lure a younger/new audience but opera is a first and foremost a musical art form.

I need to stop you here. Yes... opera is a "musical art form"... but it is also a "theatrical art form"... "musical theater" essentially. Having said that, I agree that it is absurd to attempt to sex-up an old opera in order to attract the MTV-Lady Gaga-Hip-Hop audience. The merit and/or relevance of a work of art is not measured in terms of audience share... regardless of the thinking of a great many contemporary curators, producers, directors, etc... If you want to attract the modern audience... create a new, modern work of art. If you wish to attract a larger audience to Mozart and Verdi and Wagner... well this needs to begin with education... and perhaps a greater eye to the mass media and how they promote a single, monolithic view of popular culture.

Very few opera libretti have much intrinsic merit as literature or poetry. Their importance is as a vehicle for the music....

This is equally true of many of Schubert's lieder... to say nothing of even the finest pop songs. The magic takes place in the manner in which the music brings a far greater level of "poetry" and "meaning" or "feeling" to the text. Wilhelm Müller's poetic cycle, _Winterreise_, is nothing stupendous on its own. Set to music by Schubert, however, these words take on a heighten level of expressiveness.

If one is a genuine lover than he or she should be spending much of their leisure time at home deeply assimilating the works by listening to recordings OR studying the scores, not worrying about directors and stagings.

The music may be central... but witnessing a well produced performance of an opera... either in person or on DVD takes the experience to a whole new level. Opera is a theatrical art form... like film. One doesn't speak of separating the various aspects of a film (the screenplay, the cinematography, the film score, etc...). The ideal experience of an opera is as a theatrical performance. A recording (on CD, LP, the radio, or otherwise) can capture a great deal of this theatrical performance... all that which can be heard: the music... the ability of the singers/actors to convey a given emotion... but this should not be taken to suggest that the visual aspect of opera is irrelevant.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Been down this discussion before. The problem is not with the opera funding costs per se, but the directors' agendas and artistic premise that cost the sums. _Any_ opera can be successfully staged on a relatively modest budget. I have attended small (period) opera houses staging Mozart operas with very modest staging, yet the music and plot remained as intimate as Mozart could have wished for. Subsidizing to the magnitude of of eight-figures-plus US-dollars are about other agendas, and these agendas are no different to allocating sums to you see/read about, including seemingly generous causes such as foreign aid, or even weekly fireworks on every Saturday night like we have here in Sydney (literally money going up in smokes).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I agree about doing things within budget, but I think all of us agree on that.

I cannot find info to substantiate what I said in my above post, that opera and symphony orchestras in Australia are largely private funded.

But I did find this document regarding the opera's budget over 2010-2011 financial year. It says that they were $500,000 in the red, but that was better than what they expected for that period (1 million).

http://www.opera-australia.org.au/r...l Report 2010 Press release FINAL 20_4_11.pdf


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Opera is the most expensive of art forms, except possibly for films, which are made on a purley commercial basis .
It costs a heck of a lot of money to run a world class opera company. Not only are there the singers who need to be paid, and the conductors, but the orchestra,chorus, the musical staff of rehearsal pianists, assistant conductors etc, the stage hands, lighting and other technicians, the people who work on costumes, etc,
and so many other people doing so many different , often highly specialized jobs. And the administrative staff etc. 
This is why so many U.S. opera ocmpanies are in deep trouble. They can't meet the costs of running the company . The lack of government support threatens their very existence, not to mention all the symphony orchestras. In Europe, generous government subsidies have been taken for granted for so long, but even now, 
financial difficulties are causing diificulties there for classical music in general .
Some people say that privat ephilanthropies and wealthy people should support opera companies in America. But they don't even come remotely close to doing this , and what limited support they do provide is shrinking. The Met, which is th elargest performing arts organization in the world, has considerable private support, but even it has had some difficulties . Its operating budget is about $300 ! This is more than all
the other U.S. opera ocmpanies combined .
But opera is a magnificent art form which has been in existence for 400 years now . It deserves to survive .
So many people all over the world find it inspiring and fascinating .


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Opera could rely more heavily on private funding from wealthy donors. But, this means that opera composers need to be able to create music that appeals to them. So, we would essentially be back in the Mozart/Haydn period of artistic patronage, which may or may not be such a bad thing depending on how one views this. However, the wealthy patrons of the arts 200+ years ago were actually decently knowledgeable of the arts. Many were accomplished at musicianship and/or painting, themselves (obviously, given that there wasn't so much to learn in other subjects back then and the Pythagorean Theorem may as well have been graduate-school mathematics). Art patrons today......don't know much about their level of understanding/appreciation.


----------



## guythegreg (Jun 15, 2012)

Opera at the Met relies VERY heavily on private funding from wealthy donors - and I think they're doing OK. Magic on the stage, pretty reliably. This new HD Live thing, spreading opera to the masses - I think they're doing pretty well. That model works, at least right now.


----------



## Lankin (Oct 7, 2012)

Well, hello there. I haven't posted here before; I just stumbled on this forum by total accident, and I'm glad I did. 
To Oceanside's post:

_Regarding issues 1 and 2:

Personally I don't think that any government should be subsidizing opera under any circumstances. Opera and opera-goers (and I'm one) are one thing but subsidy is another. Opera lovers should pay for it either by buying tickets or through donations. The fact that (in Europe) large amounts of tax revenues go to opera productions makes me uncomfortable. Why? Because so many in our society today are in desperate need of the basic ingredients of physical survival. Once inequalities have been minimized and the economy is overflowing with cash then maybe there could be partial subsidy but until then I think we need a much more humane set of priorities._

An opera is not a building that is fed, or a few artists getting rich. It's a machinery and an universe in itself. If there are no operas, and no ensembles - will there still be academies of music? I do think the government should support the opera and theatres more than they do. To cut the funding for art won't give any money to the truly poor. No cuts on the arts/education sector ever have. Here in Europe, big companies are sponsored, or given huge tax reliefs. The argument for this is always that they provide jobs. They do, mostly abroad. The opera creates jobs as well, but it provides more than just that.

_To be clear: it's the ridiculously lavish and technical productions that I have have a problem with. I'd be in favor of more concert performances of opera which are much less expensive.
_

I love productions that are in scene. Concertante operas can be great, of course, but most of the time, the artists seem restricted. I had a friend once who made appearances with a "Shakespeare concertante" program. It was good, but ... wouldn't you prefer to see Hamlet, instead of seeing people standing there? Music is meant to be heard, yet opera is more. It lives by singers who can act out what they are singing about.

I have just convinced a person who has never seen any opera before to travel to France with me (from Germany), to see a Baroque opera. I wouldn't have managed to convince him if it wasn't set in scene and he was very curious about the production.

_Also, I don't really care if opera becomes a museum. I would rather go to a museum to see great art from the past than a gallery to see bad art from the present. 
_

The comparison is inaccurate. It would not turn it into a museum, but into an archive. A museum is open to the public, at an entrance fee, just as the opera.

So the archive would be the DVD-rack then, I suppose. I go back there often, to marvel at singers of the past which I never had a chance to see and hear. But there are singers who are singing now, conductors, orchestras of the present that would be a sin to miss, imho.

I always smirk a little when many European productions are generalized and labelled as "Eurotrash". Some are just that, I suppose, I'm no expert. I like some things, some ideas, and others not. I'm always curious about a production that doesn't come in frock-coats and frills.

_Regarding issues 3, 4 and 5:

Again, if a person doesn't already love classical music why would he or she care about opera? Most operatic music similarly requires a degree of focus and concentration and a willingness to subsume oneself in the art form so why would it ever have broad appeal? 
_

Last week a classical CD scraped MTVs Top 20 in Germany. (I mean really classical, not crossover-stuff.) But we're mixing things up here - Of course, to appreciate any kind of music, it requires some willingness of the person to even expose themselves to it. It also has to do a lot with how we grew up, what kind of music our parents exposed us to, and if we were given the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. It is maybe not necessary to love classical music to go to an opera, but at least the person in question shouldn't have a urge to flee at the mentioning of it, feeling intimidated by the institution that is opera.

That classical music doesn't reach the sales figures of pop music doesn't mean it is obsolete. The same is true for literature. 50 sh*des of ... is a best-seller; sales figures don't necessarily indicate quality.

_Directors and managers can spice and jazz things up all they want with outlandish Regietheater productions and other visual experimentations in their misguided attempt to lure a younger/new audience but opera is a first and foremost a musical art form. _

Well, there's the Eurotrash argument again, and as I mentioned before, I quite like some attempts. Some not. I have seen enough grey cubes, emty stages and light beams of changing colour to indicate character evolvement for a lifetime. But not all productions are like that one could refer to as "quite daring." Many are worth it. I don't like generalizing things. I have seen many many boring "traditional" stagings as well.

Back in Baroque, opera was about the latest special effects, live animals on stage, etc.. Money, and creativity was put into it; it was a matter of prestige.

I don't think the try to attract a younger audience is misguided in every case. Many directors of "Regietheater" productions take themselves much too serious though. Some don't even like the composer or the music. I always wonder who would hit on the director in the first place in such cases.

_Very few opera libretti have much intrinsic merit as literature or poetry. Their importance is as a vehicle for the music....If one is a genuine lover than he or she should be spending much of their leisure time at home deeply assimilating the works by listening to recordings OR studying the scores, not worrying about directors and stagings.
_

Bostridge said something along the lines of "The Germans have a great tradition of turning bad poetry into great music," or similar. He's right, actually. And, well, I spend much time with sheet music, but I love to see opera on stage as well. I think that a setting that provides something to argue about, and the joint experience to go to an opera is something precious.

_I wish more people would invoke the old adage:

"One expressive musical phrase is worth a thousand words of opera text"_

But then, ... "One charming night gives more delight than a thousand lucky days," Purcell, the Fairy Queen, or rather, his librettist. A phrase just as catchy as the tune.

However, what you say is largely true I would say. What would be worth discussing though is what makes a good libretto. It's interesting that most successful poets never became famous librettists or vice versa. Also, what makes a great play doesn't necessarily make a great opera. Why are there so many "Clemenza di Tito"s, but only one "Macbeth" that comes to mind? I have always found it astounding.

What you haven't explicitely mentioned from the list you quoted is:
_4. The festival audiences who are there unashamedly for the event rather than aesthetic pleasure._

Festival audiences are one of my personal squicks. Those won't make me fall out of love with opera though. I cannot help the fans or the audiences. I enjoy the lights being dimmed and hope no one coughs at the pianissimo parts. Music is music really, and no singer, composer, or festival is largely to blame for the cultural standards of their fans.

Back in Baroque times, people had dinner during the performances, and chatted all the time. If this didn't suffice for the composers or performers to fall out of love with opera - why should I.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Hello Lankin, and welcome to the forum. I enjoyed reading your post.

Like you I don't appreciate the word _Eurotrash _(has about as much meaning as _Ameribore_) as there is such a variation in the quality and persuasiveness of the offerings. But I usually find something to enjoy in even the most excessive productions (except Calixto Bieito. Now him I find boring).


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Hello Lankin! Welcome to the forum & what a great first post.

When I think of the exciting & life enhancing experiences going to live opera, I don't object to some of my taxes going to the arts & in any case I don't suppose it's very much.

I have to confess I have never been to a regie-theatre production but I'm going to Zurich soon to see Jenůfa & from the publicity YouTube, I don't know whether it's 'regie or just up-dated.






I do think some opera goers are there for the occasion & to be seen rather than to enjoy the opera as a real fan. But I don't have a problem with that, at least they go.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

guythegreg said:


> Opera at the Met relies VERY heavily on private funding from wealthy donors - and I think they're doing OK. Magic on the stage, pretty reliably. This new HD Live thing, spreading opera to the masses - I think they're doing pretty well. That model works, at least right now.


In the US, most opera companies are heavily subsidized by private donors. For example, although OperaDelaware has no debt, 2/3rds of the operating cost comes from donors, 1/3rd comes from ticket sales. Even the Met's Live in HD requires sponsors--Neubauer, KSP, etc.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Enormous production costs, too few seats, too few sales, too few performances, equals doom for many houses. Public subsidy of any significance is largely imaginary, and without the extra income The Met realizes, they have to pull many times their own weight. With increasing geriatric populaces, and leaner corporations, the future isn't bright for most. Nothing really new...the strong survive.


----------



## tyroneslothrop (Sep 5, 2012)

Xavier said:


> A couple years ago Robert Thicknesse, the former opera critic for the _London Times_, wrote a piece titled "How I Fell Out Of Love With Opera" that was highly critical of opera and opera culture.[/I]


By the way, in response to Robert Thicknesse's article (which can now be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/may/27/falling-out-of-love-opera), Tom Service mounted a strong defense of opera on his Guardian blog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2010/may/27/opera-robert-thicknesse-snobbery


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

tyroneslothrop said:


> By the way, in response to Robert Thicknesse's article (which can now be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/may/27/falling-out-of-love-opera), Tom Service mounted a strong defense of opera on his Guardian blog:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2010/may/27/opera-robert-thicknesse-snobbery


I did like this Thicknesse line..."Being able to sit through hours of it is proof that you're man enough to take anything culture can throw at you."


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

tyroneslothrop said:


> By the way, in response to Robert Thicknesse's article (which can now be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/may/27/falling-out-of-love-opera), Tom Service mounted a strong defense of opera on his Guardian blog:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2010/may/27/opera-robert-thicknesse-snobbery


Thanks. I've bookmarked these to read when I get home from work.


----------

