# What do people (average theatre goers) have against opera?



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

I've been trying for years to get my brother into opera, he's a die-hard fan of the musicals Les Miserables and the Phantom of the Opera; but no matter how much I try and sell it to him, he shows no interest in the likes of Wagner, Verdi, Mozart etc. The best I can do is introduce a few arias to him, and he enjoys some of them, but nothing seems to pique his curiosity.

I've tried with other musicals fans, but despite the fact that opera theoretically has everything they like, they just don't have any time for it either. Anyone else experienced this kind of total indifference? Any advice or thoughts on why this is the case? 

It exasperates me a little because I have encountered the fan-bases of things like Les Mis, which are thriving and full of passionate young people; but talk to them about, say, Wagner and they are completely clueless and disinterested. I can't help but feel that they are so close to being onto something great, but are just missing out.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Yes, my dear colleague at work has been brought round to Haydn's string quartets, Shostakovich's 24 Preludes and Fugues, Medtner's piano music (almost), Bantock's orchestral works, Milstein's Tchaikovsky concerto .... but is steadfast in her opposition to opera. She just cannot suspend her sense of reality enough to enjoy what she sees as histrionic singing, unrealistic characters, unconvincing plots ... and the general human frailty exhibited by many of the roles that are present in many operas.

Eh well, her loss!


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

It's superhuman and takes superhuman people like us to appreciate it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

In my experience, it's generally that people find the style of singing off-putting. The generally slow pace compared to musical theater, plays, and films doesn't help, either.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Theatre music is like pop music.
Opera singing is totally strange sounding to the unfamiliar.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Clearly opera doesn't have enough 'jazz-hands' and singers staring wide-eyed at the audience as if to ram home their point. Perhaps your brother and others like to be spoon-fed in the way that many musicals do, and opera generally doesn't. 

Okay, so I'm no fan of musicals (I find them as hard to sit through as some do opera), but some are more sophisticated than others, such as Sondheim's. So the question is whether just opera is off-putting, or more demanding works in general?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Have two people screw on stage with elevator music playing in the background and in this day and age, you've got yourself a 'pop culture masterpiece!'. Here's my message to the masses: go **** yourselves. Let's hope the end comes sooner rather than later.


----------



## JohnGerald (Jul 6, 2014)

Folks, take it from a really old opera guy, selling opera to the uninitiated is like selling dope: you gotta give them a "taste". But the "taste" has to be mind blowing TO THE UNINITIATED! I use DVDs of the three Donizetti comedies, where the plots are obvious and fun, there is a lot of stage business and the music isn't too complex.

You may like Wagner (Blech!), Mozart (cerebral) or modern stuff (unintelligible musically), but these are not the kind of "taste" to hook'em.

"Average theatre goers" need to have a stimulus that is somewhat on a level of what they are used to hearing.

It's like ... pot before smack, right?

And, no, I neither sell nor use. Wine is my drug of choice: the dose is easy to monitor as one sips.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Jobis said:


> I've been trying for years to get my brother into opera, he's a die-hard fan of the musicals Les Miserables and the Phantom of the Opera; but no matter how much I try and sell it to him, he shows no interest in the likes of Wagner, Verdi, Mozart etc. The best I can do is introduce a few arias to him, and he enjoys some of them, but nothing seems to pique his curiosity.
> 
> I've tried with other musicals fans, but despite the fact that opera theoretically has everything they like, they just don't have any time for it either. Anyone else experienced this kind of total indifference? Any advice or thoughts on why this is the case?
> 
> It exasperates me a little because I have encountered the fan-bases of things like Les Mis, which are thriving and full of passionate young people; but talk to them about, say, Wagner and they are completely clueless and disinterested. I can't help but feel that they are so close to being onto something great, but are just missing out.


_Not sung in their native tongue._ I'd recommend that you invite then, with a bit of the proper dare thrown in, to go with you to a live performance, make sure the performance has super / sur-titles, and make it one of those two or three near sure-fire accessible pieces at that: _Carmen, La Traviata, La Boheme_ being the highest three of a handful as near certs for an easy intro and in.

(I'm an 'unafraid' and fairly well-versed classical and opera / vocal music consumer, yet, you could not pay me to attend a Wagner opera, nor tempt me to sit down with you and listen through the entire thing via a recording, or even listen to and watch via a great DVD of a staged production.)

Try Zefferelli's filmed version of _La Traviata,_ or Ingmar Bergman's filmed version of _The Magic Flute,_ (both are sub-titled) perhaps as a gift, where your bro can check it out in the privacy of his own domain and in his own good time.

No matter how good the relationship, whether you are the older or the younger, that sib thingie -- with about nothing you can do about it -- is more than likely the biggest and most fundamental hurdle in this situation ;-)


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Back in high school when I was a fan of musicals, I was put off from exploring opera by the fact that it was "classical" (I found so-called classical music intimidating then), by the style of singing, and by the fact that it was sung in foreign languages. I also believed that all opera staging was stilted or static. Looking back at those objections now, I find them pretty silly. I'm still a fan of musicals; I do think that the combination of dialogue, dancing, and singing in a musical can "do" certain things that opera can't do. But I also think that opera can reach certain emotional depths that musicals can't reach. I appreciate both genres.


----------



## mirepoix (Feb 1, 2014)

The first time I attended the opera was for a performance of 'Norma'. If someone had sat me down to listen to a recording of it I'd have given it my full attention throughout, but I'm not sure it would have captured me the way it did on experiencing it live. It was performed in Italian (with subtitles projected above the stage - in Russian) but that didn't matter. From those first sung notes I was aware that _something serious was goin' down..._ I was thrilled and moved.
So yes, another vote for 'attend a live performance' - there's a small chance that in its own way it could even be life-changing.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I had the advantage that my mother sang in the church (Lutheran) choir... lot's of Bach and Handel... and so I developed a grasp of and appreciation of classical vocals. I also had/have the sort of personality or curiosity that makes me open to exploring art forms that go beyond what is championed by the market and my peers. I first became quite interested in opera after watching Zeffirelli's _La Traviata_ (I'm listening to the same right now... albeit with Sutherland and Bergonzi). I was given a free ticket through my college to _Aida_. By the end of the performance I was wholly changed and an opera fanatic from thereon. My best suggestion would be to take your brother to a live performance of something highly accessible like _La Traviata, Carmen, The Magic Flute, La Boheme_, etc...


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm probably not much help. As a young man, I looked down on musicals as trivial, and felt the same about what little opera I had heard. Then I encountered Wagner, where drama seemed to be at the forefront. It made all the difference to me, but it sounds like your brother is starting from a very different place.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I came into opera because back when I was listening to mostly rock music, classical seemed rather boring, so I decided to try opera figuring that way I get the music, the acting, and the singing to prevent boredom. But I only attended operas, never purchased a copy for home listening. Now I very much enjoy opera on CD, but mostly only after becoming familiar with the libretto and watching it on DVD with English subtitles a couple times.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I like opera but I wouldn't want to be trapped for several hours with an opera I've never seen. It's too hard to focus on the music and read subtitles at the same time and yet it's harder to stay interested when I have no idea what is happening, and it usually takes several listens for me to figure out which parts of an opera I like anyway and I'd rather go through that familiarization process in the comfort of my home where I can stop to ****, skip a part that is boring me, or just do something else for awhile.

A musical with nice tunes, a plot that is easy to understand, and actors that I can, well, understand is just easier to digest on a first sitting.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Every person is different, and with a different background. For many people, Opera simply is not their cup of tea, and that's about it.

However, the case of serious fans of musicals (in theater and/or cinema) with a total indifference to Opera is more interesting, as many of the traits of their favorite genre are also present on an operatic stage.

The major difference is the "style of singing"?. Well, to be heard in the last rows of a theater when singing, you needed to sing the "traditional" way, in which the singer must project his voice, and that was the *only* way until the advent of the microphone, in the 1920s. (before that, all the musicals and the vaudeville artists needed to project their voices too, with a final result not so unlike that of opera. True, in opera the limits of the voice range were more thoroughly explored, and the singing was more 'florid', less conversational, in general. But the basic technique was the same). I think that for many people, this is not such a huge barrier. It just needs some exposure.

The "foreign language" thing?. Well, today, like it was the case with opera a few decades ago, many musicals are sung in translation. _Les Misérables_, for instance, is originally a French musical, written by a French composer, and with French lyrics. So, what people in New York or London are hearing, it's an adaptation to English. Like is normally the case in Berlin, Roma, Madrid,... to their respective languages. That means we need to come back to singing "Trovatore" in German?. Yes, there are a couple of theaters singing everything in German, or English. But I don't think this is the preferred choice, we just need to educate people to use surtitles, like we can do in the movies.

However, and for English audiences, we can try to use as a first exposure an opera like _Doctor Atomic_, that is sung with microphones, and in English. Maybe it could work.

The plot?. Well, I don't think the plot of many musicals is that 'realistic' either, right?. . In any case, as many lovers of the musicals, are also fans of movies, why don't try with a plot reminiscent of "Vertigo", like _Die Tote Stadt_?, that is written also in a musical style that for many in the audience will be familiar.

Ultimately, opera is perhaps the more stylized genre in Western art. And this is not appealing to everyone. We can't convert opera in a kind of 'show-for-all' thing. This won't happen. Opera should be accessible to all people interested (I think today already is, mostly), but it won't be, by its own nature, as popular and widespread as pop music, or even Broadway musicals.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Opera isnt for average people. Average intelligence perhaps, but you need to be open minded, be independent of will and have a good degree of emotional maturity. You have to _give_ more to Opera in order to receive Im not going down the elite path here it isnt about class or education and I dont want anyone to read anything derogatory into my use of the word average, I'm Just saying that Opera isnt for everyone.


----------



## expat (Mar 17, 2013)

A good way is maybe to first listen to a Requiem. Mozart, Brahms, Haydn, Verdi. Then it's a lot easier to move on to opera. That was my personal journey.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Opera's tough for a lot of folks because for one, they see a 300 pound woman singing Gilda or Mimi and they just start laughing.
Yes, emotional maturity is a factor.

Another thing is getting used to a trained singing voice-not easy after all that pop music.

Also, operas tend to be long; not a viable thing for the 30 minute TV sit-com set.

And then of course, there's the language thing-even with supertitles-can be a turnoff.

Studying the libretto in advance is important. I don't think a lot of "civilians" would do that.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Badinerie said:


> Opera isnt for average people. Average intelligence perhaps, but you need to be open minded, be independent of will and have a good degree of emotional maturity. You have to _give_ more to Opera in order to receive Im not going down the elite path here it isnt about class or education and I dont want anyone to read anything derogatory into my use of the word average, I'm Just saying that Opera isnt for everyone.


Definitely nothing to do with class or education. My Great Aunt and Great Uncle were opera fanatics; they both left school without any qualifications, they lived in a council house all their lives and were a cleaner and car mechanic respectively.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

sospiro said:


> Definitely nothing to do with class or education. My Great Aunt and Great Uncle were opera fanatics; they both left school without any qualifications, they lived in a council house all their lives and were a cleaner and car mechanic respectively.


I've also heard stories from the children/grandchildren of immigrants to the US who say that their parents/grandparents had little formal schooling but loved opera. So I agree that it doesn't seem to have much to do with being highly educated or "upper crust." On the other hand: just as with most things in life, you only get out of opera what you put into it, IMO. For example, I recently went to see GIULIO CESARE, my first Baroque opera, and though I couldn't listen to the whole opera beforehand I did make an honest effort to prepare, by listening to several key arias and reading a detailed plot synopsis. If I hadn't done these things, I feel I would have been "lost" at the performance as Baroque opera can be a bit daunting. So yeah -- I'd say opera requires preparation much more than "class" or education. Not everyone wants to do that preparation, and so in that sense opera _isn't_ for everybody.


----------



## Ivansen (Aug 8, 2014)

Even if loving opera isn't a question of intelligence or class per se, I do think there is an important element of identification going on. 

If one identifies oneself as someone who belongs to a certain group one will be more inclined to try, pretend to like, or actually like something members of that group tend to like. If you think you belong to the intelligentsia, and you think opera is for the intelligentsia, you'll give opera a go. Many simply think of opera as something for a different group of people than themselves.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

Face it guys - people would rather listen to Britney Spears than Rene Fleming.


----------



## Ivansen (Aug 8, 2014)

Radames said:


> Face it guys - people would rather listen to Britney Spears than Rene Fleming.


Why not both? I like a bit of pop every now and again. I also like opera. They are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Radames said:


> Face it guys - people would rather listen to Britney Spears than Rene Fleming.


Literally true, but the more nuanced take is that people who are discerning about their cultural consumption would rather listen to Emmy-Lou Harris/alt country or some indie-rock/pop or whatever world music is the flavour of the month at the moment or Rufus Wainwright or jazz or many of the other more adult focused and sophisticated non-classical musics - than the currently "popular" opera pushed in opera houses


----------



## Levanda (Feb 3, 2014)

Shame to admit as I do love operas but I never have been.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Levanda said:


> Shame to admit as I do love operas but I never have been.


No shame in that, we enjoy as we can. :tiphat:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Levanda said:


> Shame to admit as I do love operas but I never have been.


Always wonderful to attend, but with a DVD you get a lot of close up views that you won't get by attending and you can enjoy the opera over and over.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I'd guess people don't like opera because it's sung so grotesquely badly now, and anyone who says 'It's supposed to sound that way and you just aren't clever enough to get it' (or words to that effect) can't or won't see that the emperor has no clothes. I'd rather listen to Britney Spears than to the strangulated, wobbly, omnivowel infested caterwauling that assails my ears whenever I accidentally hear opera on Radio 3. I didn't listen to opera until I accidentally discovered a record by Caruso, and worked backwards in time from there. So perhaps a listener who finds the modern style of singing unnatural and disturbing might respond to older records, as I did. If, on the other hand, they complain that they can't listen to anything that crackles, they are clearly an incorrigible philistine and you should let them listen to Britney in peace!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting that people go on about opera and musicals and miss out operetta!. We're just back from a Gilbert and Sullivan festival in Harrogate. The festival is still going on but we can't afford the time. Anyway,the interesting thing is that there are amateur companies there doing G & S who also do Turandot and Albert Herring. The festival includes a performance of Tosca by Heritage Opera both at Fountains Abbey and in Harrogate. Thing is, quite a lot of the audience are in local G & S groups and know about singing. They pay attention to the libretti and could sing along to most of the shows. I wonder if you could say that about fans of musicals?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> whenever I accidentally hear opera on Radio 3.


so you're basing your opinion on all contemporary singing on a few snippets from Radio 3?


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

A few snippets is all I can bear!


----------



## Ivansen (Aug 8, 2014)

The style of singing took me a while to get used too, I grant you. Now I find it both beautiful and impressive when done well. So maybe one could call it an acquired taste?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Opera's tough for a lot of folks because for one, they see a 300 pound woman singing Gilda or Mimi and they just start laughing.
> Yes, emotional maturity is a factor.
> 
> Another thing is getting used to a trained singing voice-not easy after all that pop music.
> ...


How many 300 pound Gildas or Mimis are there?
Some operas are long but most operas are circa 2 hours long that is as long as a film and some are only one hour or less.
I have read subtitles every day since I learned to read so I don´t see any problems with having to read supertitles.
I don´t think it is important to study the libretto in advance if you have the opportunity to understand what is happening either by text or you understand the language it is performed in. I think if you don´t know what will happen next makes the experience of seeing the opera better and more exciting.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

dgee said:


> Literally true, but the more nuanced take is that people who are discerning about their cultural consumption would rather listen to Emmy-Lou Harris/alt country or some indie-rock/pop or whatever world music is the flavour of the month at the moment or Rufus Wainwright or jazz or many of the other more adult focused and sophisticated non-classical musics - than the currently "popular" opera pushed in opera houses


At least The Spice Girls went away. But looks like rap is here to stay.


----------



## marienbad (Aug 10, 2014)

Was it not ever thus ? I don't think that the same crowd going to the Mozart/Schikaneder singspiels were the same as that going to Lucio Silla and La Clemenza .

It is not something I will ever cause me to lose sleep, it is a minority interest and will stay that way , just like good literature or poetry or Jazz. 

I have found this to be true in anything that requires some effort and not just in the general population but in individual people over the course of a lifetime. Such has been my personal experience, when you are flying hither and thither on the corporate treadmill to provide for home and family it is Monty Python and not Monteverdi that keeps the brain awake.

And then ever few months in some city you are stuck in you chance upon Otello or Pelleas and get a last minute ticket and you vow never to let this passion go, fade maybe for months sometime, but never let die away.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

There are, of course, some people whose tastes are confined to whatever they think would make them fit in with their friends or would-be friends, so... I don't even mention opera to some people.

When it comes to opening up to opera singing... I find that many newcomers to opera don't give a hang about how big someone's voice is, or how high of a note they can hit - the stuff that delights oldtimers, maybe. People who are opera-shy may enjoy singers whose voices emphasize lightness, agility and clarity over tonnage and heft. 

Also, dare to play them a bad singer vs. a good one. I once played a "La Traviata" movie with Anna Moffo for a newcomer, because it's a nicely done movie (although the lip syncing has to be warned about). She liked Moffo very much and didn't even run away screaming at the high notes in "Sempre Libera," but she instinctively knew the baritone was no good. (I can't remember who it was in this movie, but he was clearly past his prime and not enunciating the text very well) 

So, I found a different Traviata for her and gave her the clip, one with a much better baritone in his prime, and ah! the light began to dawn... that there wasn't just "opera singing," but rather GOOD and BAD singing out there... and she could make her OWN decisions... Well, that was the beginning for her, where she learned to "read opera."


----------



## QuietGuy (Mar 1, 2014)

OP: Just out of curiosity, have any of the operas you've suggested been in English? I'm not a big opera fan myself, although I do enjoy some arias. The reason, for me, is the language. I'd much rather listen to an opera in English, rather than struggle with the sound of a foreign language, deal with subtitles, etc. And if the music (or story) isn't interesting to me on top of the foreign language, then all is lost.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ The language has something to do with it (for me), but it is surmountable, with a bit of effort, by following along with the libretto for a time or two, in order to understand the story and what is taking place, as you hear it. I think it is definitely important that you like or are interested in the composer and, if the story does not hold your interest, "then all is lost," unless you are able to let yourself go with the songs, not caring what they're about, which mainly only works if you can't understand the words :devil:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Simple. They do not want to do the required work involved to maximize the experience. People are lazy.

1. Borrow a recording of the opera and read the synopsis.

2. Play the recording 3-5 times.

2. Follow along with the libretto.

3. Familiarize oneself with certain key words and phrases in the language.

4. If it doesn't involve texting, they are simply not interested.


----------



## anmhe (Feb 10, 2015)

My first exposure to opera was a tricky one. I was six and my father took me to see Tosca. I was restless at first, but my dad knew how to make me pay attention:

"That guy is going to get shot, and she's going to jump off a building."

I didn't enjoy Tosca, but I sure stayed alert! It took a lot more exposure to opera to find a taste for it, but I'm so glad I put in the effort.

Opera isn't for everyone. As others have pointed out, it takes a bit of study and repeated viewing/listenings to understand a work. Also, it takes a significant financial investment that is prohibitive to some.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Jobis said:


> I've been trying for years to get my brother into opera, he's a die-hard fan of the musicals Les Miserables and the Phantom of the Opera; but no matter how much I try and sell it to him, he shows no interest in the likes of Wagner, Verdi, Mozart etc. The best I can do is introduce a few arias to him, and he enjoys some of them, but nothing seems to pique his curiosity.
> 
> I've tried with other musicals fans, but despite the fact that opera theoretically has everything they like, they just don't have any time for it either. Anyone else experienced this kind of total indifference? Any advice or thoughts on why this is the case?
> 
> It exasperates me a little because I have encountered the fan-bases of things like Les Mis, which are thriving and full of passionate young people; but talk to them about, say, Wagner and they are completely clueless and disinterested. I can't help but feel that they are so close to being onto something great, but are just missing out.


People who are passionate fans of one or two hugely popular musicals are not necessarily going to transition to be fans of other music drama. Many of these people will not even care to listen to _other_ musicals, much less something with different singing and instrumental styles like opera.

Also musicals are, by and large, directly dramatically engaging. Operas tend to be much slower, much more repetitive, contain much less narrative, and are - especially in traditionalist productions - dramatically inert. I am not denying that there is drama in opera, but it is frequently mostly (or only!) conveyed by subtleties of the voice, of the score, and pulling that drama out takes a lot of practice and/or careful listening. And patience.

Finally musicals are much more modern and thus deal with modern issues, with modern trappings, and have modern sensibilities. Les Miz and Phantom are both from the 80s, and most every show on Broadway or in national tours are newer. Notable exceptions are revivals of a few Kander & Ebb shows. Even when golden age or pre-World War 2 works are presented they are (frequently) updated and/or reimagined. [Ignoring productions by opera companies or symphony orchestras, of course]. Case in point being the _An American In Paris_ that is opening soon, with a new book by Craig Lucas, directed by Bartlett Sher. An exception appears to be the _On The Town_ currently running which appears to be relatively traditional. But still: the old-timey exception here is from 70 years ago, not 200.


----------



## undifelice (Mar 11, 2015)

I think the best way you can turn people onto opera-particularly young people-is by exposing them to a production where all elements are near perfect. Obviously, everybody's definition of perfect differs...but I did manage to get my friend hooked by recommending the Aix-en-Provence "Traviata" with Dessay (she now adores her!), the Met's HD "Onegin", and both Met "Lucias". I guess what unites these three/four are that the principals are skilled both vocally and dramatically, the storyline is relatively clear, and the music is interesting, gorgeous, what have you. My friend didn't really "get" me showing clips of greats such as Callas or Scotto as an entry point into opera. Now, she's much more interested, and has accompanied me to two operas!  

So yes, the pot before smack analogy is extremely apt


----------



## whichtristan (Oct 5, 2016)

It might have something to do with the class implications of opera. From the outside looking in, it's likely to seem pretty posh. Incidentally, I might recommend Baz Luhrmann's La Boheme as an introduction. Baz Luhrmann's famous, it's only two hours, it has subtitles, and the singers are young and pretty.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

whichtristan said:


> I might recommend Baz Luhrmann's La Boheme as an introduction. Baz Luhrmann's famous, it's only two hours, it has subtitles, and the singers are young and pretty.


From what I have seen it it is not that good I don´t enjoy the singing much and the singers might be young but Mimi is really not pretty even if she is not ugly.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

whichtristan said:


> It might have something to do with the class implications of opera. From the outside looking in, it's likely to seem pretty posh. Incidentally, I might recommend Baz Luhrmann's La Boheme as an introduction. Baz Luhrmann's famous, it's only two hours, it has subtitles, and the singers are young and pretty.


You can also watch the famous Zeffirelli production from the Met,wit Carreras and Stratas it last 2 hours, ( as if that matters)
It has subtitles to.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

As someone who has given opera talks to the uninitiated on at least 30 occasions, I think three things are going against it. 1. It is elitist rather than popular, 2. It takes a skillset of understanding to grasp whether a singer is mediocre or great, to understand the difficulty of singing without a mike, and to understand the thrill of the coloratura bag of tricks. You don't have to work to understand popular music or musical theatre. It is unchallenging. Opera is challenging due to the foreign languages, the different sound which one must make to project over an orchestra, and it challenges the underlying premise of pop and musical theater.... that the listeneer can sing along to the music in the car. At least people used to be exposed to opera on the Ed Sullivan Show or the Tonight Show when I was young. Now no popular exposure ever, or is someone sings it on Britain's Got Talent they use a mike... which defeats the purpose, don't you think. Call me jaded.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Seattleoperafan said:


> As someone who has given opera talks to the uninitiated on at least 30 occasions, I think three things are going against it. 1. It is elitist rather than popular, 2. It takes a skillset of understanding to grasp whether a singer is mediocre or great, to understand the difficulty of singing without a mike, and to understand the thrill of the coloratura bag of tricks.


Where does one get this "skillset of understanding?" Because I don't remember studying to have such a skillset, and yet I simply enjoy singers that seem to me to be great; and I also can tell when a singer is having trouble they ought not be having. (Perhaps this idea of needing a "skillset" pertains your point #1, however...)

Can you explain further what you mean?



> Opera is challenging due to the foreign languages


And the "old fashioned time period." And the orchestral music, which isn't popular any more either.

I fear we're also avoiding the elephant in the room here, which is the perception that being into opera is a "gay thing." (At least, in America there is probably that perception.)


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

graziesignore said:


> I fear we're also avoiding the elephant in the room here, which is the perception that being into opera is a "gay thing." (At least, in America there is probably that perception.)


That isn't really a difference between opera and Broadway-style musical theater. Or plays, for that matter.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I think one of the challenges is the vibrato of a lot of the opera singing. Coloratura while it can be divine is pretty foreign to some people. Perhaps trying a shorter opera with less vibrato to it.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

It could also be asked why don't (some) fans of classic 18th and 19th century operas like modernist and other newer operas?

Sonostream has had a performance of _Donnerstag aus Licht_ available for streaming for the past two weeks; how many have watched it? The Opera Platform recently had a weekend where they put up operas by Hindemith, Schoenberg, and Schreker. How many are going to watch their _Le nozze di Figaro_ (quite a fantastic, thoughtful production I'd say) and _La Cenerentola_ but will skip those newer works? How many here follow the Contemporary Opera thread and listen to/watch the many operas schigolch and others embed, link to, and discuss?

It would be ridiculous to say that Mozart, Rossini, Verdi, Bizet, Puccini and composers from similar eras don't like to be challenged. It would be better to say that they have different tastes, and/or focus on different things when watching or listening to music drama.

I may have only just now realized why some people tend to dismiss more modern opera as "musical theater," such as I have seen in reviews/comments about operas I've recently seen including _Powder Her Face_ and _Dream of the Red Chamber_. It's not (necessarily) that they have any deep understanding of Broadway-style musical theater (or other non-operatic musical theater), but that these works don't follow all of the same conventions of the classic operas that they do accept. And for many, the worst insult that can be given to an opera is calling it musical theater.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

My advice to people is always this - "Don't force yourself to listen to anything you find ugly, whether it is a renowned coloratura or a yowling cat. Because believe it or not, there are actually many different styles of opera singing, different kinds of operas, and life is short, so don't "try to like" something that doesn't immediately appeal to you or at least intrigue you."

I had some (mild) success with my cousin's daughter when I showed her a video of a really good 17-year-old soprano. I commented, "So, do you think Taylor Swift can really sing like that?" Also, Saimir Pirgu has converted at least one college student I know - probably just because he's cute and sings well. She's not ready to watch an entire opera, but she now trolls Youtube for Saimir Pirgu videos. Maybe it's just a passing infatuation, or maybe she'll watch a whole opera and notice other singers that interest her.

Most young people (particularly young women) don't give a crap about conductors, which is what most old opera fans insist on talking about. They connect with faces and voices. (Note: I'm not saying that young women - I used to be one - cannot ever develop an appreciation for conductors. It's just that young women are, in general, socialized to respond more to faces and voices. Some faceless guy behind a podium is not going to interest them, at least not right away.)


----------



## interestedin (Jan 10, 2016)

graziesignore said:


> don't "try to like" something that doesn't immediately appeal to you or at least intrigue you."


If I had followed that advice, I would never have developed the love for some of my favorite music!

Mozart - Totally bored me for years. Pretty, okay. But boring compared to Beethoven. why do people see him as THE musical genius, I thought? After many, many boring hours I suddenly "got" him. I forced myself.

Wagner - the ultimate bore. Not even pretty. And so primitive with his grandstanding sensationalism-style. It was the desire to get to know this "forbidden" composer (where I grew up he was kind of a taboo) that made me start listening to him. I forced myself.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

What's opera, if not musical theater, indeed?.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

A lot of English speakers assume they won't be able to understand or follow opera. I recently interviewed a playwright who'd adapted an opera for an English-speaking audience; he said that a friend couldn't stand opera because it was like people shouting Italian restaurant menus at each other. A singer who'd staged an oratorio was surprised that a sophisticated friend worried she wouldn't be able to follow the plot.

Reading through this thread, some things I don't think help:

*The attitude that opera is highbrow, profound, requires emotional maturity and intellectual depth, and the audience has to prepare beforehand.* What a great way of scaring people away! Opera is BOTH entertainment and art, and sometimes more one than the other. _Parsifal _is a solemn, introspective work about several abstract concepts; _L'italiana in Algeri_ isn't. Both are valid. Many French, Italian and German operas were composed for a broad public, who went because they liked music and wanted to be entertained. The delivery-boys whistled the hit tunes from Verdi or Donizetti's latest. If anything, part of the decline in opera is that the mass audiences who went go to the cinema instead. (Look at D.W. Griffiths, De Mille or "The Thief of Bagdad".) Maybe the Live in HD screenings will bring opera to new audiences.

*Introducing people to opera through the warhorses.* Different people have different tastes, so assuming that one of half a dozen operas is the best introduction is wrong-headed. Opera is theatre that is sung, and is as varied as theatre. Just because someone doesn't like one sort doesn't mean they won't like another. It's like someone not enjoying _Hamlet_ and concluding they loathe theatre when they might enjoy drawing-room comedy, Beckett or Arthur Miller.

The trick is to suit the opera to the person.

If they want an intense dramatic experience, take them to see _Salome _or _Elektra_.

Do they like Shakespeare, or big costume dramas with impressive crowd scenes? Then show them either an adaptation of Shakespeare, or something on Shakespearean lines (French grand opera, mature Verdi, _Boris Godunov_).

Would they enjoy something light-hearted and fun? Rossini or Offenbach.

Are they avant-garde and artistic? Take them to _Wozzeck _or _Satyagraha_.

I showed _Les Huguenots_ to a friend this year, and he LOVED it. The mixture of drama and spectacle (including acrobats and dancers); the singing and sheer tunefulness of the work; the way the opera changed mood in each act, from comedy to tragedy; and the dramatic sweep that begins in Act III and carries through to the end of the opera.

The first opera I saw live was _Faust_, which had tunes, black magic and sword-fights. I came home so impressed that I summoned up Lucifer that afternoon. I doubt I'd have been so impressed - or damned - f I'd seen _Traviata_, _Falstaff_or Puccini's big three - which had been school trips in previous years.

I was already primed to like opera, though. My parents went to the opera and concerts, and talked about music and theatre, so I thought that going to the opera was a normal part of being an adult. I'd already listened to _Rheingold _and watched _The Queen of Spades _in elementary school, and listened to a few recordings - for the music more than the story, at that stage. (I also assumed that _Straszny dwór_ was an opera most people knew.)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Credibility is stretched when Gilda weighs 237 pounds and Tristan weighs 320.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

SimonTemplar said:


> A lot of English speakers assume they won't be able to understand or follow opera. I recently interviewed a playwright who'd adapted an opera for an English-speaking audience; he said that a friend couldn't stand opera because it was like people shouting Italian restaurant menus at each other. A singer who'd staged an oratorio was surprised that a sophisticated friend worried she wouldn't be able to follow the plot.
> 
> Reading through this thread, some things I don't think help:
> 
> ...


Very good read Simon.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

graziesignore said:


> Where does one get this "skillset of understanding?" Because I don't remember studying to have such a skillset, and yet I simply enjoy singers that seem to me to be great; and I also can tell when a singer is having trouble they ought not be having. (Perhaps this idea of needing a "skillset" pertains your point #1, however...)
> 
> Can you explain further what you mean?
> 
> ...


Opera used to be a significantly a gay thing then most of them died. That has been my isolated experience.Now I rarely see gays at Seattle Opera. I do find that from my own personal experience the most fanatic opera fans I know are gay.
Skillset..... I am been asked when playing opera for my Toastmasters talks to specifically tell them what they need to listen for because they have no clue. In my next speech I will display on the screen " trill" " piannissimo' etc.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> Clearly opera doesn't have enough 'jazz-hands' and singers staring wide-eyed at the audience as if to ram home their point.


I think that depends on the director.



> Okay, so I'm no fan of musicals (I find them as hard to sit through as some do opera), but some are more sophisticated than others, such as Sondheim's. So the question is whether just opera is off-putting, or more demanding works in general?


I think the reason is that people think they sing strange.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"What do people (average theatre goers) have against opera?"

Perhaps exaggerated & objectionable vibrato, especially wobbling Wagnerian vibratos, some almost as wide as the Grand Canyon. Sorry, but some of the performers sound like Seabass waiting to be harpooned. I can't blame those who don't care for this. They deserve our sympathy. Opera should be a pleasure... not a punishment or a test of endurance... Here are a few cringe-worthy examples (at least to me), including pitch problem and noticeable stress & strain in the upper register:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> "What do people (average theatre goers) have against opera?"
> 
> Perhaps excessive, exaggerated & objectionable vibratos, especially-ugh!-Wagnerian vibratos-some almost as wide as a quarter tone & the Grand Canyon. Some of the performers look and sound like Seabass waiting for a hook. I don't blame anyone who doesn't care for this. They deserve our sympathy rather than our condolences. Opera should be a pleasure... not a punishment or a test of endurance. Perfect example:


The sad fact is that singing like this is not rare on the stages of the world today. People might easily tune in to a Met broadcast and get an unfortunate, mistaken idea of what operatic singing is supposed to sound like, even if they're impressed at such a monstrous sound issuing from a human mouth.

What is a "Wagnerian vibrato," btw? I notice that the examples in your clip are from Verdi and Puccini. Surely bellowobble is an international affliction, and any number of our "major" singers produce this sort of vibrato-ridden bawling, the product of faulty technique and a life spent trying to rattle the balconies.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

What is a wobbling Wagnerian vibrato? Need anyone provide an example? Some use it because they feel it's necessary to soar over or cut through an orchestra, but they also use it in quieter passages when it might not be necessary. It sounds almost like a combination of singing, strident edge & shrieking. It's no wonder there are listeners turned off by opera, and the exaggerations of Wagnerian singing are sometimes subject to ridicule. It sounds forced and unnatural. Some sense of the beauty of voice can still be maintained even in a demanding role such as this, or perhaps it would be wiser not to accept such a role in the first place and perhaps ruin one's voice. This is what I would consider an exaggerated Wagnerian vibrato, and Jamie Barton happens to be highly regarded as a Wagnerian:






But this faster, more focused and narrow vibrato? Yes, yes, yes ...






... Beautiful!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> What is a wobbling Wagnerian vibrato? Need anyone provide an example? Some use it because they feel it's necessary to soar over or cut through an orchestra, but they also use it in quieter passages when it might not be necessary. It sounds almost like a combination of singing, strident edge & shrieking. It's no wonder there are listeners turned off by opera, and the exaggerations of Wagnerian singing are sometimes subject to ridicule. It sounds forced and unnatural. Some sense of the beauty of voice can still be maintained even in a demanding role such as this, or perhaps it would be wiser not to accept such a role in the first place and perhaps ruin one's voice. This is what I would consider an exaggerated Wagnerian vibrato, and Jamie Barton happens to be highly regarded as a Wagnerian:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The singer in your first clip is Christine Goerke. I don't know why Jamie Barton's photo is behind her. She definitely sounds uncomfortable here (the lack of an orchestra exposes her weaknesses), but Goerke has acquired something of a reputation as a Wagnerian soprano, presumably because she's loud and can get though a long, strenuous evening. I share your dislike of her high notes, where she sounds pushed and her vibrato compromises clarity of pitch; I suspect she might do better as a mezzo. Keep in mind, though, that the effect heard live would be somewhat softened by the acoustics of the hall. Not all voices take well to the microphone.

I have the impression that many people dislike what is actually quite a normal - not excessive - vibrato in operatic voices. For them a taste for opera will have to be acquired. I do agree with you about the two singers heard here. But why blame Wagner? Since there is nothing in his music that requires a wide vibrato, and since most of the singers celebrated for singing his heroic roles - singers such as Frida Leider, Jacques Urlus, Lauritz Melchior, Lotte Lehmann, Kirsten Flagstad, Friedrich Schorr, Alexander Kipnis, Helen Traubel, Set Svanholm, Hermann Uhde, George London, Christa Ludwig, Birgit Nilsson, Jon Vickers, Jess Thomas, etc., etc. - have all had well-focused vocal tone, the application of the modifier "Wagnerian" to the term "vibrato" seems unfair. In recent seasons at the Met, some of the most annoying wobbles and fiercest vibratos coming over my radio have occurred in music by Mascagni, Giordano and Puccini. Wagner's demand for vocal power may tempt singers to force their voices, but it isn't his fault if singers haven't acquired a good technical foundation or if they fail to understand their own limitations or take on unsuitable roles. Poor Richard gets blamed for everything!


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

No one blamed Richard Wagner for the wobbling that certain singers engage in when performing some of his operas, and a positive example of how it can be done without wobbling and shreking was provided. The composer wasn’t being faulted because of the demands of certain roles. But when the wobbling is there, it can sound awful and I personally cannot take it. I will turn it off instantly when singers are obviously trying to perform beyond on their vocal range. I feel this is only being fair to the listener.

The thread is why the average theater goer might not care for opera, and I believe the wobbling and shrieking is a huge problem for some listeners, including in Wagnerian opera. I don’t blame them for walking out or not going to begin with. I seldom come across the problem normally. But when it’s there, it sounds strained and unnatural as if the singer is forcing and damaging her voice. That’s not art, that’s pain, and art shouldn’t be a punishment for the listener, but a pleasure. I’m leaving the subject of the supersize-me-vibrato behind because it’s an unpleasant consideration and some vocal enthusiasts may become upset that it’s an attack on opera itself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Not to digress too much, but as a singer and opera fan, I've always been sensitive to vibrato and find it an interesting issue. Vibrato as such is a natural, spontaneous secondary oscillation of the vocal chords, but its qualities vary from singer to singer, and people vary in their tastes and tolerances. For me, the vibrato should give life and sparkle to the tone without drawing much attention to itself; historical records indicate that it's been generally disliked when it gets too prominent. Some scholars speculate (or even claim) that before the 19th century singers sang with no vibrato at all, but I think that's a misunderstanding; a well-produced voice wants to vibrate, and eliminating that tendency requires a deliberate act. The vibrato does become more prominent when more pressure is placed on the vocal mechanism in pursuit of greater volume, and chronic oversinging can make a voice permanently wobbly, loud and inflexible. As a rule, we don't hear this distortion in singers who trained in the 19th century, when a singer's life was less competitive and more relaxed, opera houses were smaller, and vocal pedagogy was still firmly rooted in the "bel canto" ideal, in which a firm, clear tone, control of the breath, agility and precision were never to be compromised (at least in theory) in pursuit of volume and dramatic effects. Of course we have many fine singers in our own time, and occasionally - as with Pavarotti - they become popular even with people who think they hate opera.


----------



## Bonetan (Dec 22, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> What is a wobbling Wagnerian vibrato? Need anyone provide an example? Some use it because they feel it's necessary to soar over or cut through an orchestra, but they also use it in quieter passages when it might not be necessary.


Trust me when I say that no singer deliberately "uses" a wobble. It's something that happens to you, & once it's there it's very hard to eliminate...it's also wrong to call it "Wagnerian" as some of the guiltiest parties (I won't name names) have never sung Wagner in their careers.


----------



## sharkeysnight (Oct 19, 2017)

As someone who's spent a few years working my way into a love of opera, the three big things that held me back were:

1) The singing style

To be honest this still holds me back sometimes - it feels like the thread of music gets lost in the complication of the voice. Coming from musicals (and certainly from popular music) it sounds excessively frilly, particularly in conjunction with the overall difficulty of operatic music, which isn't as direct as what I and most people come from. When you add heavy vibrato it can all be too much, and since one of the best ways to come to love an opera is by learning it and being familiar with it, it makes the approach intimidating when you have no context or familiarity at all. It's hard to know why such-an-such a famous aria is meant to be beautiful if you have a hard time differentiating it from any other opera music - it all sounds like a pile of dusty lace when you're a beginner.

2) Repetitive or dull stories

It's common to try to sell people on operas by playing up the titillating elements, which there are plenty of, obviously, but when you actually approach some of the opera standards you get held up by passages of repetition or simplicity, which is meant to be carried by the music. I went to see the Met HD transmissions of the Ring cycle back when I was starting to feel like I had some kind of handle on opera and I skipped the last two because I was so bored by the first two. There are so many sequences where the characters stand around and repeat what they've just said, back and forth, and it was a huge disappointment after being totally beguiled by Tales of Hoffmann and Dr Atomic, which were my first two and gripped me. It took me a while to realize opera isn't monolithic, and in fact there are many, many different kinds stories told in opera. When you don't know anything about opera, you assume it's all the same.

3) Length and complexity

I mean, they're hours and hours long! And classical music is more subtle and extended than popular music, with fewer clear melodies. When I was first getting into opera I tried to listen to some of the classics and all I could think is "what is the music doing?", because I didn't know how to parse, for example, a duet from Marriage of Figaro, so it just sounded like a lot of ups and downs. But then I'd listen to the Hoffmann Barcarolle over and over, and I watched the Powell and Pressburger film of it, and the medium of opera started to make sense through that and other operas that I had an immediate connection with, like Nixon in China.

I guess overall it comes down to unfamiliarity and stereotypes. The Met Live HD transmissions helped hugely, especially as a teenager in central California where there wasn't really a culture for it, but particularly their presentations of modern operas, which I also think is very, very important. There's a feeling that opera is dusty, but having new operas being produced and distributed is very appealing. Digital distribution helps as well, as many people live in places where opera is either nonexistent or prohibitively expensive. Just having it around is a boost, particularly if it feels pertinent in some way (it's too bad public funding of the arts is so crummy in America).


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

I'm sorry I missed this when it was posted, but the entire post was really great. I certainly had some of the same hurdles to overcome when approaching opera. I want to quote and amplify the entire post, but this really stuck out:



sharkeysnight said:


> It took me a while to realize opera isn't monolithic, and in fact there are many, many different kinds stories told in opera. When you don't know anything about opera, you assume it's all the same.


This is perhaps what I see as most important and something we can all consider. Different people will be interested in and hooked by different operas, and by different approaches to them.

We can spend lots of time discussing which recording of _Le nozze di Figaro_ we like best, but we should be thrilled that such a variety exists. The same with DVDs and productions in opera houses; different people like different things. I know many love traditional, old-timey costumes, whereas thinking that was all there was kept me away for many years. If I had seen a production by, say, Peter Sellars, I might have gotten hooked much earlier.

Again, I listened to some opera, but just as an add-on to instrumental classical music. I stuck mostly to 20th century works, and since they were never produced near me, I only attended a few productions and saw very few on DVD.

Attending the Met Live in HD performance of _Nixon in China_ helped make me realize that seeing opera on stage was a great way to experience it. And thankfully I moved to NYC shortly after, and saw Glass's _Satyagraha_ at the Met. It made me want to go back and see everything I could. And one of the things I saw not long after was Lawrence Brownlee in _La fille du régiment_. I was hooked, and wanted to see everything I could.


----------

