# How do you guys define the "Standard Operatic Repertoire"?



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

This expression bugs me.
People often talk about it but it never gets defined and no consensual list exists of operas that supposedly belong to the standard repertoire.
Of course many operas are so popular and so frequently staged that there is no doubt that they belong... but then, how do we define the fringes?
The standard repertoire for a small company may be the ABCs of this world (Aida-Bohème-Carmen etc) while a company like the Mariinsky presents not less than 60 different operas yearly, some of them rather obscure. So "standard" for the Mariinsky won't be standard at all for many other houses.
And then, when do we figure out that an opera has made it into the standard repertoire? How many stagings by how many different major opera houses would be required?
Operas that were very obscure suddenly get revivals and become fashionable. One example among many: La Pietra del Paragone. I confess that until relatively recently I had never heard of it. Then there were a few revivals and recordings, and a couple of nice DVDs came up to the market. Today many have at least heard of it (and I own one of these DVDs and love it). But still, it's not something that gets routinely staged everywhere. Has it made it into the standard repertoire?
And what about the other way around - operas that are undeniably important, but haven't been staged in decades?

Opinions?


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

Almaviva said:


> This expression bugs me.
> People often talk about it but it never gets defined and no consensual list exists of operas that supposedly belong to the standard repertoire.
> Of course many operas are so popular and so frequently staged that there is no doubt that they belong... but then, how do we define the fringes?
> The standard repertoire for a small company may be the ABCs of this world (Aida-Bohème-Carmen etc) while a company like the Mariinsky presents not less than 60 different operas yearly, some of them rather obscure. So "standard" for the Mariinsky won't be standard at all for many other houses.
> ...


My definition of "standard operatic repertoire" is limited to your ABCs; it has to be something that is routinely staged now and is likely to be routinely staged forever. Works like La Pietra del Paragone which like you said is not something that gets routinely staged definitely does not belong to the standard operatic repertoire.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

scytheavatar said:


> My definition of "standard operatic repertoire" is limited to your ABCs; it has to be something that is routinely staged now and is likely to be routinely staged forever. Works like La Pietra del Paragone which like you said is not something that gets routinely staged definitely does not belong to the standard operatic repertoire.


OK, agreed for La Pietra del Paragone, but the question remains, when do we consider that something has actually made it? After how many stagings by how many companies?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Anything we are likely to see in Auckland.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> Anything we are likely to see in Auckland.


That TV tower?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Almaviva said:


> OK, agreed for La Pietra del Paragone, but the question remains, when do we consider that something has actually made it?


When it ends up in our top 100.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> When it ends up in our top 100.


Indeed!:tiphat:


----------

