Skip to main content

Thought(s) for the day; some things never change

During the months of recent self-examination by the opera world and its constant battles with itself and others, it has been easy to forget about the art itself. I do think that in the operatic firmament, there is a great deal wrong (about which, more soon, elsewhere) and at times it can feel quite apocalyptic but there goes along with that a feeling that whatever "problems" exist, they are temporary, cyclical. I suppose we should know relatively soon towards what fate we are all striding, at turns bellicose and defiant, or anxious, self-regarding, timid and supplicant to the great combined Gods of digital and one dimensional new-audience gratification. Paddy Power should open a book.

But what has certainly struck me recently after watching several rehearsals and performances is just how unchanged the art form is on a very simple level. After 25 years of doing it, I am aware that opera is just the same, provokes the same emotions, the same concerns, the same cynical examinations, tastes and professional judgements. I am not talking about the modernisation of productions (after all, we had a production at Holland Park nearly 23 years ago that had Trovatore set in the streets of Belfast) but the simple, visceral concepts, disciplines and effects of opera. I am aware there is no great profundity in this realisation, which is sort of the point.

Unquestionably, there seems to be a school of thought that "singers were better" in the "old days" and nostalgia persists in audience thinking. Yet, we still sit in the theatre and think the very same things we thought years ago about a particular singer, or conductor, director or even individual orchestral players. One still recoils at a particular vocal tone that has its foundation in technical deficiencies that existed 100 years ago, too; you can still hear a bloom (or not) in a voice at roughly the same age as one did decades ago; it is still possible to melt at pictures painted on a stage by a director and his designer or cringe at those you wish they hadn't. As with committed long-time audience members, the ear is trained, refined, able to hear nuance, layers of sound, the vocal inflections and weaknesses and this is of course why we argue so vehemently about certain cross-over artists who we insist are not opera singers. We don't do that because we are snobs, but usually because we know the difference. And the things that make "real" opera singers different are the same as they have been for all time.

Theatrical believability has become a powerful, positive force in opera in the last couple of decades (a discernible change if there is one) and that has given us many interesting things to praise, argue, gnash and snarl about, but opera hasn't really changed that much has it? It may sound counter-intuitive but by bringing theatrical believability and pungency to operatic stages, we have given the thrill of the voice and its age-old manner a new and scintillating context. I would argue we can identify huge developments in television production and styles, in acting itself even, theatrical writing, pop music. But not so in opera - perhaps a loosening of censorious instincts? - and amid the gloom, that should give us more hope than concern. Moreover, we shouldn't be afraid of the foundations that remain either.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gelb and The Met

Having posted a piece that was kind to critics and thus risking opprobrium from all quarters, I suppose I ought to be wary of writing a piece that is sympathetic to the current opera demon, Peter Gelb.  Let us be clear, I don't know what the detailed financial situation at the Met is, I don't know how its budgets are split and allocated, I don't know how much they spend on sets and productions. I just read selective figures used negatively and that is always something we should be wary of.  What Gelb and the Met are going through is probably entirely unique in the opera world given the scale of economics involved and the accusations of mismanagement that are being thrown around are hard to reconcile with some of the realities; it is certainly true, for example, that Gelb has taken the Met's turnover from $222 million to over $300 million in eight years which doesn't immediately suggest mismanagement, but that is as glib and superficial an analysis as anything else I...

Journalists: keep it simple!

An open letter to Eva Wiseman Dear Eva I read your recent piece on the Guardian website ("Is there anything worse than a man who cries") with mounting horror. I also noted the nearly 3,000 outraged comments below it and, I have to say, you brought it all upon yourself. I have no sympathy, but I am happy to help you by explaining where you went wrong. The most important thing to note - and Eva, this will stand you in good stead hitherto should you hold it in mind - this is 2015. Why is that relevant? Well, this isn't 1928, for example, when a book like "A Handbook on Hanging" by Charles Duff could be published and people "get it". And you're no Henry Root, love, let me tell you. And can you imagine what the world would say now if Clive James's line about that Chinese president "whose name sounds like a ricochet in a canyon" was published on Twitter? There would be bedlam. You can't possibly hope to get away with writing a piece t...

My name is Jose Mourinho, and I'm not Special (at the moment)

.....The words that Jose Mourinho needs to utter to himself, the reality he has to face in order to change himself and the fortunes of his team. Such a recalibration of self-image won't be easy for a man who frequently embroiders his press conferences with 'I' and 'My' and references to his past achievements. He is a winner, not a loser and as such won't take easily to his new role, one that has to feature a cold-eyed acceptance that his magic, such as it is, has been diluted.  Mourinho is an egomaniac - not unlike many successful people - but he has an edge of narcissism that makes it difficult for him to see the success of his teams through any prism but his own greatness. When his club wins, "I" win. So when things are not as they should be, Jose takes it personally, as an affront to him, an insult, he is embarrassed. He'll take it out on players, make grand gestures by dropping his best, and he'll search for outside influences - excuses - ...