CommentApril07 - Page: 1 of 1

To start: we're not really talking gender here as much as stykle and star appeal. To conclude: we don’t have the answer to the above question, but the question was asked recently, nonetheless, by Newswire.com ("Who will be opera’s next Pavarotti"? March 6, 2007), and we thought we’d venture some thoughts on the topic.

There are plenty of outstanding tenors and other singers of both genders out there; we hear many of them, often. And so, for us, replacing someone like Pavarotti is kind of academic. The answer is rather obvious: whoever is lucky enough to catch the opera-going public’s interest will rise above the rest, and chances are it will have less to do with a voice than charisma.

The fact is: you can have a great voice, and not rise to the level of a Pavarotti, Domingo, or Carreras, to name three. But if all other things are equal and you have that extraordinary voice to boot, you won’t make the “superstar” list unless you bring something else to the table with you – and that something else is star appeal (charisma) and a little luck. Pavarotti flashed a broad grin (hintingd at a winning personality) along with an America Express card in a famous TV commercial (Do you know who I am?), and the rest is history. The image caught on with the public and a superstar was born with that single commercial. He had a great voice. So, too, did many others, though.

Those who argue that it’s all about the “voice,” miss the mark when it comes to answering what makes a star a superstar, and hence, another Pavarotti. For singers who want to make more than a respectable career in opera, it’s the other factor -- the personality, the stage appeal, the ability to draw an audience into the person behind the voice that make one special, such that he or she never have to ask a second time, “Do you know who I am”?

So long as a majority in the opera world continues to deceive themselves about what it takes to attract a younger audience to opera, the illusive objective of growing the base will be forever beyond their reach and the audience will remain small and shrinking. But for those of us who believe the future can be bright by applying some plain common sense, the solution is rather simple. Regarding this illusive younger audience, the Internet site BWOG.net asked the question: “Why do [New York City area] students continue to wait hours in the cold for tickets to ‘The Producers’ and ‘Wicked’ instead of taking the considerably more convenient fifteen-minute subway ride to Lincoln Center”?

The answer is pretty obvious: the perception of opera as a somewhat elitist, outdated art form is entrenched, fed by the fact that much of the repertoire is largely dated by some two hundred years or more, in a period and style that is considered – old. We said “much of the repertoire,” not all of it. The perennial favorites continue to draw audiences, and hold the interest of younger patrons for the same reason Broadway shows like “Les Miserables” are so successful – the music is, in so many cases, hauntingly beautiful.

It's worth asking why so many of the works of noted composers just never seem to make it to the stage. We wonder why? If we're not going to sift through this treasure trove, we are left with commissioning new operas, hoping one or two will catch on and ignite the general public.Thus far, very few have caught on, for various reasons.

We are like a broken record here, but it bears repeating every time someone says opera is all about “the voice,” as was stated recently in an article by Jay Handelman on the Internet site: Heraldtribune.com. He was quoting Herald-Tribune music critic Richard Storm ("In opera, it’s all about the voice," February 25, 2007). In blind belief of the argument that voice supersedes the score, we have tolerated almost anything from composers, and in far too many cases have abandoned any requirement that the music and libretto have at least the potential of attracting a larger audience. Some believe that offering challenging, modern music that taxes the voice and is doscordant in sound is what the audience craves most. This is proven to be false time and again. Worse, it’s proven wrong time and again by the folly of some of the largest companies that have the money to spend on new commissions and bring new opera to the public, but waste it on scores that won’t attract anyone.

Some will interpret what is said here as arguing that "voice" isn't important. That would be wrong. We're arguing, instead, that companies and composers need to get real and stop patting each other on the back for such abstractions as "The First Emperor," and blame themselves for the lack of youthful audiences, and maybe, just mabe, listen to those of us who ague that a beautiful voice is so much more beautiful when it has something beautiful to sing. See below.

It is said that opera is not for everyone. True enough.
But opera should be enjoyed by far more people than those who currently enjoy it. Sadly, it is a misunderstood and truly under appreciated art form.

Consider the typical opera: it is performed in languages that few Americans speak or understand, is sung by artists whose names are largely unknown to a vast majority of young people, and whose unique signing styles, not necessarily what they sing, define their specialty: soprano, mezzo-soprano, bass, bass-baritone, tenor, contralto, and on and on.
Does a younger audience really care about such things? Should they?

The good news is this: in its contemporary form opera has made some inroads and has appealed to a new generation, and this is encouraging. Those who flocked to see, “Phantom of the Opera”, “Les Miserables”, glimpse only the periphery of what traditional opera is all about. However, those same people might shudder if invited to see Wagner’s four hour “Parsifal”, or any of the “the Ring” series, or Verdi’s, “LaTraviata”, or Puccini’s,” LaBohème”, to name a few.
Yet ask these same people if they saw the movie, “Fatal Attraction” and enjoyed the haunting music. Thank Puccini’s "Madama Butterfly” for that. And what of the wonderfully romantic soundtrack in the popular movie “Moonstruck”? Again, we offer a “tip of the hat” for Puccini’s, "La boheme." And who can forget the powerful images of the spectacular helicopter assault in “Apocalypse Now” or Robert Duval’s utterance: “God, I love the smell of napalm in the morning” from that very scene. Only Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” from “Die Walküre” could match Duval’s chutzpah and overcome it with sheer power in its own right. And while Robert DeNiro won an Oscar for his performance of middleweight champ, Jake LaMotta in “Raging Bull” it was Mascagi's haunting “Cavalleria Rusticana” that spiritualized the slow descent and even-tual destruction of the human spirit. Music contributes significantly to the richness of a movie, and great music makes for unforgettable monents.

This is the power of opera!

I think you get the point: opera can be romantic, mystical, inspiring, provocative, bold, colorful, sublime, communicative -- and be heard in different mediums, and yet we don’t even know it plays such an important role in our theater-going experience. Interestingly, we seem to accept it in pieces, in other mediums, but shy away in its formal presentations on the stage. Sadly, far too may do this without giving it a try – and that is sad, especially now that more and more opera houses provide contemperaneous English titles so the audience can read from discreetly lit screens.

It is odd that the magic of movies has done far more to deliver auridnce-friendly opera music to audiences than opera companies, reaching for the abstract. There's a message here for those who care to acknoeledge it.