ComnmentJune06 - Page: 1 of 1

In a recent review we wrote the following: “Casting for Puccini’s perennial favorite “Madama Butterfly” can’t be an easy chore. You need a singer who has the voice to carry the part, the diminutive demeanor to look the part, and – well – as close to fifteen-years old as one can get and still have an operatic voice.
Years ago, it didn’t matter that singers who took the role fell flat on two of the three counts; nowadays it does matter. Audiences expect something approaching reality and smart directors will insist that their singers be able to deliver that reality by singing as well as looking the parts they are called upon to perform. Deborah Voigt’s “Little black dress” controversy a few years back had an impact on everyone and emphasized just how important the visual side of opera (not costumes and scenery) is to a successful and believable production.
The reality, however, is this: about the only singers who are likely to fit the visual role of Cio-Cio-San and, thus, be more believable and attractive to contemporary opera audiences, are the twenty-something singers coming right out of Young Artist Programs. That’s where smart directors and conductors will look and even smarter singers will focus their talents – learning parts suited to their body and voice styles, not simply singing whatever roles are offered.”
The point we were trying to make delicately is this: casting for roles should involve more than just a CD or tape of the voice, although that’s certainly the place to start. But appearance, the “little black dress” thing, is important, too. We need to remember from time to time that opera is meant for the audience; it’s not an “in” thing to be practiced among and for the elite, but performed before the public, and if you want to attract a new and younger audience one can’t afford to underestimate looks. There are simply far too many good and talented singers out there for the argument to any longer hold that there are only a few good or even great voices. There are plenty of great voices. Conductors need to seek them out, nurture them and guide them toward roles that most need their presence.

Tim Smith, music critic for the Baltimore Sun wrote recently about prejudice in the music business, or more specifically in the opera world. The piece, titled: “Black tenors fight prejudice in quest for opera’s leading roles” (March 28, 2006), began, “Operagoers see just about anything on stage these days . . . but one sight remains exceedingly rare: a black tenor in a leading role from the standard repertoire.”
“A black man being in a position of power,” he quotes Willie Anthony Waters, general and artistic director of Connecticut Opera, ”and in a romantic position – that’s not fully accepted.” Waters does go on to note, however, that there’s room for optimism. Things are changing as more young singers of color enter the ranks.
The argument to ignore race when casting roles is based on the longstanding but increasingly challenged notion that where opera is concerned only voice matters.

Interestingly, one group that is making quite a name for itself actually plays up the “ethnic” difference, and that group is: “Three Mo Tenors”. In spite of its name, there is little doubt that the emphasis with the artists is on talent and love of opera, as stressed by “Mo” tenor Marvin Scott in the same piece.
Last month Classical Singer Magazine provided a detailed interview and article on new African-American tenor de jure, Robert Brownlee, as we do this month. In the Classical Singer piece, Brownlee addressed the issue head on and in one of his more lengthy and inspired answers, said that while there may be discrimination in the business, it is his talent that people notice when he sings, and that’s what he focuses on, with great success we might add, based on some pretty weighty reviews and the one opera we saw him perform in.
It’s an interesting topic. It's also one of the taboo topics of opera, which is why we think it’s time to address it forthrightly here and open discussion on its implications. The fact that race "may" still matter in some contexts is far less important to us than “why” it matters. Some think it's a power trip; we think otherwise.
Consider the following:
Smith, in his article, makes the point, correctly, that many roles in opera are, in fact, race neutral. “There is nothing that says Count Almaviva in the Barber of Seville must be white”. True enough!
Yet there is the “black male-white female thing” that audiences might not accept where romantic leads are concerned, notes Kenneth Galye, one of the “Mo” tenors -- and it is this issue that troubles some.
Let us be the first to acknowledge that race matters in opera as elsewhere, but not for the reasons one might infer. Race matters in “Porgy and Bess”, even though the libretto can be sung by any white or Asian singer capable of singing the role and conveying the emotion. But that's not what audiences expect to see when they see this performance. Race matters when casting “Margaret Garner”, even though the libretto can be sung by any singer capable of handling the roles there, too. After all, the story is dramatic and unsettling to say the least. And, indeed, there are many other roles where casting by race might actually lend to the drama of an opera because race matters in some contexts in a positive way.
In short, it’s not always just voice that counts. In every context artistic and music directors are being forced to think outside the box of “voice” and cast for reality and audience acceptance, as well they should.
Indeed, “Three Mo Tenors” might well be “Three More Tenors” if one of the tenors was white. Who knows? And the truth is, nowadays, who cares?
What does matter is contextual believability. As noted in our commentary above, and as we have stated in the past, the visual medium of opera is gaining more in importance with contemporary audiences – especially the young. But the same expectations that drive an audience to look for singers who are more visually attractive and fit and, hence, believable in the roles they are singing, also drives audiences to be more critical of what they see in every other aspect of opera as well. Casting, as opposed to singing, should be considered in the context of the story being told.
Interestingly, where race is concerned, the very thing that might lead an audience to answer “no” in one context or setting, might lead the same audience to answer “yes” in another. Hence, our question -- and it is a crucial one: does race matter when casting an interracial romantic lead in “Porgy” any less than it counts when casting and interracial romantic lead in “La Boheme”? A truthful person will answer that it matters in both contexts, conceding that no decision is set in stone. But it does matter, to whatever degree that may be, and as noted above, it really has nothing to do with power.
Here, we think that when the issue of race is present at all, it ought to be considered in such a way that it becomes irrelevant. More diverse casts, as noted above, might be one solution that would greatly minimize differences, and an idea, we think, is a good one. It’s not going to happen overnight, but with more and more singers of different ethnicities taking an interest in opera, it could very well be the one thing that truly makes race irrelevant in the future. Until then, casting decisions as noted above will probably not change. The best we can hope is that casting of singers will be done with sensitivity to what the audience accepts and expects in a context that is most believable to the audience, and not an artistic or music director's "social conscience".
That is the focus we have consistently held and continue to hold today.
As "Mo" tenor Kenneth Gayle alluded to above, casting decisions that ask audiences to believe something that is not believable or likely to have been true for a particular period, don't work visually or artistically. It's not about power, as much as it is about common sense.