There will always be opera and comparing it with Bieber is an insult to the art of singing

 

Being a musician and a singer, I agree that the two and incomparible but it doesn't answer the question of whether the young are even aware of the power and beauty of Opera. The point is not comparing Bach to Bieber (Which I wasn't!) yet how we can involve the young in Opera houses etc.

 

How can opera houses compete with the rest of the music industry

you mean the industry that's been beaten to a pulp by the advent of illegal downloading? eh heh. Opera houses should focus on raising awareness for the art form. People of all ages will love opera if they are exposed to it enough to know there are many different takes on it. Music is music, if you know it's there you will find something to like.

older generations have already adapted to the cinema and opera live online. In fact, the cinema thing (and quite possibly anything online) is probably more up their alley than to young people's.

 

Meh - gonna respond to this topic or similar yet again.

What do people you know who really care about their cultural consumption listen to? Some listen to classical (including opera), I'm sure - but I bet a whole bunch listen to jazz and world and alt country and go to see leonard cohen or rufus wainwright or emmy-lou harris etc. Lots of non-classical/pop is serious music now that attracts people who read smart books and go to theatre and who live a very culturally literate lifestyle. Let's face it - we're not trying to convert the masses of people who love Nicki Minaj here, that's a waste of time

So,our group of keen aesthetes have decided they don't want the endless Verdi, Mozart, Puccini, Donizetti, Bellini etc that most opera houses throw up. So what? Maybe something different would attract them?

Good thinking! Let's replace every second Trav and Giovanni etc etc with something a bit different - something interesting with a bit of wow factor that isn't just a "night at the opera" where you have to come and love what "opera" has come to signify but you can actually embrace the entirety of the goddamn artform. I'd love it if it was Wozzeck and Lulu (or Eotvos, Furrer, Glanert Sciarrino and others) but at least let's not kill the opera houses with more of the same!

Or you could just double down on more of the same and watch the audience die slowly

 

Interesting questions.
Opera in 5 years will still be pretty much the same way it is now with the possibility of a few more venues sadly closing for lack of funds.

I am of the school that it is unlikely to expect the "Bieber generation" to spend the same kind of money for opera tickets that they would for a concert. Opera looks too much like a snob factor to them and in order to become attracted to it they need a different introduction. But now, with the new and wonderful advent of opera in HD at local movie theaters, it has become a viable entryway into the art form. Tickets are inexpensive, popcorn is plentiful, and the performances are live directly from the Met. So maybe this is the way to finally open up their eyes.

I have hope.

 

So,our group of keen aesthetes have decided they don't want the endless Verdi, Mozart, Puccini, Donizetti, Bellini etc that most opera houses throw up.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

 

Assuming musical theatre is alive and well (is it?), there is no reason that opera, ballet and classical music shouldn't be, because (here we go....) it is better! Good marketing and good programming are prerequisites, as are the avoidance of staid and lousy productions that make people never want to visit an opera again.

The image of opera is something that should be constantly attended to. It should be regarded as a normal place that normal people go to, as well as an fancy night out when people want to celebrate and anniversary... or a hot date.

Earlier this year I stopped off in Leeds for two opera nights. The first was Macbeth - modern dress, all grey tones, dim lighting, poorly sung, a truly grim night that I hope wasn't any newcomer's first opera. The following night was Girl of the Golden West - new production, fresh, bright, cinematic, well sung, the audience gripped throughout. It's not rocket surgery.

 

Forget it. As soon as the first singer opens their mouth they all run away.

I asked someone if they liked opera and they said,"Yeah, I saw Phantom 3 times!".

If you like it, you like it and will find your way there.

 

Forget it. As soon as the first singer opens their mouth they all run away.

^^Not even slightly true! I am, I believe, the one of the youngest active members of TC, and therefore I may be able to provide some insight into the minds of young people!

Anyway...

The greatest problem is that of perception. The majority of my friends think opera is all about fat women who stand motionless on a stage and warble to a theatre full of old people. As soon as you tell them that it's not, explain to them that operas are stories with plots, explain that there are surtitles now, that many young people go to the opera and show them pictures of a few slim, beautiful and young singers, they realise that they are rather misguided. Several of my friends, upon hearing some of the opera I have on my phone, have been taken aback and have said that, if they had the money, they would go and see an opera. They haven't fallen head-over-heels in love with the artform, but I didn't and now I love it!

Those on TC who know me may be surprised that I have only seen two operas live. The second was La bohème at ROH in July. I was pleasantly surprised at the proportion of young people. My friend and I were the only teenagers there, but there were many people in their early twenties. In my experience, young opera-goers tend to be the most knowledgeable, too!

A lot of people seem to have this strange notion that modern operas attract larger numbers of young people. I don't whether or not you've noticed, but modern operas aren't generally very accessible to most adults, let alone young people! La bohème is the perfect opera with which to introduce someone to opera. It's stylish, has a heart-warming, heart-melting plot, glorious music, lovable characters and opportunities for great costumes and staging.

I'm taking a friend to see Madama Butterfly (at the cinema) later this month. After that we plan to see one live together. She knows nothing about classical music, but she appreciates art. That's all you need to be able to do in order to enjoy opera. We young people are a lot sharper than most seasoned opera-goers and lovers seem to think

 

I say that there are ways of attracting the young'uns to the form. You just have to know how to entice them is all. Get into "their" brains, not yours.
Not many will resist a murder mystery where an escapee hides in a garden near a church so he won't be found, and a beautiful woman stabs the chief of police to death rather than give in to his sexual demands, thereby hoping to save her lover from a firing squad -- and all this with beautiful costumes and powerful music in the background.
Or what about attracting them with a loose woman who entices a policeman who was going to arrest her and gets him arrested when he sets her free because her sexual power overwhelms him, only to have a wild stabbing scene at the end which is designed to shock while the stunning music is seeping unconsciously into their brains and -- viola! -- they're hooked on 2.
"Hey, where can I see more of this stuff! I never knew opera could be so wild."

 

Doesn't work. They may listen once or twice, but that's it.

 

I don't know enough really to offer an opinion, so will just tell you my experience. Taggart & I have seen very few operas because we live in the provinces & couldn't get up to London for the evening even if we felt we could afford it. We have seen a few operas at the Lowestoft Marina because Ellen Kent took a company on tour, and then we saw a Handel opera done by English Touring Opera at Aldeburgh. The houses were always full, and there were middle-aged people as well as elderly, and some young people brought by their parents. I think if the economics could be sorted and operas brought to the provinces, young people might get to be interested. Hope so, anyway, because every single production we saw was fabulous.

 

We have seen a few operas at the Lowestoft Marina because Ellen Kent took a company on tour, and then we saw a Handel opera done by English Touring Opera at Aldeburgh.

I believe touring opera is one of the best ways to attract people. People like a reason to go out and are likely to give it a try if it's there. It doesn't even need to be a big investment. Just this weekend I went to see Poppea at the tiny Arcola Theatre in Hackney (300-400 capacity or thereabouts, 9 piece orchestra, 10 singers perhaps and minimal but effective stage design). It ended up being a lovely evening for £15.

 

And what about operetta? We went to a Gilbert and Sullivan festival attracting a lot of young people including many amateur singers. There were a couple of performances of Tosca - one at Fountains Abbey and one in Harrogate. Some of the groups also do opera ranging from the Barber of Seville to Albert Herring. There are university groups there as well.

Basically, people who like music and singing will gravitate to opera if it is available at a reasonable price. Part of the problem is the lack of good second rate companies to put on the standards and that's where the amateurs come in - where you can hire a couple of good leads and back them up with a couple of good amateurs and a solid amateur chorus.

 

And what about operetta?

Although some fine Opera Singers have performed in Operetta, many a fine Operetta Singer will not, cannot, perform Opera.

That by way of saying Operetta is a very different kettle of fish. Remember, too, that "musicals," -- ala Broadway or West End -- are also a variety of Operetta, though I do not know if Operetta has gotten to the point where all the soloists are mic'd!

They are all one or another variety of Singspiel, with dialogue, and the music much more toward the strophic and 'catchy tunes' department, i.e. the public will and can leave the theater singing much of what they've heard.

Add / top that with the fact that if performed in your own country, the singing, apart from sounding a bit more 'natural' in its vocal production, usually in your native tongue.

All a very far cry from a show where all is sung, vocal production is very different (with vocal ranges as different -- expanded -- as well) and this is often sung in 'not your language,' and comparisons between the two leave more differences than similarities.

With the exception of lieder, I don't believe any other kind of singing or form of musical theater is a 'certain' gateway to the path of interest in opera. I'd even argue the contrary.

 

I think the surtitles should make a lot of difference. I was afraid about not understanding the lyrics and being bemused or bored before I saw my first opera - Tosca - and then when I saw the translation - wonderful!

 

Bravo Baron Scarpia! You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. If a person has art in his/her soul to begin with, regardless of age, it will come through eventually.
Perfect post!

 

opera offers true live sound with true voices. I mean without amplification/PA.

 

I think a good way to help young people enjoy opera would be to find a link between an opera and their interests. I'm sure they would be amazed if they saw something that really appealed to them in such an art form that it would encourage them to look out for more. You shouldn't push them into liking things just because it's opera. Things of interest like history, literature, religion, art and philosophy can be found in many different operas. Even simple things like orchestrated storms, women in drag or a good old song about Bacchus might make them fall in love with opera. With youtube as an unlimited source they can explore til their hearts content but they need to find that first spark of interest.

 

I think a good way to help young people enjoy opera would be to find a link between an opera and their interests.

 

but should opera houses only try to lure in young people? Looks like a bunch of us got into opera a bit later on.

 

Very provocative...... care to elaborate in a new thread??
"how I got hooked on opera at the ripe old age of___"

 

^ I don't know about a new thread but I wrote a shortish post on the subject in my blog

 

Yes - it could be that the key to keeping opera going is to draw in 'young middle aged people' aged 35-45. They still have style, they have the money for the tickets, they maybe have teenage children to influence, and they can keep going for another 40 years with any luck.
Drawing in even older people like me wouldn't be the answer - we're just too uncool.

 

Could a teenager tell you something composed by both Justin Bieber and Johann Seb. Bach??

To be fair, I can't do that either.

 

How young are we talking about? Nearly a third of Opera Paris' audience is under 40.
The link is the annual report which has some stats towards the end of it. Page 48 has the age demographic.
http://www.operadeparis.fr/Newsletter/pdfs/Opera-national-de-Paris-Rapport-activites-2012.pdf

 

I'm a 'young person', I love opera and I wasn't introduced to it by anyone, I just sort of found it through listening to CM and the internet. There's no real excuse not to find a way into it.

What I don't understand is why the fan-base for musical theatre (in terms of broadway and the west end) is so large, and the same people don't give a fig about opera. One of these forms is shallow and artless, the other is comprised of some of the greatest artistic achievements of the western world. Its actually quite tragic the way attention has been diverted from opera into films and populist theatre.

 

This negative outlook on musical theater doesn't work at all for me. I view it as an entirely different genre with voices that are suited for it and not for opera. Nor are musical theater voices generally suited for pop. Some voices are born for musical theater, such as Mary Martin or John Raitt, or in movie versions, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renée Zellweger, both featured in the award winning Chicago. They were outstanding.

Evidently, there are listeners who consider the two genres as mutually exclusive of each other, and I'm pleased to say that I don't. I'm not one to see them as competitive.

Nine was also a fantastic musical IMO as a movie with extraordinary vocal performances by people that one would never expect.

Classical music and opera are IMO best presented early in the schools as part of basic music education, and I speak from personal experience: that's where I was first exposed and I was open to everything. The question is how to fund it, and I believe that every student should be exposed and have the opportunity, whether they take to it or not, because they may never get the exposure at home. We had it for about one hour a week, and it was enough to create a familiarity and interest for many students, some of whom became professional musicians.

 

Most musical theater is based on pop/rock-style music. Most of the singing styles used are close to natural speech, the songs are in the local language, and there is often a lot of dialogue so it is easy to follow along. Musicals are not treated as perfect, unalterable documents so new productions can (and especially on Broadway and the West End are encouraged to) be significant revisions or reinterpretations to match modern sensibilities and concerns (and to do away with embarrassing or offensive material). This is especially important for humor; many musicals are actually funny. Casts on Broadway, the West End and other major productions will feature recognizable (to the general public) pop stars and film and televisions actors and actresses.

I know a fair number of people who like both opera and musicals, myself included. And there certainly are some musical fans that would find a lot to love from operas - just as there are opera fans who would find a lot to love in musicals - but there are significant differences.

And dismissing musicals as "shallow and artless" is just as myopic as dismissing operas as (say) old-fashioned and bizarre.

 

I dismiss them as shallow and artless because they are overly manipulative. As Sir Peter Maxwell Davies said of War horse, 'it assumed emotions it had not earned'; and I think this applies to musicals too. There is no drama, only sentimentality.

What do I mean by shallow? Well, that there is no unsavoury content in musicals; when all is said and done, the audience can have a good laugh or cry, cheer and clap and go home completely unchanged; moved only on a superficial level. Contrast this with something like Cosi fan tutte; a play which on a superficial level may appear like pure frivolity, but which makes us feel very awkward and uneasy at times; it shakes our ideas about fidelity, it questions our deep-seated fears of cuckoldery and the possessive nature of romantic love. By the end, not one character comes out looking absolutely pure of heart. In that sense it makes us reflect upon ourselves. Need I mention why the music is so good?

In the musical things seem to be dumbed down; we might sympathise with the Phantom (to take PotO as an example) but we recognise him as evil and essentially a monster - something with which we cannot really identify. Christine is an ingénue (nothing else need be said), Raoul a handsome faultless hero. Every other character is even more pointless and, if not incompetent, then mind-numbingly dull to watch and listen to. Lloyd Webber's music is contrived and imitative of work that expresses the same ideas about 1000 times better.

In Les Miserables, Javert as a character is barely developed, instead he is rendered like a pantomime villain rather than a reflection of his society. Goodies win out in the end; the student revolutionaries are all heroic and have noble motives, the only conflict arises when they confront the faceless evil oppressors. The moral of the piece seems to be 'poverty, oppressive government and persecution are bad, lets bring an end to them' something which barely merits a response besides enthusiastic agreement. So what is the point in saying it? The subtleties and challenging moral questions of the novel are totally lost, in favour of an easily palatable, manipulative experience for a wide audience. See what I mean about shallow?

The music of musicals, if not inspired by catchy pop music, is in some flabby, neo-romantic vein. It mostly fail to communicate any of the stage action, except in vulgar theatrical effects. Contrast that with say, Wozzeck, and you can see that the inner turmoil, thoughts and feelings of the characters are expressed so well through the music that the words are almost unnecessary.

There are musicals I enjoy though; the works of Sondheim are quite good, because they make an attempt to communicate real feeling through the music itself. They are more harmonically and melodically adventurous than most. West Side Story is also fantastic, but then its Bernstein so one can expect that. On the whole though, recognise the musical for what it is; commercial entertainment.

 

I see that the Met has $25 tickets. I also see that you can't book when tickets first go on sale time like everywhere else.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/metropolitan-opera-changes-25-tickets-program/

 

Many probably already know about the "Center for Future Audiences" in Cleveland, which is the result of a large private donation. Lots of cheap tickets for students and young people, and other kinds of outreach. They seem to have been successful in getting young people to attend concerts.

For those interested in the topic:

http://www.clevelandorchestra.com/support-and-volunteers/center-for-future-audiences/

 

I dismiss them (musicals) as shallow and artless because they are overly manipulative. As Sir Peter Maxwell Davies said of War horse, 'it assumed emotions it had not earned'; and I think this applies to musicals too. There is no drama, only sentimentality.

And of course we cannot apply this to Madama Butterfly or any number of other operas.

What do I mean by shallow? Well, that there is no unsavoury content in musicals; when all is said and done, the audience can have a good laugh or cry, cheer and clap and go home completely unchanged; moved only on a superficial level. Contrast this with something like Cosi fan tutte; a play which on a superficial level may appear like pure frivolity, but which makes us feel very awkward and uneasy at times; it shakes our ideas about fidelity, it questions our deep-seated fears of cuckoldery and the possessive nature of romantic love. By the end, not one character comes out looking absolutely pure of heart. In that sense it makes us reflect upon ourselves.

I'm sorry, but for the most part the librettos of the great operas are far from being great literature. The best operas certainly surpass the average musical due to the merits of the music... and there are instances in which the libretto does hold up on its own (Strauss operas and Britten's come to mind). But this says nothing of the merits of the best musicals.

Need I mention why the music is so good?

Yes, the music in the best operas is great...but how many crappy operas have also been penned over the years? There is good and bad in every artistic genre. What we term as "classical music" is not inherently better than the finest work in other genre.

The music of musicals, if not inspired by catchy pop music, is in some flabby, neo-romantic vein. It mostly fail to communicate any of the stage action, except in vulgar theatrical effects. Contrast that with say, Wozzeck, and you can see that the inner turmoil, thoughts and feelings of the characters are expressed so well through the music that the words are almost unnecessary.

Again, you are comparing a single exemplary work of "classical music" with your idea of musicals as a whole. Would you have us believe that "classical music" is not just as laden with mediocre and cliche works... most of which have been thankfully forgotten?

On the whole though, recognise the musical for what it is; commercial entertainment.

Ah! And what is "classical music"? ART all set in capital letters? It seems to me that "classical music" is no less about entertainment than any other musical form.

 

There are a great deal of bad operas, some of them in the standard rep. The difference is that the majority of opera is good and has stood the test of time because it is good.