CommentOct06 - Page: 1 of 1

Those wild and crazy Brits. You gotta love ‘em.

Last month, Newsweek, among others, took notice when the English National Opera (ENO) staged its World Premiere hip-hopera, “Gaddafi: A Living Myth.” With music by an electro-punk collective known as the “Asian Dub,” and a synthesized score that is said to be heavy on what Newsweek termed “raga-jungle rhythms (an electronic form of reggae),” and an audience in attendance wearing everything from flip-flops, jeans and cargo pants to “seniors in black tie,” a picture of the new generation of opera has, at last, emerged – and it ain’t necessarily pretty.

“Opera houses in London’s West End and elsewhere are desperately trying to appeal to younger viewers,” observed Karla Adam in her web exclusive for the magazine, “with increasingly political subjects.” Philip Kennicott, writing in "Opera News," a couple months ago, took up the subject arguing that, perhaps what opera needed was to be more angry. Last month we saw the same theme being echoed from Sean Doran, former director of ENO, who was quoted on the Internet site “theage.com” as saying, “If the arts are not controversial then they shouldn’t exist. The whole point is to stride into virgin territory.” And the list goes on of people who share this peculiar view of art.

We have written on this subject on numerous occasions, and those comments can be found in our Archives. [See, for example: August Commentary “All that glitters in opera is not always gold.] We write about the subject again, risking being somewhat repetitive, but keenly aware that, as noted by the "Newsweek" piece, the subject is being continuously discussed. It is being discussed because it is, as of this writing, truly unresolved.

The question is this: which direction will opera move in the future to attract a new, younger audience? 1. Will those who make these decisions merely update and refine the repertoire and add to it occasionally, or 2. Will new opera and its advocates usher in a sea change from new composers and directors who think opera must be moved in an entirely new direction to attract a younger and wider audience? Out with the old; in with the new. The latter seems to be the view held by more Europeans than Americans.

We here at OperaOnline.us take issue with the latter course and, accordingly, reflect again on what attracts an opera audience in the first place. Maybe the key to understanding the future is going to be found in understanding opera’s past.

Those who enjoy opera don’t have to be told that it isn’t hip-hop, country, rhythm and blues, jazz, rock, or even easy listening. Opera requires more understanding than the other musical forms. In spite of this laudable attribute, opera seems to be the only musical medium that feels a continuing need to explain itself, at best, or apologize, at worst, for its very existence.

The fact is, part of the attraction to those of us follow opera, is the fact that it requires something more from both its performers and its audience. Singers not only have to train their voices to sing the difficult parts, but learn at least two or three languages besides English if they hope to succeed in the business. It requires, dare we say, intelligence -- intelligence from the performers and appreciation from the audience.

It is because of this that opera fans have been loosely and unfairly characterized as snobs, which some are. For the most part, however, the very thing that attracts us to opera is the very thing that makes it so unique and worthy of preserving, not diluting. Why dumb it down? Why pander? Do we really have so little faith in young people that we believe there aren’t enough of them to actually get it, as others have gotten it for the past four hundred years? And even then, in four hundred years, opera is still limited in its appeal to only a fraction of, say, the musical theater side of the business. Can you imagine an opera running continuously for five years, seven days a week, on Broadway?

Younger people today have to overcome a lot more ambivalence as we noted in last month’s commentary [September: “Reaching out to a younger audience”]. Still, rather than dumbing down opera, young people should be encouraged to reach out and appreciate what it is that the musical style is all about – a goal which opera companies all across the United States take seriously. Tomorrow’s audience may be small, but it will be loyal, sufficient, and if we nurture it correctly, it will grow and expand because smart growth will be based on preserving what exists, while looking for new operas that show promise of longevity, thus adding to the growing opera base. This means more, not less, good music.

As for those who think art must be controversial to be accepted, as Mr. Doran and others have said, we suggest they don’t understand art. Doran opined of art: “if the arts aren’t controversial they shouldn’t exist.” Our response: That’s news to just about every museum in the world that features art exhibits from ancient Greece and Rome, through the period of the Renaissance, Romanticism, Enlightenment, Pre-modern and Twentieth Century, and this includes the tens-of-thousands of musical contributions from opera to rock-and-roll that managed the transition of time to evolve into a rich historical record of art that tells a story, not to shock and offend, but rather to inspire, elevate, value loyalty, encourage heroism and bring people together in a common purpose and theme that honors human history and tradition.

In that vein, we say, opera stands atop of lofty perch because it has earned that position. Those who think it needs to offend, shock, break new ground or mystify with obtuse musical scores that are :"challenging" are not helping advance the cause; they are the ones ensuring its demise.

Of the recent decision by Deutsche Oper in Berlin to cancel its production of Mozart’s 1781 “Idomeneo” rather than risk a threat against the opera house being carried out by angry Muslims if the show went forward, Roger Kimball, writing in the "Opinion Journal" of the "Wall Street Journal," online, observed:

“Mr. Neuenfels is one of those directors more interested in nurturing his own pathologies than in offering a faithful presentation of the geniuses with whose work he has been entrusted. . .
In the best of all possible worlds, we wouldn't be treated to such artistic desecrations. But in this world, such productions are business as usual. And Deutsche Oper's decision to cancel the production because some Muslims might not like it is both craven and shortsighted.”

To this, we add: well said!

Mr. Kimball described the production as “gratuitously offensive”. This is view is shared by many, and to one degree or another by members of the German parliament and Chancellor Angela Merkel, all of whom have urged that the company reconsider its decision nonetheless.

While we agree that caving in to threats is never a good idea, we can understand the company’s decision to place the interests of its audience and performers ahead of its own interests and beliefs – at least as an initial course of action. Deutsche Oper got everyone’s attention with the cancelation; now all the parties have to do is get together and figure out the best course of action for the future.

Having said that, we pause a moment to consider Mr. Kimball’s observation about the nature of pontificating, self-important directors, and the affect our tolerance of their perversions of art in the name of art have on art – and us.

The plug on this director should have been pulled long before his ideas for this production took ground. He should have been fired, not because of his artistic vision, but rather because of his inability to separate his own political and religious biases from one of Mozart’s works. Whatever other faults this new production may or may not have had, one thing is clear: the gratuitous decapitation of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad, along with the mythical figure of “Poseidon”, was meant to make a statement about these figures in particular and religion in general, and was not part of Mozart’s original design. What next, writing a few new stanzas of music to “enhance” what Mozart gave us?

It is a sad statement that this is what state subsidy of the arts gives the audience in Europe. We see it again and again. We here at OperaOnline.us have long argued that opera companies owe it to their audiences to manage productions and not turn them over to directors with a vision meant to shock, offend, anger or enrage a particular segment of the opera audience. Deutsche Oper violated that trust and got itself in trouble. What is sad about all this is that the company thinks the error may have been in caving in to threats from terrorists, when, in fact, its fault was in caving in to what appears to be a hissy-fit from a self-pretentious director.