By Daniel Asia
Over the last few weeks, there has been a simmering ruckus about opera and ballet, the state of affairs with the Washington National Opera, and some musings on contemporary operas.
Timothée Chalamet put opera and ballet down. He said he wouldn’t want to work in ballet or opera, because these fields are ones where people are trying to “keep this thing alive,” saying, “No one cares about this anymore.” Hmm. These are the classical arts, which have always had smaller audiences than popular ones. And yes, they often needed patrons, as they had historically, from the Church, the King, the aristocracy, and then the bourgeoisie. Big deal. That is why we still have Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, but Herman’s Hermits have mostly passed into the ether. There is also something to be said for the serious encounter with real art as opposed to being washed over with affirming twiddle-twaddle. Then there is Charles Murray, who argues in his book Human Accomplishment that some art forms might have already been “filled up,” that there is no more to be said in these genres, be it the novel, the classical music tradition, or even ballet or opera. I doubt this. Any genre only awaits a genius to add to its glories. But those are few and far between at any time in history.
Joshua Katz wrote a piece on the Washington National Opera and its move out of the Kennedy Center, whether for political or fiscal reasons for Polyhymnia. He is, to say the least, unhappy about this turn of events. He is also unhappy that the cancellations of other performers have been made for political reasons, reducing the number of concerts available, as if such cancellations will affect national or Center politics. It is virtue signaling at best. He bemoans that opera is considered elite — hell, one might call Italian operas the folk music of Italy—and still hopes there will be some available to his young daughter. As he says: “…very young children do not generally belong in an opera house. But done right, with colorful sets, imaginative staging, and (when appropriate) good supertitles, opera can be the friendliest form of music for the young, who are, after all, drawn to elaborate stories, costumes, and battles between good and evil.” He thinks the Kennedy Center needs a good opera company and hopes that the WNO, or another, will return to it upon its renovation.
John McWhorter comes to the aid of American opera in a recent op-ed in the New York Times. He says that opera companies needn’t promote difficult operas, but ones in English and that might even have a tune or two in them. I think both are good ideas. As Gunther Schuller observed late in his career, the avant-garde forgot how difficult it is to write a truly compelling musical line—and that music must ultimately move its listener. The goal, after all, is to give the audience goosebumps.
McWhorter lists some older American operas and even mentions a few more contemporary efforts worthy of performance that contain these virtues, although some of those may be a maybe or an almost. For you see, it is hard to write a good opera. The music might be fine, but the libretto stinks— or vice versa. Maybe the composer has no sense of pacing. Most contemporary operas, like most music of any time, aren’t very good. A major problem now is that opera is about its components in the following order: a singer who is a box-office draw, a story or a movie that people already know and is appropriately politically correct, production values, and finally, the music. Formerly, it was about the music first. So yes, Mr. McWhorter, American opera companies, just like American orchestras, should perform more American music for their American audiences. The problem, though, is a matter of taste and discretion in finding the best examples, and that seems to be in limited supply.
Leave a Reply