American opera is suffering from the same problem faced by a lot of mainstream culture from the 20th century - it's too used to operating at scale and too expensive to cut back.
This isn't to say that art is dead, and I always hate the common complaint about audiences abandoning classical because schools cut back on music education. Music, like television, has become far more diverse in style and complexity. At the same time, audiences have become far more diverse in taste. The end result is that, in New York at least, the music world is thriving! Venues host musicians from a huge breadth of backgrounds and styles, and audiences can now choose from a huge variety of musical styles.
On the other hand, the scale of these productions has gotten smaller. Television shows that used to have audiences in the 10s of millions now get by with fewer than 1 million viewers. Savvy producers now know how to create TV shows on smaller budgets, and savvy content networks know how to build a breadth of shows to satisfy a wide range of audiences. The same must be true with music productions.
Ultimately, the Met is declining because there's more choice to be found elsewhere, and they're too big to slim down to the point where they can remain competitive.
It's also is apparently the case that America seems to suffer from an embarrassing number of really excellent musicians--and New York is the absolute poster child for this.
This seems to be borne out by the fact that so many American musicians do incredibly well overseas while provoking absolute yawns in their home country.
Realistically Opera suffers from two problems: 1- the economics are terrible, 2- the niche it filled has been filled by something else. Opera, an in particular opera buffa, was spectacle: the Marvel film of its age. Well now many more people can see a Marvel film and while it costs more to produce than Aïda does, it's CAPEX not OPEX. And the Marvel films have better special effects than Lohengrin.
The same thing happened to silent movies: the technology moved on and the remnants remained as the domain of enthusiasts ("Battleship Potempkin" or "The Artist"). That's not a tragedy, it's simply the nature of things.
If you can find somebody who has been able to see "nixon in china" or "the death of klinghoffer" then you're a rara avis.
Opera has devolved to popularism. Obviously much opera always was populism, I mean how many drinking songs can you stomach? or, merry widows?
TB isn't romantic unless its mimi dying. Clowns are horrid but tragic. Killer clown movie! no.. its opera son..
But try and stage a modern opera, or an opera which genuinely comes with shocks (Klinghoffer is still sometimes opposed by members of the Jewish community. I can't say I understand this totally, but thats what I read)
Opera is a remnant of the worst kind of nouveau riche status seeking.
Why do Americans listen to Opera in languages they don't speak? The English watch English operas, the French French, Italian Italian, etc. This is because the newly wealthy 19th century Americans wanted to seem fancy like they thought the rich Europeans were.
The less pretentious form is just musicals, which are as popular today as they've ever been.
Is it also "nouveau riche status seeking" to watch movies in languages we don't speak?
Is "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" not a valid film for me to enjoy because I can't appreciate it in its native Mandarin? That sounds even more pompous to me.
I believe the official name is "surtitles", as they appear above the stage. (One small advantage for the cheap, high seats with easy view of surtitles.) Those are pretty standard these days in the big theaters. Don't be fooled that the Germans and Italians are understanding all the lyrics. With the long, drawn out notes and flourishes from the orchestra drowning out the singers, many/most of the native listeners are following along because they already know the lyrics. Ditto for the few operas in English. I have had surtitles for Nixon in China, and definitely needed them.
I have never seen an opera not do this. In Turin they offered subtitles in both the original language (English, as it happened) and in Italian, which was cool. I think some of the objections here come from people who really don’t have much experience going to opera. It’s pretty affordable in San Francisco, and it’s a lot of fun; I recommend everyone try it out.
A long time ago I went to an opera with real time subtitles, it worked well. I didn't know that it was uncommon to be subtitled when in a different language than the one spoken in the area.
Very few opera houses offer subtitles. This is because subtitles near or on the stage would be difficult to read due to the heads of those in front of you.
Some (e.g. Vienna) have a seat-back system that shows subtitles.
Surtitles, on the other hand, are pretty much ubiquitous.
If you get to know it first before you see it live, you will enjoy it more, and that won't be a problem. Then if you don't like it, you can save your money and see something you like instead.
Europe is not different in this regard. Usually the opera is sung in the language it was written in (tends to be German or Italian). So in England/UK most Operas are in those languages, not in English. There are some of course, and they make more of an effort now to put on things which were written in English to make it more accessible.
You're correct to compare them to Musicals though, in terms of content/storyline they are very similar, the musical style and social class of the audience (in general) are the big differentiator. You can also listen to Opera without visiting an Opera house though.
Opera is a remnant of the worst kind of nouveau riche status seeking.
This is a bit reductive and unfair - people can enjoy the music of Opera without thinking it makes them better than others.
Agreed.
I wonder how many commenters on this thread have actually been to an opera.
The operas I've been to were intensely moving experiences, even though I could barely understand a word of Italian.
But... There is something to be said for listening to an Opera in a language you don't speak. It completely bypasses any part of your brain that tries to intellectualize, and just hits you in the feels.
It's not always about status seeking, it's about getting away from the ugliness that pervades the world around you and getting lost in something beautiful in it's own right.
I don't often enjoy 'watching' Operas, the visual context keeps me locked in the state of mind I'm trying to escape from. Only listening. Rare exception to the special treat of a singer belting out in a random spot on the streets.
Just wanted to point out that not everyone looks at art as a social ladder, or even take the same things out of art that someone else does.
The best marketing for opera that I ever saw was from Fred Rogers. As kids we knew nothing about the art but he presented it as something that could be modern and relevant. Anyone could just make up a story and write a little song about anything they cared about. I would bet his (American!) operas have been seen by many more people than even "Porgy and Bess".
Perhaps not coincidentally, Fred Rogers was also the best marketing I've ever seen for ballet. He introduced ballet as something his friend Lynn Swann did for fun. It was impossible to learn any old stereotypes when the first person we see dancing is a football player.
I think I disagree with the article's implication that opera is a European art form, and Americans have rejected it in favor of native musical theatre. You're a bit closer with your observation that the marketing is terrible. There's also some truth in Gelb's observation that there's "a cultural and social rejection of opera as an art form", though I'd say most of the performing arts are suffering today in America, not just opera.
Most of all, I suspect there simply isn't any great American opera to be performed. I'm not even a big opera fan (I saw one dress rehearsal when I was a kid, and I own one opera on CD), yet I can name a dozen German and Italian operas off the top of my head. Outside of The Neighborhood of Make-Believe, and before reading this article, I'd have had difficulty naming even one. Where's the American Wagner, or Verdi? Probably smart enough not to call their work an "opera", I bet.
> You're a bit closer with your observation that the marketing is terrible.
This is by design. Performance troupes rely on a very small number of extremely wealthy patrons and so, consequently, you cater to those tastes exclusively and you dare not risk upsetting them with something controversial.
It's one of the reasons why you so rarely hear things like the "Bernstein Mass", for example.
It also doesn't help that concert tickets for "classical" events like this are ferociously expensive. For a something that I may only marginally like--I'm coughing up almost $100+. I can see one of my absolute favorite artists for less than that. And a lot of music festivals have weekend tickets that are less than some classical thing that may only be marginally interesting.
> Probably smart enough not to call their work an "opera", I bet.
Pretty much exactly--for America it's a "musical" or "Broadway". "Hamilton" sure seems relevant and doing well, for example. "Rent" was supposed to be a modern "La Bohème". etc.
> It also doesn't help that concert tickets for "classical" events like this are ferociously expensive.
That's common knowledge, I admit, but I just checked and at least in Seattle today, it's actually backwards. Seattle Opera tickets for the upcoming "The Turn of The Screw" (in English and with subtitles, in case anyone is worried!) are $25 to $314. The Seattle Symphony this Thursday is $22 to $122. Those starting prices are only a couple bucks more than a movie (Cinerama: $18.50).
It's pop music that's crazy expensive: Childish Gambino tickets for next weekend are $114 to $589. Festivals aren't necessarily any better: Bumbershoot tickets last month were $130 (single day) to $775.
I would say it's definitely a marketing problem when even people who might consider going to a concert assume that tickets are several times more expensive than they really are. $25 tickets are not aimed at 'extremely wealthy patrons', yet SO and SS ads don't mention tickets or do anything to dispel the myth of high prices.
These examples are all really... white dad culture. I can’t imagine an expansion of the Rhapsody or Bat into a movie-length entertainment that wouldn’t feel incredibly awkward.
On the other hand I could imagine cutting down Janelle Monae’s “Archandroid” cycle to a couple of hours of gloriously and uniquely American sci-fi flavored sung narrative. It’d need some reworking to come to a satisfying conclusion but there’s already several hours of songs and a lot of story to pare it down from.
On the gripping hand, I wonder how a Classic Opera would fare if you translated the lyrics and restaged it with a Touring Broadway Musical budget? It sounds like half of the problems of the opera companies discussed in this article come from having a stage that makes all but the most grandiose productions feel lost, and ticket prices that rule out all but a tiny percentage of humanity. That’s just not sustainable.
The best marketing for opera EVER was "What's opera, Doc (giving us "Kill Da Wabbit") followed by "Rabbit of Seville". I would imagine that accounts for 2/3 of all common opera exposure.
(The other 1/3 is probably "Vesti la Giubba" from Pagliacci which seems to be in EVERY single mobster movie ever made ...)
Santa Fe Opera ended their 2018 Summer season with a silly and fun production of "The Italian Girl in Algiers" [0]. Satire of current events, American pop-culture references, including some great bits from "Rabbit of Seville".
Carl Stalling, Warner Brothers' music director, was a genius.
Aida[1] is a good place to start. Put in on repeat for a week to familiarize yourself with the music. Then read more about it and watch a video version with subtitles. SF Opera did an amazing performance a few years ago.
It takes a while for ears to become accustomed to new types of music. If you aren't familiar with a style of music, one way to become familiar is to play it repeatedly in the background for a week or two. Then, when you sit down to deliberately try to understand it, your ears will already be accustomed to it, and certain passages will stand out. Those ones are the hooks that will get you into the style.
I have found a lot of modern music using hooks from old pop songs to catch new listeners. I don't much like the practice.
On your original point, even discordant music can grow on you. Pino Forastiere uses a lot of dischord and I didn't like it at all at first. But I let it play out a bunch of times as there were so many other good qualities that I loved about the album. It didn't take long to start understanding what he was trying to do with the dichord and from there it made sense and I could hear it in context and enjoy it.
This isn't to say that art is dead, and I always hate the common complaint about audiences abandoning classical because schools cut back on music education. Music, like television, has become far more diverse in style and complexity. At the same time, audiences have become far more diverse in taste. The end result is that, in New York at least, the music world is thriving! Venues host musicians from a huge breadth of backgrounds and styles, and audiences can now choose from a huge variety of musical styles.
On the other hand, the scale of these productions has gotten smaller. Television shows that used to have audiences in the 10s of millions now get by with fewer than 1 million viewers. Savvy producers now know how to create TV shows on smaller budgets, and savvy content networks know how to build a breadth of shows to satisfy a wide range of audiences. The same must be true with music productions.
Ultimately, the Met is declining because there's more choice to be found elsewhere, and they're too big to slim down to the point where they can remain competitive.
Related, and worth reading: On 10 Years of the New New-Music Scene, and 30 Years of My Own - http://www.vulture.com/2018/06/ten-years-of-the-new-new-musi...