Arts Administration | American Lyric Theater

Jan

THE AMERICAN-NESS OF AMERICAN OPERA DEPENDS ON AMERICAN AUDIENCES

Inspired by Washington National Opera’s new American opera initiative, and a subsequent article by Anne Midgette in the Washington Post, there has been a lot of discussion online this week about what makes American opera “American.” This question isn’t exactly new – it just gets recycled whenever there is important news in the field that pertains to American opera. Of course, there is no single answer to this question – but I’d like to look at it from what I feel is the most important perspective: the audience.

However, before I launch into that discussion, I have to acknowledge the importance of WNO’s new initiative. When we started the Composer Librettist Development Program (CLDP) at American Lyric Theater in 2007, it was the first full-time mentorship initiative for opera composers and librettists in the country. While there were many excellent smaller-scale mentorship opportunities out there, there was nothing truly full-time before the CLDP. The CLDP still remains the most extensive mentorship program in the country, but I’m thrilled to see producing companies like Philadelphia, Washington and Fort Worth put significant resources behind the mentorship of the next generation of operatic writers. This is truly fantastic news and I hope more opera companies will consider how they can serve the opera field, and their audiences, by finding ways to encourage the development of new work and new artists.

Notice how I just brought up the audience again?

In speaking about Fort Worth Opera’s new initiative, Frontiers, (for which, as a matter of full disclosure, I serve on the panel), FWO’s Music Director, Joe Illick, said,

After each of our productions of Dead Man Walking, Before Night Falls, Angels in America, and Hydrogen Jukebox, our audiences have voiced their fascination with contemporary opera and their desire to learn more about the process of developing and nurturing new works, so this is a stellar opportunity for the public to get a peek behind the curtain at how contemporary opera is born.

There is certainly no coincidence that opera companies around the country are investing in American opera with renewed vigor. The audience wants it – and more importantly (in my opinion), new audiences want it.

In terms of “relevance” to contemporary American audiences, there are a few issues at play. As I always say when discussing ALT’s role in serving the opera field, it is important to remember that that in any country, and in any period of time in which opera was thriving, it was a popular entertainment form, in the language of the people, that passionately engaged and entertained large and diverse segments of the population. If opera is to thrive in the 21st century, we must look back to its roots as a popular entertainment form that developed as a result of the tastes of the societies in which it was produced. However, the idea of what is “relevant” is often confused with what is “recognized”. Both relevance and recognition are important, but play different roles in building participation for opera, and in shaping opera itself.

Thinking about why people go to opera (for the moment, let’s think about people who are already inclined to go), some people are more motivated by the sense of recognition while others are more motivated by a sense of discovery. Traditional audiences tend to lean towards recognition. People who go to Carmen over and over again do so because they love Carmen. They know the music, they know the story, they know they like it, and they know they will have a good time (assuming the production and cast is good). This is about recognition. Even for people who are new to opera, going to Carmen is often about recognition, because they’ve heard of it, and they recognize some of “the tunes.” There may be elements of discovery (ie. discovering a new singer in the title role, discovering a new take on the story through a new production, or for a new person to opera – the discovery of that experience), but the strongest motivator to attendance here tends to be recognition.

The more avid of an opera fan someone is, the more they tend to lean towards the discovery side of the scale. They seek out new experiences in an art form they love: new singers, “old” operas they don’t know, new productions, and for some – new works. This sort of motivation explains fanatics of The Ring who travel around the world to discover new productions – or someone who will go to any Handel opera ever presented, no matter who presents it. Recognition is, of course, mixed in here – but discovery can become the motivational driver to to attend. The Handel lover is going for a combination of recognizing the Handel he or she loves, but primarily to discover a new side to their favorite composer. The Wagner lover is going for their love of The Ring, but we all know how much Wagnerites love to dissect new productions! The balance between recognition and discovery is different in every example you might consider, but it can be very helpful in understanding why people attend different operas.

With new operas, we also have great potential to attract new audiences – in part because the new works are in the language of the people (in the US, English or Spanish), and importantly, because they are often written on subjects that people recognize. For audiences trying opera for the first time, recognition is a powerful tool that shouldn’t be underestimated – and it is often more powerful than relevance, no matter how they are intertwined. But, sometimes the works that attract new audiences don’t appeal to more traditional audiences for a variety of factors. That is fine, as long as companies realize there are often different target markets at play – and while there is often some overlap, the motivations that cause different audience segments to attend are themselves different (as I discussed in detail in my post earlier this month.)

Look at one of the most successful American operas: Mark Adamo’s Little Women. Part of the reason Little Women has been so successful for so many companies (besides the fact that it is a very strong piece musically and theatrically, and it does not require large performing forces) is the recognition factor. Sure, the themes in Little Women are deeply relevant (ie. resistance to change), and Little Women is an American story, but the bottom line is that people recognize the title – even if they don’t actually know the story. That in itself can be the entry point. Most people trying Little Women for the first time don’t know Adamo as a composer or librettist. They are going to see something they think they recognize. Then, when they go, they have a new experience – they discover opera through a story (or a title) that they recognize.

When I commissioned The Golden Ticket, I was thinking a great deal about the recognition factor as a bridge to building participation and enabling discovery. Again, the themes of the story are relevant, but that’s not what was going to drive people to buy tickets. They were going to buy tickets because they were curious about the idea of an opera based on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. At both Opera Theatre of Saint Louis (where the opera premiered), and The Wexford Festival in Ireland (where it received its second mounting), The Golden Ticket attracted more diverse audiences than for other season offerings. This was by design – not by luck or circumstance. The Golden Ticket is based on one of the world’s most famous books, but it is not an “American” story. Dahl was born in Wales and his most famous books were written in the UK. Of course, the book was made more famous by American movies. The composer of The Golden Ticket is American (Peter Ash), but the librettist is British (Donald Sturrock). It is considered an American opera because it was written by an American composer and developed and premiered by American companies – but what really makes it “American” besides that – and is that really important?

The “American-ness” from an opera can come from being relevant and/or recognizable in its subject matter, but it also can come from musical style and the theatrical style (potentially in the libretto, the music, as well as the way in which a piece is staged). X, the Life and Times of Malcolm X is a wonderful “American” opera by Anthony Davis – but not just because of the subject matter. The use of American musical vernacular contributes to its “Americanness”. Some would argue that X is more “American” than Little Women – but does it really matter? In Wexford, some reviewers thought The Golden Ticket was “too American” – not because of the story, but because of the musical style, and the production itself. Of course, the level of The Golden Ticket’s “American-ness” was not an issue in the US! Then there is Anna Nicole, an “American” opera, written by Turnage which premiered in London. How “American” is Anna Nicole? And again, does it matter? When thinking about all of these operas, I’d rather ask these questions: Did the audiences enjoy them? What type of audiences did they attract? Were they exciting both musically and theatrically? Will they be produced again?

American opera draws from many sources of inspiration. Relevance and recognition play roles in understanding audience behavior for both traditional repertoire and new works, and at the same time, they shape the artistic nature of the works themselves – whether or not they are written by Americans or in America. Generating new work is crucial, as is the development and promotion of American artists and new American work. If we want to strengthen audiences for opera, that new work can be a very useful tool. However, it is equally important to understand what motivates participation in opera, and the different audience segments (or ‘target markets’) that make up our existing and potential audiences.

With all of my discussion of market orientation, you might think I have lost sight of the passion behind what makes opera OPERA – let alone “American” opera. Of course, I love opera. I simply feel it is necessary – especially in this environment where opera companies are going bankrupt, suspending their seasons, and having trouble with their governance structures and business models – to remember that consumer preference has shaped opera since its inception. When we start thinking about “American-ness” in opera, I think that audience preference needs to be at the forefront of that discussion.

In its earliest years, opera served to enhance the rule of dynasties and the power of cardinals in Rome, but, when it moved north to Venice and was opened to the public, it underwent a radical transformation that was clearly guided by new audiences. These audiences were not seeking to glorify anyone but themselves. Their attendance at opera was purely for pleasure. Opera quickly became a commercial enterprise – a source of popular entertainment. Opera had to adjust itself in order to survive and ultimately thrive. Remember from my earlier post that the first opera house was opened in Venice in 1637, presenting commercial opera and run for profit! It offered new entertainment to anyone who could afford a ticket. By the end of the seventeenth century, Venice had sixteen opera houses open to the general public.

The new consumers of opera enjoyed the previously emphasized lavish scenic effects, but solo singing grew tremendously in importance. Composers strove more and more to exploit the versatility and virtuosity of the human voice. Using the voice in this way was actually not initially driven by artistic principles, but rather by audience demand. Consumer preference shaped the output of the Venetian composers, who then voiced those preferences through their individual artistic gifts. Audience preferences dictated, to a great extent, the commercial success of the operas that were presented. Wherever opera found a new home, these preferences, and the commercial effects of utilizing and taking advantage of these preferences, guided the continual development of the form. (Weiss 34) Why then, should contemporary opera administrators balk at the idea of allowing audience preferences to shape opera today?

The “marketing mindset” is frowned upon by many in the artistic community, who assert that the development and presentation of art should not be dictated by the fluctuating tastes of audiences. However, ignoring audience tastes would ultimately lead to the complete extinction of any art form. Throughout operatic history, composers, librettists and impresarios have understood the importance of their audiences. Some of the most significant musicological and theatrical changes in opera history were motivated by the devotion – whether conscious or unconscious – to the consumer. We can learn a great deal by looking back at some of our predecessors who can teach us that adopting what is essentially a marketing mindset does not have to be destructive. In fact, such a mindset can inform and enhance an art form’s very development – and its stability and viability in society.

OPERA: THE COMMERCIAL ART? HOW CONSUMERS HAVE SHAPED OPERA THROUGHOUT HISTORY

It is widely accepted that opera was borne out of the desire to create a performing genre based on Greek tragedy. The myths that served as the basis for Greek tragedies (including the stories of the house of Atreus, upon which The Oresteia was based) were ancient legends. The audience for Greek tragedies knew all of the stories upon which the “new plays” were based. It was a part of their heritage, and a part of their consciousness. Opera’s antecedent was based on a link to consumer consciousness. Furthermore, the activities of the members of the Florentine Camerata, who were responsible for the codification of what we now consider opera, were strongly tinged with consumer orientation. According to musicologist Susan McClary, “despite the humanistic red herrings proffered by Peri, Caccini [members of the Camerata] and others to the effect that they were reviving Greek performance practices, these gentlemen knew very well that they were basing their new reciting style on the improvisatory practices of contemporary popular music. Thus the eagerness with which the humanist myth was constructed and elaborated sought both to conceal the vulgar origins of its techniques and to flatter the erudition of its cultivated patrons.”(qtd. in Storey 32)

In the century that followed, operatic reform in Vienna – most often viewed from the perspective of the works of Gluck – was one of the most influential theatrical-musical developments, predicated in great part by consumer preferences. During the eighteenth century, operatic libretti underwent a substantial transformation, most visibly in the works of Pietro Metastasio who had “purged the operatic libretto of its trivialities and made it “regular”, worthy even of comparison with the masterpieces of French tragedy.”(Weiss 115). Close on the heels of libretto reform was musical reform that was propelled by critical voices that “complained of the rigidity of the new operatic conventions, which, among other things, tended to indulge a new breed of superstar singers by focusing all the musical expression in da capo arias.” (Weiss 115). In Vienna, Gluck’s musical reform was accompanied by a reform in staging through the composer’s collaboration with choreographer Gasparo Angiolini and scholar Ranieri Calzabigi. Although Orfeo ed Euridice, the first “reform opera” resulting from this collaboration, remains their most famous and lasting achievement, preparations for the second Gluck-Calzabigi opera, Alceste, provided the opportunity for Calzabigi to berate the staging and musical conventions of Metastasio’s works that he felt would be avoided in his work with Gluck:

Since these [Metastasio’s] dramas, could not, in performance, please the mind, they had need to entertain the senses: the eye by the sight of live horses in cardboard forests, by real battles fought on painted battlefields, by conflagrations of colored paper; the ear by using the voices as if they were violins and producing whole concertos with the human mouth alone, thus giving rise to that musical gargling with in Naples they call trocciolette (because it closely resembles the noise of the wheels passing over the ropes of a pulley) – and a mass of other musical whimsies comparable to those stone tidbits with which Gothic architecture decorated, or rather disfigured, its monuments and which, once so admired, are now objects of laughter and contempt to anyone who bothers to stop and look at them. And to make room for these strange embellishments the poet lent himself to the filling of his librettos with similes involving storms, tempests, lions, war horses, and nightingales which fit about as well into the mouths of passionate, desperate, or furious heroes as beauty spots, powder, makeup, and diamonds on the face, head and neck of an ape. (qtd. in Weiss 117)

Calzabigi continues to attack the operatic conventions that he feels audiences should not have to endure, and which he and Gluck set out to change:

There [in the dramas of Metastasio] it is a matter not whether a character in the drama is sung by a Farinelli, Caffarelli, [etc.] since the audience does not expect nor demand from the singers more than a couple of arias and a duet, without even pretending to make out all the words, having from the start abandoned all hope of taking an interest in the action; no one; after all, can listen attentively for five hours to six performers, four of whom are usually so inept that they hardly know how to enunciate[...] As for the utterly unnatural philosophizing heroes of the type of Metastasio’s Horace, Themistocles, Cato, and Romulus, the like of which are not to be met in this world, about them I prefer to hold my tongue all together. (qtd. in Weiss 117)

Although we now look upon historical works with admiration rather than as “objects of laughter and contempt”, it is clear that Calzabigi felt that his audiences were demanding something different than what tradition was providing. Similarly, we should allow ourselves to be in tune with what our audiences want and can relate to. Calzabigi felt strongly that he understood his audiences’ needs, and his work with Gluck strove to meet those needs – the very essence of the basic consumer behavior model, fulfilling a target group’s wants and needs. Of Alceste, he wrote that “the duration is limited to what does not tire or make the attention wander. The plots are simple, not romanticized; a few verses are enough to inform the spectators of the progress of the action which is never double, in servile, uncalled-for obedience to the silly rule concerning the secondo uomo and seconda donna when not needed. Reduced to the dimensions of Greek tragedy, they have therefore the unique advantage of exciting terror and pity in the same way as spoken tragedy.” (qtd. in Weiss 117)

Regardless of how we now perceive works like Alceste, in their time, Gluck and Calzabigi were striving to break away from established convention, not merely to be innovators, but to serve the drama and appeal to the preferences of their audiences. Calzabigi himself acknowledges the value of his audiences’ opinions: “If this new plan[...] should find the approval of the public[...] it is essential to adhere to it and not to confound it with that of Signor Metastasio, because ornaments for brunettes do not suit blondes.” (qtd. in Weiss 118) Though the reform of Gluck and Calzabigi was not met unequivocally with praise, they clearly had identified that an audience existed for their reform operas, and, as they developed their skills in this new genre, the audience grew.

For English speaking audiences in eighteenth century London, Ballad Opera was immensely popular. It reached everyone, “by using well-known airs, everyday characters, and spoken dialogue[...]”. (Kirk 14) The Beggar’s Opera by John Gay was the catalyst for the popularity of the Ballad Opera form. During its first season, it ran for sixty-two nights, the longest run that any show enjoyed on the English stage for almost a century. Its audience appeal was clear, spawning more than one hundred similar works to be written in an imitative fashion between 1728 and 1750. (Kirk 14) This was clearly a popular art form. While satirizing the Italian operatic tradition, the English composers and librettists had found a way to adapt the music-theater format based on the tastes of their audiences.

In the Romantic era of the following century, Verdi biographer Abramo Basevi asserts that the composer was primarily concerned with communicating with his public:

[After 1848] there was a change in Verdi’s genius, rendering him more attuned to the new period. The exaggeration that had often been condemned in Verdi’s music was much toned down. As if by instinct, Verdi recognized that recent events had, if not mitigated the passions, at least held them in check; minds were not so strongly moved, and therefore there was less occasion for those violent modes that were so frequently used before. And this new universal feeling being now implanted in Verdi, the result was that his new music assumed a different aspect, so well defined and distinct as to deserve the character of a second manner.(qtd. in Weiss 191)

In effect, Verdi was trying to appeal to the consciousness of his audience. Interestingly, Basevi voiced strong objections to some of Verdi’s choice of subject matter. Macbeth was attacked for its excursions into the supernatural; Rigoletto berated as shocking on moral grounds; but La Traviata, which continues to be one of the most popular operas around the globe, was deemed by the biographer to be truly horrific. However, offended as he may have been personally, Basevi clearly understood part of the reason for La Traviata’s instant appeal. He wrote that “Verdi was unable to resist the temptation of setting to music, and so making more attractive and acceptable, a filthy and immoral subject, universally loved because today the vice it represents is universal[...]”(qtd. in Weiss 193) Basevi continues by contrasting Verdi’s work with that of Bellini, and in so doing emphasizes how both composers were in tune with their audiences’ preferences, while also reinforcing why La Traviata resonated (and continues to resonate) so strongly with audiences:

The difference in the love which Bellini and Verdi depicted in their music is testimony to the different sensibilities at the respective times of the two composers…If in Norma Bellini portrayed a guilty woman, he presents her to us so blinded by passion that she cannot see the enormity of her sin. And in any case, Norma’s guilt offends us less, since the remoteness of the time and difference of customs make it harder for our conscience to identify with hers. Which is not the case with La Traviata, where we find characters not only close to us in time and customs, but also of the same [social] condition. (qtd. in Weiss 193)

As is clear, consumer orientation was not limited to any particular country or style of operatic composition. In The Art Work of the Future, Richard Wagner wrote in detail about his views on opera and drama. Even Wagner, with his truly revolutionary approach to opera, considered the needs, tastes and consciousness of his audiences as he developed his unique Gesamtkunstwerk. Wagner was often able to distill his elaborate theories into very simple and clear thoughts. He wrote that “true drama is thinkable only as the consequence of the common urge of all the arts to communicate in the most direct way with a common public[...]”(qtd. in Weiss 205). Wagner’s writing bears repeating here, as it so articulately explains his belief that art should come from the people and be for the people. Although Wagner might not have considered himself a marketer, he clearly understood the basic psychological needs that must propel the product portion of the marketing equation, as well as the imposed hierarchy of culture and the societal issues that we continue to battle with today:

If we examine the relation of modern art – insofar as it is truly art – to public life, we will at once realize how totally unsuited it is to influence that public life in terms of its noblest aspiration. The reason is that, as a merely cultural product, it has not really sprung from life and so, as a hothouse plant, cannot possibly take root in the natural soil and natural climate of the present age. Art has become the private property of an artist class; the pleasure it provides is reserved to those who understand it, and understanding it requires a special study remote from real life, the study of art scholarship. This study, and the understanding accruing from it, everybody nowadays thinks he has acquired when he has got the money with which to pay for the proffered artistic pleasures: but whether the majority of today’s art lovers are able to understand the artist at his best is a question the artist, if asked, can only answer with a deep sigh. But should he consider the vastly greater mass of those whom our unfavorable social conditions exclude in every way from an understanding or simply the enjoyment of modern art, then today’s artist would have to realize that all his artistic striving is basically a selfish, complacent striving wholly for its own sake, that his art is, in terms of public life, nothing but a luxury, a redundant, self-gratifying pastime. The gap, observed daily and bitterly lamented, between the so-called educated and uneducated is so tremendous, a mediation between them so unthinkable, a reconciliation so impossible, that with a little honesty, modern art, based as it is on that education, should in deepest shame admit it owes its existence to a life element that in turn owes its existence to the deep ignorance of the real mass of humanity. The only thing modern art, in its present circumstances, should accomplish, and attempts to in honest hearts, namely the diffusion of culture, it cannot, for the simple reason that art, in order to affect life, must blossom from a natural culture, that is one that has grown from below; it can never pour culture down from above. In the best of cases our cultured art resembles a man who tries to communicate with people in a foreign tongue they do not understand: everything he says, and especially his cleverest remarks, can only lead to the most laughable confusion and misunderstandings.(qtd. in Weiss 203)

Two of the great Russian operatic composers, Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich, were also well attuned to the preferences and sensibilities of their audiences. In an article authored by Shostakovich prior to the American premiere of his opera Lady Macbeth of Mtzensk, the composer explained his reasons for choosing his subject matter:

Why did I select just this novel by Nikolai Leskov… First, because very little of our heritage in Russian classic literature had been utilized in the development of Soviet opera. Second – and this was most important – because Leskov’s narrative is imbued with rich dramatic and social content…As a Soviet composer, I determined to preserve the strength of Leskov’s novel, and yet, approaching it critically, to interpret its events from our modern point of view. (qtd. in Weiss 298)

Shostakovich clearly had an affinity for his subject matter, but, equally important, this affinity represented a link to the consciousness of a substantial portion of society and direct recognition of the source material. His opera represented an ideal intersection of recognition and relevance for his audiences, as can be attested to by the fact that at one point in 1936 (four years after its premiere), three separate productions were playing simultaneously in Moscow. (Weiss 301)

We are very fortunate that many of Tchaikovsky’s letters during the period surrounding the composition and premiere of Eugene Onegin are extant. In them, Tchaikovsky demonstrates a clear understanding of how factors of recognition and relevance of subject matter are crucial to audience acceptance of a new work. Pushkin’s verse novel, published in its final form in 1837, was a treasured piece of Russian cultural heritage. Tchaikovsky was clearly inspired by Pushkin’s work, and throughout the opera’s genesis, aesthetic considerations continually permeated the composer’s thoughts. He was excited to be writing about something relevant to his audiences: “You won’t believe what a frenzy I have got myself into over this subject. How glad I am to be spared Ethiopian princesses, Pharaohs, poisonings, and all kinds of stilted mannerisms.” (qtd. in Weiss 217)

It should be noted that even though Tchaikovsky was aware of his audience’s affinity for his literary source, he felt that the strongest motivation to compose had to come from within. He wrote that “I cannot understand at all how anyone could write intentionally either for the masses or for the elect; my view is that one should compose in direct response to one’s own inclination and with no thought of pleasing this or that section of humanity.”(qtd. in Weiss 218) Despite Tchaikovsky’s statement, Eugene Onegin is undoubtedly one of the most beloved Russian operas ever written. The fact that the composer did not feel that he was consciously trying to appeal to a specific segment of the population does not negate the fact that he was aware of the potential appeal of his work.

Journalist and author John Seabrook observes that throughout history, “art created for idealistic reasons, in apparent disregard for the marketplace, was judged superior to art made to sell. For the artist it was not enough to have a gift for giving the people what they wanted; to insure fame, the artist had to pretend not to care what the people wanted. This was difficult to do, for the artist, of every type, is as desperate for public approval as any human being. Oscar Wilde was a famous example of this paradox. In his essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism he wrote: ‘A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. The moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman.’ Of course, Wilde himself knew exactly what people wanted and how to give it to them; he used his essays to camouflage that facility.” (Seabrook 69) Tchaikovsky’s posture may, in fact, have been similar to Oscar Wilde’s “defense” of his own works that had significant public appeal.

Tchaikovsky was actually an acutely insightful marketer who understood that the success or failure of his work hinged on its acceptance by the public. Prior to its premiere at the Conservatory, Tchaikovsky completed a piano version of the score. Wondering how he could help ensure that the opera got a firm foothold with his audiences, Tchaikovsky wrote what could be considered a brief marketing plan complete with his rationale:

It seems to me that this opera is more likely to be successful in private houses and perhaps even on concert platforms than on large stages; for this reason the fact that it will be published long before going into the repertoire of the large theaters is not unfavorable. The success of the opera must begin from below not from above, i.e. it is not the theater which will make it known to the public but, on the contrary, if the public gradually gets to know it, it may come to like it and then the theater will put the opera on to satisfy a public demand. (qtd. in Weiss 220)

Moving to the United States, the beginning of the twentieth century and the end of the Romantic era ushered in the advent of the motion picture industry, and contemporary operatic forms quickly responded to the new technology and audience’s reactions to the new art form. Writing in 1923, Eugene Adrian Farner, who composed the one-act opera The White Buffalo Maiden, commented on opera’s affinities with the aesthetics and methodology of early film. In fact, he went so far as to list ways that composers, librettists and producers could make opera more relevant and in tune with audiences’ changing sensibilities:

a. Brevity (one hour); avoiding narrative in recitative, using instead pantomime with musical accompaniment; condensation of material to a series of “big screens” with opportunities for each singer, the chorus, and orchestra; by

b. Being to the point – striving for the self-unconscious naturalness of Gilbert and Sullivan, the direct and simple description of Gluck; the vocal opportunity in Mozart, the action of the “movies”; by

c. Use of small cast, small chorus and small orchestra, facilitating productions on tour; and by

d. A full measure of popular dramatic interest.(qtd. in Kirk 169)

For many composers during the early 1900s, motion pictures were a new, American form of opera. “Most of Hollywood’s finest film scores of the period were composed by European musicians such as Max Steiner, Dimitri Tiomkin, Franz Waxman and Erich Korngold. Numerous young American-born symphonic and opera composers also went to Hollywood during the 1930s to try their hands at the thriving new dramatic art. Their work in films played a role in their creative process within opera. “I have tried a new kind of opera,” wrote George Antheil about his fast-moving, farcical Volpone, “an opera style influenced by the pacing which the public in general has wanted since its taste has been educated or corrupted by… the movies and, now, television. In short, opera which is less static on stage.” The British composer Constant Lambert also noted parallels between opera and film: “Films have the emotional impact for the twentieth century that operas had for the nineteenth… D.W. Griffith is our Puccini, Cecil B. DeMille our Meyerbeer”. (Kirk 255). Even today, the influence of mass entertainment forms such as film and television, and the market driven shape of those forms, continue to be felt in the opera house. Designer John Conklin observed that many of the changes taking place in contemporary opera have been predicated by what is happening in one of society’s predominant sources of entertainment, the cinema. “You seldom find a three-or four-act opera like in the nineteenth century, rather lots and lots of shorter scenes[...] The musical and dramatic form of opera is changing, therefore so is the method of presentation.” (qtd. in Kirk 325)

In tandem with the artistic developments that were a response to new forms of popular entertainment, beginning in the 1940’s, American opera took another turn that was based a great deal on audiences’ tastes. “American verismo composers centered action around plausible, everyday characters and brought them into focus through richly expressive melodic and orchestral means in a form of music drama that has enlarged the repertoire of opera houses across the nation[...] Gods, the nobility, Byronic heroes, and ancient legends have little place in verismo. The focus is on the here and now – elements with which an audience can strongly sympathize.” (Kirk 253-4) The positive reception of Gian Carlo Menotti’s music-theater works on Broadway, including his American verismo masterpiece The Consul, can give us additional food for thought.

In 1947, the short operas The Telephone and The Medium by Menotti were the first American operas to be recorded in their entirety and among the earliest to achieve a successful Broadway run. (Kirk 387) Menotti understood that American audiences have preexisting ideas about what opera is, and that those internal beliefs serve as barriers to participation. He and his producers did a number of things to combat these pre-conceptions. Most notably, they took “opera” out of the “opera-house”. The link between the consciousness of his intended audience and the opera house as a performing venue was highly negatively charged. It was no coincidence that his greatest successes were produced on Broadway prior to entering the repertoire of opera companies around the world. On Broadway, presented as a “musical drama”, The Consul enjoyed enormous critical and popular success. The Consul was in English, based on topical subject matter linked to the consciousness of contemporary audiences, and written in a highly theatrical style. During the 1949-50 season, The Consul won both the New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award and the Pulitzer Prize. After its initial 269 performances in New York, the work was staged in London, Paris, Berlin, Zurich and Milan. In 1961, The Consul became the first Broadway production to be prepared exclusively for pay-per-view television. (Kirk 259) Menotti’s understanding of both audience preferences and audience barriers to participation enabled him to create a work in an environment that presented the best potential for both artistic and fiscal success.

Like Menotti, Carlisle Floyd writes his own libretti and has an innate sense of theater that is informed by the public. Floyd asserts that “to know his subjects he must remain in contact with the public.” (Kirk 290) He also understands that the subject matter of an opera has, in some way, to link itself to the consciousness of the audience for whom it is being written: “A libretto should make some comment on contemporary life and timeless human problems[...]”(qtd. in Kirk 290) This can clearly be seen in the choice of his literary sources in such works as Wuthering Heights after Brontë, Markeheim after Stevenson, Of Mice and Men after Steinbeck, and Cold Sassy Tree after Burns. Even his operas not based on famous literary works were always based on stories with which he personally felt an affinity, and that he knew he could create in a way that would speak to his audiences.

New York City Opera’s emphasis on the American folk opera idiom of the 1950s, best embodied in the works of Floyd, Copland, and Moore, was an outgrowth of the period from 1936 to 1942, the years of the Great Depression’s Federal Music Project that encouraged reaching to the far corners of America in the simplest terms possible. (Kirk 291) In the decades that followed, these folk-like influences had little place in the consciousness of audiences, hence they no longer found a footing in the minds of the majority of creative artists working in opera. Themes for libretti of the period became more sophisticated and philosophical, reflecting the increased level of sophistication of the audience.

Between 1958 and 1967, the Metropolitan Opera premiered three American works: Samuel Barber’s Vanessa and Antony and Cleopatra; and Marvin David Levy’s Mourning Becomes Electra. Barber’s Antony and Cleopatra, commissioned for the opening of the new Metropolitan Opera at Lincoln Center, received more publicity worldwide than any other American opera had ever received before. The New York Times reported that it was a grandiose spectacle “situated on the cosmic scale somewhere above the primeval atom that caused the original Big Bang, and somewhere below the creation of the Milky Way.”(qtd. in Kirk 298) Franco Zeffirelli’s over the top staging was the epitome of grandiose spectacle. The social occasion and visual elements of the production overshadowed the music, and the blame for the failure of the opera fell, many feel unjustly, on the composer. Barber himself admitted that “the Met overproduced it[...] What I wrote and what I envisioned had nothing to do with what one saw on that stage. Zeffirelli wanted horses and goats and two hundred soldiers, which he got, and he wanted elephants, which fortunately he didn’t get. The point is, I had very little control – practically none… On the other hand, management supported every idea of Zeffirelli’s.”(qtd. in Kirk 298) Zeffirelli had been chosen by the Met as librettist and director because they felt his style would be in sync with audiences’ interest in extravagant historical romances, but the Met was behind the times. Audiences of the 1960’s were no longer mesmerized by historical romance, but the Met’s lack of attention to the shift in audience priorities helped contribute to a disaster. Interestingly, the opera was revised in 1975 by Barber and Menotti to better conform to audience tastes. The opera was shortened by an hour, and the cast was drastically downsized. In effect, the composer’s understanding of audience preferences dramatically improved the artistic quality of the work, which has subsequently been produced and recorded with great success.

During the tenure of Julius Rudel (1957-1979), New York City Opera became the most important producer of contemporary American opera. New works were commissioned on a large-scale basis, several American works were recorded or telecast, and entire seasons were devoted to operas by American composers. In selecting works for New York City Opera’s initial American Opera seasons, Rudel says that he made a concerted effort to avoid “pale copies of European 19th century operatic writing which did not, in most cases, warrant further exposure.” New York City Opera produced ten world premieres during the 1960’s, all by American composers who represented a broad spectrum of the nation’s creative processes that were “lucidly informed by American tastes.”(Kirk 304)

One of the most remarkable operas produced by New York City Opera was mounted in 1986 under the administration of Christopher Keene: Anthony Davis’s X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X. The reaction of many people to Davis’s opera (as well as other works that centered around contemporary figures) demonstrates one of the principal problems that we continue to deal with: What is opera as an American form? Composer John Adams commented that people often told him of their uncomfortable surprise that he and Davis were using stories from contemporary life as subjects for operas: “It’s always asked with eyebrows slightly raised, as much as to say, ‘When are you going to write a real opera, about King Lear or Oedipus?’ If opera is going to stay alive, these kinds of issues that Anthony has chosen are what’s needed.” (qtd. in Kirk 353).

Of course, King Lear and Oedipus are timeless classics that speak to many aspects of the human condition – of course they are “relevant”, but they do not have contemporary immediacy for the majority of the American population. How many people under 25 do you know who have read either of these great plays – or seen them – and of those who have, how many did so without being forced by an English or Classics teacher in High School? When King Lear and Oedipus were the type of topics that were the focus of librettists and composers, they were subjects that audiences could relate to, because they were figures that were readily in the consciousness of the society for which the works were being written. Classics like these are not part of the cultural conversation of a significant portion of contemporary American society. The extraordinary works of Davis and Adams appealed (and continue to appeal) only in part to traditionalists, but have opened the world of opera as living, contemporary and relevant music theater to a host of new audiences. Just as Davis and Adams re-introduced very contemporary subject matter to American audiences, they freely interpolated musical language from the world of jazz, rock, Motown and other vernacular American sounds, further solidifying the links between their works and the aural consciousness of contemporary American audiences.

From 1974 to 2005, the most successful producer of new American operas was certainly Houston Grand Opera under the leadership of David Gockley, and perhaps the company’s greatest success story was Mark Adamo’s Little Women. Since its premiere in 1998, Little Women has unprecedentedly received over 60 subsequent mountings or new productions internationally. With a work based on a famous American literary source, before the curtain goes up, there is already an association built into people’s minds. As previously discussed, this is not based on relevance (although the themes or Little Women remain relevant), but on recognition. Adamo points out that Terrence McNally would argue that all musical theater needs such an association. Speaking of a New York Times article that was written prior to the New York premiere of the opera Dead Man Walking, Adamo explains that McNally feels that “the idea of an original opera, an original piece, is encountered so much less frequently, than in plays[...] His argument is that the complexity of the form, the richness of the form, is such that an audience needs or wants more than something else, some kind of simple core to which to relate everything else that revolves around it – because there is a lot going on around them.”

Mark points out, however, that, when the link between a literary antecedent and the audiences is strong, it can also be a trap for composers and opera companies:

A title can only take you so far. A title will take you to a brochure, and to an opening, but if you haven’t written that piece as though it were an original piece, if you don’t really feel like your piece absolutely has to stand on its’ own and be as convincing as if the book never existed, then you’re in trouble. And so what happened with [Little Women] is that I couldn’t find my way into it forever… then finally, when I found my way back into it, I brought it back to Washington [to the company that had originally commissioned it] and it seemed so radical that they didn’t want to do it… suddenly I had an opera that I really wanted to do, and no company. Whereas I had started not wanting to do an opera at all, let alone work on this piece, but the company was asking me to do it[...] I do think that that kind of title is one way of [initiating interest], but I think what is more important for an audience is that it is approached by the [composer and librettist] as if it is contemporary as a theater piece[...] There is an American opera that I had heard recently, and it was a beautiful gloss of Rosenkavalier. It was sung in American English, and it was beautifully done, but you were so aware of the writer’s love for the Vienna of eighty years ago that it felt more remote than it should have, given that it was in the language of audience[...] It was the love of Opera as long ago and far away[...] that’s the problem. And that has very little to do with modernism, or a book coming in, or any of those things. It has to do with the idea - do you think of opera as a contemporary form or do you not – and that is one of the things, I think, that helped Little Women. Because the title could have set you up for the 30’s movie. The title could have set you up for a wonderful nostalgia, sepia toned thing and it would have been DOA[...] Once I got actually to the libretto phase, one thing I did was, write [it] first as a contemporary play. Period. I [did not] worry about anachronism, at all. Then I [went] back and took out just the anachronisms that would place it in this century and then I looked for, in the book, any possible turns of phrases that could antique it, just enough, so that it would feel credible as a 19th century piece. Not trying to make it historically correct. Not trying to make it feel like it was written in the 19th century, because with all the tone clusters[...] the score does the same thing[...] There’s a little bit of 19th century contour, but for the most part, if the piece were set today, I would have written the same music – and I think that is important.

Note how often Mark refers to the audience…

David Gockley similarly believes that a link to the consciousness of the audience you are trying to serve can be vital in the creation of new works if audience development is one of your primary goals. In a discussion I had with him in 2004, he pointed out that Daniel Catán’s Salsipuedes, did not fare as well at the box office as the company had hoped, despite the enormous success that the composer’s previous opera had at the company. For Salsipuedes, there was no frame of reference for the majority of segments that make up the opera’s audience. For the portion of consumers who knew and admired Catán’s work, Salsipuedes may have been an obvious purchase, but as Salsipuedes was only Catán’s second opera for the company, the consciousness link between the composer and the audience was minimal. His previous work, Florencia en el Amazonas, was based on the writings of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The fact that the work was inspired by a famous author, as well as the publicity surrounding the company’s first Spanish language work in a city with a significant Hispanic population, undoubtedly had a positive influence on ticket sales. Gockley pointed out that “Salsipuedes did not do as well as Florencia, which did not do as well as Cold Sassy Tree, which did not do as well as Harvey Milk, which did not do as well as Little Women and The Little Prince.” Though there is no proof that the link is causal, there is definitely a direct correlation between the depth of the link of an opera’s subject matter (both in relevance and recognition) to the consciousness of specific target audiences.

HISTORICAL EXCEPTIONS AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US TODAY

Of course, throughout history, there have been great operatic masterpieces that were clearly NOT guided by existing audience preferences. Sometimes, artists define the new expectations of the audience through artistic innovation. I’m not suggesting that opera has always been exclusively guided by market factors, or that it should be now. So what is the point of this little and highly selective survey of opera history?

Opera companies around the country are really struggling to find their place in contemporary American society. Part of the problem is that opera is still often produced predominantly as a “museum” art form. Market orientation has been a friend to opera in the past. I’m simply suggesting that we can learn a lot from our audiences – if we are willing to listen. Audience preference has helped opera in many ways in the past, and the future of opera in the United States depends on keeping our ears open to the audiences we hope to serve. Even as we innovate on stage, we have to be listening to and looking at our audiences. The audience is as instrumental to the future as is the art.

New “American” works, developed with the tastes and preferences of contemporary “American” audiences, can be a very powerful tool in attracting new audiences to opera. As I discussed in my post on audience segmentation and perceptions, diversification of the audience base for audience is crucial for survival. But this goes beyond new works.

Where and how we present opera needs to be examined as well – whether we are talking about new works, or the core, foreign language operatic repertoire. The traditional producing model for opera companies is based on an outdated European model. Where do contemporary American audiences want to see their opera? How do they want to dress? What time do they want to go? Who do they want to go with? How do they want to act? While I’ve focused on the “product” – opera itself – in this post, consumer preference in delivery of “the product” is crucial – and that is something that is undergoing a lot of change as well. The first company that comes to mind is Long Beach Opera, who have developed a reputation of creating stellar productions in extremely non-traditional spaces (Opera in a swimming pool? Why not!) But this subject deserves a post all of its own.

The most important take away here? American opera relies on American audiences. There are so many ways an opera can be “American” – but without an audience, American opera will cease to exist.

BOOKS REFERENCED:

Kirk, Elise K. American Opera. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001.

Seabrook, John. Nob®ow: The Culture of Marketing and The Marketing of Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 2001.

Storey, John. ““Expecting Rain”: Opera as Popular Culture?.” High-Pop: Making Culture into Popular Entertainment. Ed. Jim Collins. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. 32-55.

Weiss, Piero. Opera: A History in Documents. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Categories : Arts Administration, Commissions, Marketing, The Golden Ticket, Workshops

Comments (0)

Jan

TWO NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS FOR OPERA COMPANIES

By Lawrence Edelson · Comments (0)

As we begin the new year, I’d like to propose Two New Year’s Resolutions for Opera Companies that I guarantee, if truly embraced, will increase both earned and unearned income, and will make them more valuable members of the communities they serve:

Get to really know the market for opera in your community – and explore segmentation and targeting strategies that are not based solely on socio-demographic factors.
Take time to understand the perceptions that influence consumer behavior when it comes to opera – and accept that even though some perceptions may not be realities, they are still dramatically impacting the potential for your company to serve the public.

In order for opera companies to be successful, they must really know the market for opera in their communities. Knowing the market impacts not only programming choices for the primary season offerings, but also decisions related to educational programs, community engagement, and ancillary programs – not to mention fundraising, which, of course, is intricately linked to understanding the different constituencies that a company serves – and has the potential to serve. So why don’t more opera companies have a better understanding of their communities? The answer requires going into some depth – so this post is a bit on the long side – but it ties together the themes I explored in my two posts last month: Opera’s Depopularization and Marketing and Advertising are not the Same Thing.

Knowing the market may seem obvious, but many companies do not really understanding the type of information that they should – and can – gather. Often, market research at opera companies involves finding out preferences, such as people’s favorite operas, their favorite singers, and their preferred performance times. Other commonly collected information includes age, ethnicity, and income. While this information is all valuable, it is not always actionable, and it does not provide companies with crucial information that they need to know.

While not quite “new” anymore, the 2001 RAND study, A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts, has some exceptional advice for arts organizations. The study suggests that companies must recognize the connections among three central elements of the participation process: participation goals; target populations; and factors relevant to the decision making process. Before launching into this discussion further, it is important to note that “participation” is not simply about attending performances. While purchasing tickets is one participation activity, doing an activity is a form of participation, as is volunteering and donating. Hence the interrelationship between this discussion and fundraising strategy.

WHAT ARE THE GOALS?

The first step an opera company must take is to identify their participation goals. It is very common for arts organizations to make the mistake of oversimplifying their goals, such as simply setting a goal of increasing audience attendance for their season. The RAND study outlines three distinct goals: diversifying participation, broadening participation, and deepening participation. The target population for each goal is different, and the factors relevant to the decision making process are also different. Therefore, an essential first step is to establish and clearly understand what a company’s goals are in order to establish strategies that align those goals to the tactics necessary to engage target populations given the factors unique to each population. For example, simply setting the goal of increasing attendance doesn’t address whether this involves bringing new people to the opera (diversifying), or getting current attendees to come more often (deepening). The target populations for each of these two sub-goals is actually very different, and equally important, the relevant factors involved in their decision making processes are also different. Hence, the strategies to engage them must be different. Oversimplification of the goal results in oversimplification of the process required to really achieve the desired results! The RAND study concurs with the assertions of many marketing and management professionals, including Thomas Wolf, who insists that an understanding of market segmentation is essential. There are various constituencies whose satisfaction must be addressed, and different strategies must be developed for each group. This all may sound obvious, however, the most common methods used to segment the market for opera are not the best strategies available to us.

Most previous research and techniques employed by opera companies focus on the who, what and how of participation, rather than why people behave in the manner that they do. Socio-demographic information is “not sufficient for defining discrete market segments, understanding how they function, or predicting consumer behavior.” (Schreiber 41) In order for an opera company to design effective engagement strategies, they must know what motivates participation, specific information about lifestyles and programmatic interests, and where their target populations are in the decision making process. Over 75 percent of the organizations surveyed in the RAND study defined their target populations in socio-demographic terms, rather than behavioral or attitudinal terms. The study asserts that matching target populations classified by their inclination to participate with the specific participation goals of a company is the best way to develop effective strategies.

In order to influence behavior in different target populations, we first need to look at how the decision-making process works. Although a consumer does not necessarily go through this process consciously, there are four periods, or stages, that can be considered:

The Background Stage is the period in which the inclination to participate is formed based on an assessment of background factors. Personality, prior experience, socio-demographic and socio-cultural elements all factor into this stage. This period in the process is exogenous to the participation decision, as the factors have already been established. Modification of background beliefs requires actual participation. Therefore, it is not practical or useful for an opera company to attempt to deal directly with background issues.
The Perceptual Stage is the first period in which an opera company can be effective in strategically influencing consumer behavior. It is during this stage that a person develops or does not develop an inclination to participate in opera. This decision is influenced by an individual’s attitude towards opera, including their perception of the cost and benefit of participating, their perception of how much (or little) they will enjoy the experience, and by their understanding of the social norms of their reference group (friends and relatives). The beliefs and attitudes of the social group with which people identify can be in conflict with their own, and this conflict can influence behavior both beneficially and detrimentally. If an individual’s social group likes opera, but the individual does not, the power of the group’s interest in opera can be strong enough to induce participation. Conversely, negative perceptions of opera within social groups can discourage participation. There are many other issues at play as part of the Perceptual Stage which are important to discuss, but first, a quick look at the next two stages, which assume a consumer is already inclined, to some degree, to attend or support the opera.
The Practical Stage correspond to the goals of broadening participation which targets people who are already inclined to participate, but who have barriers, either real or perceived, that must be overcome in order to do so. The difficulty in overcoming the obstacles depend on the strength of a person’s inclination to participate. Companies must clearly identify what the barriers are. It is important to remember that there is already a desire – at least on some level – to participate in opera for this target group. Companies need to focus on developing strategies to address the barriers to participation head on if they wish to engage those in the practical stage. The issue here is not selling opera per se, but rather finding ways to elminating the barriers to participating in an activity where there is already interest on some level! A company that focuses on the wonderful cast they have, their sparkling new production, or the great reviews they’ve received is not addressing the needs of this target group. It’s not that the cast, production or reviews have nothing to do with the decision making process, but rather, it is more important for companies to focus on what this target group perceives as obstacles to participating. Of equal importance, it doesn’t matter whether the barriers are real or not. Both perceived barriers and actual barriers to participating must be addressed.
The Experiential Stage correspond to the goals of deepening participation, which focuses on increasing the frequency of current participants’ attendance, as well as encouraging them to participate in the organization in other ways. A person’s reactions to their previous experiences with opera are influenced by a variety of factors, including the depth of their knowledge about opera, the extent to which the social aspect of participating is important to them, and how much personal fulfillment they derive from participating. After a person attends the opera, their reaction to the experience influences their subsequent participation decisions. As with most activities, the more a person knows about opera, the more likely they are to enjoy it. In addition, specific experiences can change a person’s expectations – for better or for worse! Quality of the experience is of course crucial here – but it is important to remember that different people have different ideas of what makes a quality experience, so again, perception is crucial.

PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING

I feel it is crucial to focus on the Perceptual Stage, not only because perception itself plays a role in all stages of the participation building process, but because this particular stage is really where opera companies can be proactive about changing attitudes towards opera in the United States. Although we need to both broaden and deepen participation from those who already have some inclination to attend, the future of opera depends on diversifying participation – building new audiences from those who do not already attend. Though this is perhaps the most challenging target group to infiltrate, it is the largest population, thereby being the largest potential addition to a company’s participation. (Remember Drucker’s quote from my last post: “…non-customers always outnumber customers. The most important knowledge is the potential customer… ) The 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, conducted by the National Endowment for the Arts, found that only 2.1% of the population – representing 4.8 million people – attended an opera in the year before the survey date, while 34.6% of the population, representing 77.8 million people, attended any of the core arts activities. Without diversification, opera will continue to become more and more marginal in American society, until it eventually becomes extinct.

Foreign language operatic repertoire, the word opera itself, and the opera house as a performance venue have many pre-existing, often strongly negative associations for a substantial percentage of contemporary American audiences. In considering people’s attitudes towards opera, OPERA America’s early study, Motivating Opera Attendance: Comparative Qualitative Research in 10 North American Cities 1996, is quite useful. The study revealed six primary assumptions made by people prior to their attendance at their first opera performance – perceptions which which continue to be widespread:

there is no story line or they would be bored;
they did not expect to be able to understand what was happening;
they anticipated negative or depressing stories;
it would be painful to listen to;
they had negative, cartoon-like images of opera;
and they didn’t think that the performance would be of high quality.

The OPERA America study also revealed other very useful information. There was an overwhelming fear of ignorance among potential attendees, with concerns ranging from when to clap, to which opera might be suitable for a novice. Other powerful stereotypes continue to prevail among many people when it comes to opera audiences: they are very affluent; they are very knowledgeable; and they all attend the opera in formal wear. Importantly, the lack of self-identification was seen at all income levels and in all age groups.

Both the OPERA America study and the RAND study found that a key motivator to first time participation is being taken to the opera by someone in an individual’s social or family group; however, if an individual’s social group does not like opera, but the individual does, he or she is often less inclined to participate due to the influence of that group. The power of a person’s reference group should not be underestimated. The effectiveness of efforts to change the inclinations of an individual will vary depending on the strength of that inclination. It is useful for opera companies to remember that people often participate not only for personal benefit, but for the social experience. Because changing an individual’s inclination is very time consuming, organizations should not ignore the possibility of dealing with the attitudes and behaviors of social groups.

It is also important to keep in mind that while some people may choose to attend the opera because they aspire to belong to what they perceive as the social elite, many people shun the opera because of these very same perceptions. Social-cultural anthropologist Arjun Appadurai describes five categories of luxury goods that are dependent on a special register of consumption. As opera is often perceived as a luxury good by a substantial portion of society, let’s look at these categories:

restriction, either by price or by law to elites;
complexity of acquisition, which may or may not be a function of real “scarcity”;
semiotic virtuosity, that is, the capacity to signal complex social messages;
specialized knowledge as a prerequisite for their appropriate consumption, that is, register by fashion and
a high degree of linkage of their consumption to body, person and personality.

(qtd. in Collins 25)

All of these are, without a doubt, perceived as being part of opera’s identity for a significant portion of contemporary American society. So, what can we do to actively combat the perception of opera as a luxury good to this significant segment of the population?

Opera is expensive, but relative to many other leisure activities, it is not proportionally more so than many other activities including popular music concerts and sporting events. For almost every leisure activity, including opera, there are a wide variety of pricing options available. Lowering ticket prices as the expense of producing opera increases is simply not a sustainable business strategy. We should certainly do everything possible to provide tickets at a variety of price points, including low cost tickets for those who are genuinely cost sensitive, but the most important restriction to address here is the sense of opera as belonging to the elite.

Historically, when operas were in the vernacular and were presented at easily accessible venues, it was not perceived as a luxury good in many countries. Outside of the United States, during many different time periods, opera was a populist form of entertainment. In effect, the perceived lack of relevance of opera’s core repertoire to a significant portion of society, combined with the perception that it is a more expensive form of entertainment than other options, creates a restrictive barrier for potential consumers. If we want to ensure that opera appeals to a broad cross section of society, we must do everything in our power to eliminate the perception that opera is inherently linked to a social hierarchy that devalues the taste of the masses. By reinforcing the message that opera is complex and sophisticated while simultaneously linking that sophistication to class (whether consciously through the nature of our marketing language and collateral materials, or unconsciously by continuing to produce in venues and/or suggest codes of behavior for attendance that on their own reinforce class differentiation) we solidify consumers’ pre-judgment of opera as a luxury product that they may feel is above their social, intellectual, and/or financial means.

The associative value of consumer consumption, or “the linkage of consumption to body, person, and personality” should not be underestimated. It is because grand opera carries with it “the vestiges of a previous path, the path of elite, rarefied pleasure” (Collins 25), that it can be desirable; however the association with elitism that is desirable to some is feared or even despised by others. By understanding that a “consumer’s major goal is affirming his idealized self-image in a direct, sensory, emotional, fantasy way”, (Schreiber 45) and that for many people, attending an arts event affirms the image they have of themselves, it should not surprise us that many people don’t attend opera because they do not think they will fit into the typical opera audience, or that they don’t belong in an opera house.

It is perhaps most vital that we understand, believe, and successfully communicate that everyone, regardless of their race, income level, or formal educational background, has sufficient education to enjoy opera. Redefining opera as “art” was “tantamount to saying that a certain education is necessary to understand it at all: which is a convenient way of policing culture, and making sure it is kept as the property of an elite.” (Storey 37). Unfortunately, many musicians and administrators alike still subscribe to the notion that enjoying and appreciating art should require extensive work on the part of the audience. In a 2005 New York Times interview, composer Charles Wuorinen asserted that “there has been an attempt, largely successful, to confuse what you might call art and what you might call entertainment. I think there’s a very simple distinction, and it doesn’t diminish entertainment in any way because we all want it and enjoy it. Entertainment is that which you receive without effort. Art is something where you must make some kind of effort and you get more than you had before.” Conductor James Levine quickly agreed with Wuorinen. While I deeply respect both of these artists, I have a real problem with the assertion that you have to make an effort to appreciate art. I also take issue with the implication that one comes away from “entertainment” without getting anything out of an entertaining experience. Everyone can appreciate art – and everyone can appreciate art in different ways. As long as we perpetuate the myth that one needs to be educated or make an effort to enjoy and appreciate opera, we are doing ourselves a massive disservice. Opera may be art – but it is is also entertainment.

For those who have extensive knowledge of opera, and passion for it, part of the thrill of going to the opera may be the effort it takes to have a deeper connection with the material; but, if everyone assumes that such effort is part of going to the opera, it prevents an enormous portion of the population from even giving it a try! The widespread perception still exists that substantial advance preparation is required before attending an opera. (Stevens 38) This perceived need for advance study not only fortifies the image of opera as a luxury item, but also delays an individual’s decision to participate and reduces the chance of spontaneous participation.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

First, go back to the beginning of this post. The two New Year’s Resolutions can be simplified to two core ideas: get to know the market and proactively address perceptions.

There is great potential to reach diverse audiences, but we need to effectively segment the market in order to develop effective strategies to build participation. We have to understand the perceptions of different market segments, and be willing to address them. And, when it comes to the biggest portion of American population – those who are not already inclined to participate in opera – as long as our organizational behavior reinforces the idea of opera as exclusive, elite, antique, foreign, or in some other way not related to our potential audience members’ lives and self images, that significant and vital part of our communities will not consider participating.

As I discussed in my post last month, to turn opera into “high culture” it had to be withdrawn from the everyday world of popular entertainment, especially from the heterogeneous dictates of the market and the commercial reach of cultural entrepreneurs. Opera was “actively appropriated from its popular audience by elite social groups determined to situate it as the crowning glory of their culture, i.e., so-called “high culture.” In short, opera was transformed from entertainment enjoyed by the many into Culture to be appreciated by the few.” (Storey 37) In order for us to combat the problems facing opera in America today, we must develop strategies that confront the initiatives that appropriated opera from the general public.

Bruce. A. McConachie argues that between 1825 and 1850 elite social groups in New York developed three overlapping social strategies that gradually separated opera from the everyday world of popular entertainment. The first was to separate it from the theater by establishing buildings specifically for the performance of opera. Second, they “also worked to sharpen and objectify a code of behavior, including a dress code, deemed proper when attending the opera. Finally, upper-class New Yorkers increasingly insisted that only foreign-language opera could meet their standards of excellence – standards upheld by behavior and criticism employing foreign words and specialized language impenetrable to all but the cognoscenti.” (qtd. in Storey 33-34) By the end of the nineteenth century, opera had effectively isolated itself from other forms of entertainment. It is certainly no coincidence that the three strategies initiated by the social elite in the mid-nineteenth century continue to be the source of the most powerful barriers to participation for contemporary audiences. While American Lyric Theater is specifically focused on combatting the third of these strategies by nurturing composers and librettists and developing new operas for new audiences in English and Spanish, every opera company can address these issues while still being true to their individual missions.

Paul DiMaggio similarly argues that “to create an institutional high culture, Boston’s upper class had to accomplish three concurrent, but analytically distinct, projects: entrepreneurship, classification, and framing.”(qtd. in Storey 35).

By entrepreneurship, DiMaggio refers to the creation of an organizational form that members of the elite could control and govern. To some extent, this form remains intact today. It is not uncommon for major funders and board members to influence planning at all levels, and companies are unfortunately often diverted from their missions and/or programs by their desire to keep those donors happy. While donors are almost always well intended – and we all are incredibly grateful to the donors that make opera possible in the United States – it is our role as opera company leaders to educate those donors to these very issues that have unconsciously become part of the cycle that perpetuates the problems we are facing. Of course, to blame donors for being generous is ridiculous! Our donors (and here I include board members, foundations, government agencies, corporate partners, and our general donor constituency) must truly become partners with the organization. They must not be made to feel like ATMs! Their interests, preferences and passions are important and should be respected – but at the same time, the conversations we have with our donors should be deeply personal and should allow for time to educate them to the challenges we face. Those challenges aren’t simply “selling tickets” or “producing opera.” The more our donors understand the background to the challenges we face, the more likely they are to support initiatives that really address them. While foundations tend to be responsive to clearly identified trends in the field, the education of individual donors as part of the cultivation process is particularly crucial – especially when they have a passionate love of opera that sometimes obscures the larger issues at hand.

By classification, DiMaggio refers “to the erection of strong and clearly defined boundaries between art and entertainment, the definition of a high art that elites and segments of the middle class could appropriate as their own cultural property; and the acknowledgment of that classification’s legitimacy by other classes and the state.” (qtd. in Storey 35). In order to knock down those boundaries, everything we do as opera companies needs to be inclusive. We must provide opportunities for people to experience opera as entertainment without risk, and we must truly embrace that the idea that opera is entertainment which needs not contaminate or invalidate the integrity of our artistic endeavors. We must address both the real and perceived barriers of our potential audiences, and make sure that everything we do as opera companies reinforces the idea that opera is for everyone.

By framing, DiMaggio refers to the new etiquette of appropriation, and the relationship between the work of art and the audience. “For more than a century, this was how status had worked in America. You made some money in one commercial enterprise or another, and then to solidify your social position and to distinguish yourself from others, you cultivated a distaste for the cheap amusements and common spectacles that made up the mass culture.” (Seabrook 17) If we continue to communicate, by words or actions, that opera belongs to a “better” class of art and audience, we continue to reinforce the distance between an enormous portion of society and opera. We must be proactive about being inclusive. This goes beyond collateral marketing materials but must be part of the ongoing activity of a company beyond its mainstage season. Opera companies will only be truly successful if they are integrated parts of their communities – not simply producers or presenters of some exotic art form for the minority of the population that “understands” – or even worse – “deserves” it!

While much of what I’m discussing has to do with “repositioning” in marketing-speak, we also have to look at our actual operational models and program activities. Opera companies can devise different messaging strategies to reposition opera and their companies in the community, but messages without actions have limited effect. Programs need to be developed to show prospective audiences that opera is entertaining and relevant to them – and doesn’t required extensive knowledge before they have bought a ticket. The internet has made cost-effective strategies for demonstrative positioning to be within the reach of any opera company, but most companies still have a long way to go in optimizing that potential. In addition, the visceral live participation experience is crucial in building audiences for live performances. With the increased amount of media participation options available (such as opera in movie theaters and on the internet), we are likely to see an increasing amount of cannibalization of the live opera audience – especially younger audiences who are already more inclined to participate in leisure activities through media as opposed to attending live events. Opera companies need to find ways to get free samples of their live “product” in front of large numbers of prospective audience members in the most entertaining and accessible ways possible. These strategic initiatives have the potential to effectively engage significant and diverse segments of the communities a company serves. The benefits these initiatives provide go beyond well beyond repositioning. Initiatives that are developed to engage the community may be marketing based, but they also can provide a bridge to new sources of funding and ultimately can provided significant return on investment in the form of new sources of earned income as well.

Responding to the demands of the market does not mean that the quality of the artistic product needs to be diminished. There continues to be a great deal of fear on the part of artists and administrators that, by consciously appealing to the tastes of contemporary audiences and by modifying what we present, as well as where and how we present it, we risk selling out our artistic vision. This is certainly a possibility if the marketing mindset is not kept in check. For an opera company (or any other organization with an artistically driven mission), the tipping of the scale must always favor artistic integrity. However, when the ratio of artistic integrity to market appeal is 99:1, are we really serving the public? There will always be an audience for projects and products for which the ratio is reversed. When the ratio of artistic integrity to market appeal is 1:99, we end up with entertainment not completely lacking in artistic merit (though some might argue otherwise), but that is so strongly influenced by market factors that artistic integrity is most often sacrificed in hopes of broadening appeal and financial return. The key is to ensure that marketing strategy is working on behalf of opera, not despite it. If our market response is effective, opera as a product for predetermined “elite” or “cultured” social classes will begin to diminish, and audiences for opera will diversify and grow.

Tenor Jon Vickers claimed that opera is “being invaded by those techniques that are corrupting our society – big PR, the personality of cult, techniques which create hysteria but do not elevate man. They degrade our art… We cannot compromise… We mustn’t smear the line between art and entertainment… You cannot bring art to the masses… You never will.” (qtd. in Storey 40). With all due respect to the great tenor, such vitriol epitomizes the destructive, closed-minded thinking that subconsciously (or consciously) exists, if not so politically incorrectly, in the minds of many in our field. If such a mindset is allowed to be pervasive, everyone who cares about opera would eventually be out of work, and the only singing any tenor would be doing would be in the shower! Doesn’t opera deserve a better future? It’s the beginning of a new year… let’s all take time to really look at what we are doing – and what we have the potential to do – to make a difference for opera and our communities in 2012 and beyond!

FOR FURTHER READING, here are the books I reference above:

Collins, Jim. Introduction. High-Pop: Making Culture into Popular Entertainment . Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.

Drucker, Peter F.. Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices . New York, Harper Collins,1992.

Storey, John. ““Expecting Rain”: Opera as Popular Culture?.” High-Pop: Making Culture into Popular Entertainment . Ed. Jim Collins. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.32-55.

Wolf, Thomas. Managing A Nonprofit Organization in The Twenty-First Century . New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

AND DETAILD STUDIES, for those who really want to dive in:

Bradshaw, Tom and Bonnie Nichols. 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts .Washington: National Endowment for the Arts, Research Division, 2009.

McCarthy, Kevin F. and Kimberly Jinnett. A New Framework for Building Participation In the Arts . Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2001.

Categories : Arts Administration, Fundraising, Marketing

Comments (0)

Dec

DEAR OPERA COMPANIES: ADVERTISING AND MARKETING AREN’T THE SAME THING

By Lawrence Edelson · Comments (1)

Last week, I discussed the myth that opera became unpopular as tastes changed; rather, opera was made unpopular. If you did not read that post, I’d suggest reading it before reading any further here, as it sets up a context for this discussion!

It is very common to hear opera companies assert that “poor marketing” is responsible for poor ticket sales of specific operas – or even entire seasons. I should be clear that there are a number of companies that are getting it right – but when we see companies in crisis, they aren’t always willing to look at some of the fundamental reasons that have created the situations in which they find themselves. Take these two quotes from recent newspaper articles quoting the chairman of a major opera company (I am not attributing the quotes here because my point here is not to call out the individual making the statement, but the problems with the statements themselves and the mindset behind them):

“…______ said part of his strategy could lie in marketing, getting the message out to people that XYZ COMPANY was doing the kinds of productions audiences should want to see.”

“…______ suggested that the company could have done a better job of marketing, given the disparity between the high quality of performances and the disappointing audiences. “It’s our job to sell our wonderful company,” he said.”

While I agree that poor marketing is likely very much part of the problem, what many companies are really saying is that poor advertising is responsible for poor sales – because their companies don’t actually integrate comprehensive marketing strategy into their planning.

More importantly, it usually isn’t the advertising that is at the root of the problem – even if their advertising is bad! When I begin to dig into the processes through which companies plan their seasons (as well as their associated programs), a true marketing approach is often nowhere to be seen. Advertising is part of marketing – but advertising is not the same thing as marketing – so what exactly is comprehensive marketing strategy ?

Let’s go back to the basics. Management guru Peter Drucker asserts that “there is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer.” Marketing theorist Theodore Levitt expands on that by stating that “the purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer. To do that you have to produce and deliver goods and services that people want and value at prices and under conditions that are reasonably attractive relative to those offered by others to a proportion of customers large enough to make those prices and conditions possible.” Philip Kotler considers the same issues from the perspective of mutual exchange. “The problem marketing has to solve is, How do I get the response I want? The answer marketing gives is that you must formulate an offer to put out to the group from which you want a response. The process of getting that answer, I call exchange thinking. What must I give in order to get? How can I add value to the other party in such a way that I add value to what I want? Reciprocity and exchange underlie marketing thinking.” (qtd. in Drucker 76)

How can we produce opera that people want to see and will value as leisure time activity? What must we give audiences in order to get them in the door? How do we entice them into the theater for the first time, and how do we keep them coming back? What services can we provide for the community that will create affinity with the company outside of our primary venues, while simultaneously building a bridge to participation in those venues? How do we serve our mission and maintain artistic integrity while appealing to the values and priorities not only of ticket buyers, but also of donors?

What many are hesitant to explicitly accept is that we must approach opera as a business, because the myriad of other leisure time options are positioned at consumers in an aggressively competitive manner. To think and act otherwise is naïve and destructive. The business of opera does not mean that our art must primarily be a commercial offering, but it does mean that we must understand our consumers, both present and potential, as well as we understand our art.

“Marketing is a way to harmonize the needs and wants of the outside world with the purposes and the resources and the objectives of the institution.”(Drucker 84) Kotler believes that organizations often don’t have marketing in the right order. The correct order, he asserts is that “first, do some customer research to understand the market you want to serve and its needs. Second, develop segmentation and be aware of different groups that you’re going to be interacting with. Third, develop policies, practices, and programs that are targeted to satisfy those groups. And then the last step is to communicate these programs. Too many[...] non-profit organizations go right into advertising before they’ve gone into the other three steps, and that’s really doing things backwards.” (qtd. in Drucker 82-83) In addition, opera companies often neglect one of the most important segments of the population when conducting market research – those who should and/or could be audience members. Companies traditionally have expended the majority of their energy on finding out as much as they can about their existing customers. “But even if you have market leadership, non-customers always outnumber customers. The most important knowledge is the potential customer. The customer who really needs the service, wants the service, but not in the way it is available today.” (Drucker 100)

Increased leisure time options in the past century have necessitated increased attention and focus on marketing. Marketing consultant Philip Kotler explains that “marketing really is spurred by the presence and the increase in competition that the institution faces in a way that it never faced before.” (qtd. in Drucker 80) Marketing is often considered a subsidiary activity within an opera company – the division responsible for advertising and selling the product created by the artistic department. Kotler argues that the “chief executive officer should, of course, be the chief marketing officer. Marketing doesn’t get anywhere in an organization without the head of the organization getting interested in it, understanding it, and wishing to disseminate its logic and wisdom to the staff and people connected with the institution.”(qtd. in Drucker 81) Marketing is more than a department, “it’s really everyone in the organization pursuing one goal and that is to satisfy the customer, to serve the customer.”(qtd. in Drucker 83) Kotler further asserts that non-profit organizations often confuse marketing with either hard selling or advertising, and, therefore, don’t show and aptitude for it. “The most important tasks in marketing have to do with studying the market, segmenting it, targeting the groups you want to service, positioning yourself in the market, and creating a service that meets needs out there. Advertising and selling are afterthoughts.” (qtd. in Drucker 74)

Kotler also asserts that, while many organizations believe they are consumer-minded, they are more often in touch with the needs they would like to serve without understanding those needs from the perspective of the customers. They dangerously “make assumptions based on their own interpretations of the needs[...]” (qtd. in Drucker 75). Simply put, most opera companies are product-oriented companies. Opera administrators, who passionately love what they produce, often allow their passion for their art to overshadow a realistic sense of the environment in which they operate. “It seems so obvious to most of them that they are satisfying a need, so clear that everybody who has that need must want the service the non-profit institution has to offer. One central problem is that too many non-profit managers confuse strategy with a selling effort. Strategy ends with selling efforts. It begins with knowing the market – who the customer is, who the customer should be, who the customer might be[...] The non-profit institution needs a marketing strategy that integrates the customer and the mission.”(Drucker 99)

The key, of course, is knowing the market – or our potential audiences for opera. But what do we really need to know, and what are the different target groups that make up an opera company’s potential constituency? What is the best way to segment the market for opera companies? All that and more in my next post…!

FOR FURTHER READING, here is the book I reference above:

Drucker, Peter F.. Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices. New York, Harper Collins,1992.

Categories : Arts Administration, Fundraising, Marketing

Comments (1)

Dec

DECONSTRUCTING THE MYTH – OPERA’S DEPOPULARIZATION

By Lawrence Edelson · Comments (0)

My return to blogging this month has been inspired by a number of conferences I have attended, projects I have been working on both for ALT and with other companies, and observations of the opera field at large over the past year. Opera continues to experience significant challenges in the United States, and we have seen many opera companies close or post significant consecutive deficits that are deeply troubling. While the entire country has been in a period of financial turmoil over the past few years, the financial crisis has unfortunately become a bit of a scapegoat for many of the real problems we face.

Of course, the financial environment has made it incredibly challenging for opera companies which, as a result of the non-profit model in the United States, rely greatly on unearned income from individual, foundation, government and corporate sources. However, the financial environment is NOT responsible for the lack of strategic planning, vision, and comprehensive understanding of what marketing really is that has been at the root of many companies’ troubles. My purpose here is to not to point the finger at anyone or any organization. The loss of any opera company, or seeing any opera company in dire straights, is deeply disconcerting – and no one benefits from making accusations. What I do hope to do is get us thinking about opera and they way we approach the management of opera companies.

The philanthropic system that we credit with providing artistic freedom and financial support for the arts has had an extraordinary impact on the delineation between “high” and “low” culture in the United States, the impact of which is perhaps felt nowhere more strongly than in the opera house. The first step in combating the problems that face opera is combating the myth that opera became unpopular as tastes changed. Opera was made unpopular. By continuing to produce opera under a model that is greatly responsible for this continually waning popularity, we are only perpetuating the cycle that will eventually make opera an even more irrelevant art form in contemporary American society.

DECONSTRUCTING THE MYTH

The opera house was the first musical institution to open its doors to the general public. The first opera house was opened in Venice in 1637, presenting commercial opera and run for profit! It offered new entertainment to anyone who could afford a ticket. By the end of the seventeenth century, Venice had sixteen opera houses open to the general public. Musicologist Henry Raynor observes that that the Venetian audience was comprised of all social classes, a fact corroborated by musicologist Bernard Zelochow, who argues that this remained the case throughout the next two centuries. “The opera was enjoyed and understood by a broad cross-section of urban Europeans and Americans. The opera house became the meeting place of all social classes in society[...] The absence of the concept of a classical repertoire is an index of the popularity and vigor of opera as a mode of communication and entertainment.” (qtd. in Storey 33)

During the first half of the nineteenth century, “new forms of popular culture were developing as the industrial revolution generated the two preconditions for mass entertainment: mass production and a mass audience. During this period, popular and high art texts were encountered in the same venues; concerts included arias as well as the popular songs of the day without any sense that the latter were somehow inappropriate for the proceedings.” (Collins 3). Collins considers the “Sacrilization of Culture” to begin during the second half of the nineteenth century. According to social historian Paul Dimaggio, the bifurcation of culture into popular and elite arenas was the result of the ways in which Brahmins gravitated toward not-for-profit cultural organizations. By “framing culture according to their own tastes and sensibilities, gaining control of museums, opera houses, and concert halls by taking them out of the marketplace which catered to a grand public[...] the Brahmins became cultural gatekeepers, their symphony societies and museum boards securing hegemonic control over cultural life in Boston when they were facing a steady loss of political control. By situating it outside the marketplace, culture could be administered, made manageable by the proper guardians of public virtue.” (Collins 4). However, by removing any sense of guidance from the marketplace, opera (as well as many of the other “fine arts”) lost touch with the largest percentage of the population. It should really come as no surprise, then, to find opera a marginalized art form, appealing to such a small segment of contemporary society.

Cultural observers have been quick to point out that, although control of the arts was removed from the market (i.e. general society), a great deal of effort was made to provide access to performances to people from all walks of life. The point, however, isn’t whether or not the working classes could attend. This is vitally important for contemporary opera administrators to understand. Providing low cost seats, student discounts, and a wide variety of programs aimed at increasing access to opera has limited value in the long run if a small group continues to exercise hegemonic control over what is considered to be cultured by inviting in a public that is expected to observe a set of protocols and, in so doing, learn a valuable lesson. In the second half of the nineteenth century, “to be cultured was to do as the Brahmins did (and the Brahmins didn’t do popular culture). Rather than monopolizing culture, they corralled it in hopes of taming the immigrant masses who threatened their very existence, a point made abundantly clear by a letter from Higginson to a relative requesting a donation: “Educate and save ourselves and our families and our money from the mobs!”” (qtd. in Collins 4) Current development efforts, though couched with a bit more sensitivity and political correctness, are unfortunately often not all that far from that very sentiment.

“One of the most troubling blind spots that has developed within cultural studies has been the implicit assumption that legitimate culture was being tended to by the rest of the academy, and it was the sort of thing best left to the old guard because it didn’t really address itself to anyone but them anyway.”(Collins 3) This assumption has led to an administrative protocol in opera whereby the “old guard” focused the majority of its attention on its existing audiences – those already with a strong predisposition to participate in opera – because, by default, there has been the subconscious assumption that this legitimate art will primarily appeal to the educated, or “cultured” portion of society.

Within this operating mode is another troubling assumption. The delineation between mass culture and high art did not always exist, despite what many people have come to believe. “For more than a century, the elite in the United States had distinguished themselves from consumers of commercial culture, or mass culture. Highbrow/lowbrow was the language by which culture was translated into status – the pivot on which distinctions of taste became distinctions of caste. The words highbrow and lowbrow are American inventions, devised for a specifically American purpose: to render culture into class.”(Seabrook 26) In the United States, people used hierarchical distinctions about culture as the acceptable milieu for delineating differences in class. The semiotic similarities between highbrow, high art, high culture, high income and high class and lowbrow, low art, low culture and low income are not coincidental. In less egalitarian countries, there was a class-based social hierarchy that existed prior to the advent of a cultural hierarchy. In the United States, however, “people needed highbrow-lowbrow distinctions to do the work that social hierarchy did in other countries. Any fat cat could buy a mansion, but not everyone could cultivate a passionate interest in Arnold Schönberg…”(Seabrook 27) As long as elite culture was assumed to be superior to commercial culture, the “masses” who patronized commercial culture could conveniently be slotted lower on the social hierarchy than those who were patrons of elite culture.

One of the most crucial things for us to understand and accept is that, historically, opera did not become unpopular. Opera was made unpopular “as it was enclosed within the realm of legitimate culture, an institutional relocation that was accompanied by ideological justification for a new hierarchy of taste.” (Collins 5) This justification is described by Dimaggio as a process of legitimization. “As long as cultural boundaries were indistinct, “fashionable taste,” far from embodying cultural authority, was suspect as snobbish, trivial, and undemocratic. Only when elite taste was harnessed to a clearly articulated ideology embodied in the exhibitions and performances of organizations that selected and presented art in a manner distinct from that of commercial entrepreneurs[...] did an understanding of culture as hierarchical become both legitimate and widespread.” (qtd. in Collins 5)

Looking at the development of museums in the United States can help to shed further light on the challenges we face in opera. Art historian Carol Duncan explains that “the Americans who founded the nation’s major art museums in New York, Boston, and Chicago in the decade of the 1870s were enthralled by the V&A’s much vaunted power to improve and civilize the working classes, but they were also dazzled by the old master collections in the Louvre Museum and other impressive European art galleries. Their combined gallery of fine art/museum of applied arts became the template for almost all later American museums.”(qtd. in Collins, 21) This path is very similar to the way American opera houses developed. Our producing role model is in great part based on an antiquated European model. Interestingly, in the United States, we tend to focus on the “classics”, whereas the European houses were historically operated less as museums and more as living theaters for new works. We function, however, without the same sort of government support that exists (or existed until very recently) in most European countries, without a primary body of repertoire in our own language, and most importantly, without a societal sense of opera belonging to the American consciousness. Opera is still perceived by the majority of the American population as a foreign art.

If opera has been made unpopular, we cannot blame audiences for not coming – we have to blame ourselves (or more specifically, the producing and funding models that planted the seeds for what we now have to deal with). In order to attract audiences to opera and build strong opera companies – which goes beyond ticket sales and directly correlates to increased community engagement and increases in unearned income from government, corporate, foundation and individual sources – we must understand the perceptions and inclinations of the different segments of the population that make up our existing and potential audiences. Producing a season because we think it has artistic and cultural value is simply not enough. A true marketing strategy must be integrated into the entire fabric of an opera company’s DNA in order for it to combat these issues. But what is marketing? It isn’t what many opera companies think it is… so I will explore that in my next post!

FOR FURTHER READING, here are the books I reference above:

Collins, Jim. Introduction. High-Pop: Making Culture into Popular Entertainment. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.

Storey, John. ““Expecting Rain”: Opera as Popular Culture?.” High-Pop: Making Culture into Popular Entertainment. Ed. Jim Collins. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. 32-55.

Seabrook, John. Nobrow: The Culture of Marketing and The Marketing of Culture. New York: Vintage Books, 2001

Categories : Arts Administration, Fundraising, Marketing

Comments (0)

Jun

BEYOND THE PREMIERE

By Lawrence Edelson · Comments (0)

The Golden Ticket opened at Opera Theatre of Saint Louis to incredible critical and audience reception this month – we truly could not have asked for a warmer welcome for American Lyric Theater’s first commission. But… what next? What happens beyond the premiere of a new opera?

This is a question that is being asked with increasing frequency in the opera field. Earlier this year, I had the honor to sit on a panel at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, where opera company leaders from around the country – alongside stage directors, composer and librettists – explored the challenges not of simply premiering a new opera, but of helping to secure subsequent productions and establish new works in the repertoire. At the OPERA America conference earlier this month in Los Angeles, composer Daniel Catán focused on this very issue in his keynote address. With the large number of exciting opera premieres to have taken place so far this year (including The Golden Ticket, Moby Dick at Dallas Opera, Before Night Falls at Ft. Worth Opera, and Amelia at Seattle Opera) the question is really lighting a fire in the opera community. 2010 is shaping up to be an incredible year for new opera – but what can we do to QUICKLY get these new operas in front of audiences beyond the premiere.

The first and most obvious step has traditionally been co-production. Moby Dick is a co-production between 5 companies, and The Golden Ticket is a co-production between 3 companies (OTSL, Wexford, and ALT). So while Moby Dick and The Golden Ticket are guaranteed additional performances in different cities – and even though both operas have been widely critically praised as important additions to the opera repertoire – because of scheduling and other logistical issues inherent in the way major companies produce opera, it will take at least two years before those operas reach all of those co-producers’ home theaters (though we are happy to report that the Wexford portion of The Golden Ticket co-production was strategically scheduled within months of the premiere in St. Louis – in part, to help close that gap). While spreading out performances over time can help keep a new opera in the public eye, we loose invaluable momentum.

Right now, there is incredible buzz about Moby Dick and The Golden Ticket. Imagine a world where we could move Moby Dick and The Golden Ticket to New York or Los Angeles – or any other city or cities – in the next month, riding on the wave of press and international audience good will towards both of these new operas. Imagine if we could tour a successful new opera immediately to multiple venues – cities of varying sizes and in different regions of the country. Too idealistic? Perhaps. Certainly there isn’t as large an audience for a tour of either one of these successful operas as there is for the touring company of a hit Broadway musical – we’d be delusional if we thought otherwise. But there certainly is an exisiting audience for these new works, and the potential to reach new audiences, and it is a shame that our current producing system has such a significant built-in time lag that doesn’t allow us to take advantage of the momentum great success should allow.

So what can we do? Creating new producing and presenting models would be at the top of my list – but it is also the most difficult strategy. My ideal vision would be a company that brings together the best in new opera every year as an annual festival.

We would import the best two or three new operas produced by other companies – in their original productions – and present them in a festival format over a few weeks in a major venue where they could be guaranteed national and international exposure.
We would also mount a new production of one contemporary American opera produced in a recent previous season that we determined to have great potential and significant merit, but for which the original production may not have represented the piece in the best light possible. (This is a particular issue of interest for me, as I have seen a number of new operas that I felt were negatively “judged” in large part due to the production, rather than the piece itself).
We would record all of the operas presented if an audio recording was not made during their premiere runs.
We would also film and broadcast them to movie theaters and/or on the internet to further diversify our channels of distribution and potential audiences.

The amount of time between a new opera’s premiere at the originating or commissioning company and this new festival would be short enough to allow us to ride on the wave of new operas’ success, but also long enough to allow the creators to make revisions (both to the works themselves, and the original productions) that often are desirable in the light of day after a new work premieres. Similarly, revisiting an opera that didn’t get the best launch, but that clearly has merit would allow the creators to look at what went “wrong” the first time, and evaluate how to better represent their work in a new production (while also potentially making revisions to strengthen the piece itself). Might this be part of ALT’s future? Perhaps in time… though ALT really is set up to be a service organization, and this would require a different model than currently exists at ALT.

But… back to the present… We need to first look at what the existing network of opera companies and complimentary producing and presenting organizations can do to shorten the time between premieres of new works and subsequent stagings. And, as I alluded to in my description of an ideal new model, we also need to look into broadening our channels of distribution. In other words, when it comes to new operas, should we be focusing on live performances as much as we do?

In the past few years, opera at the movies, led by the Met HD Broadcasts, has become big news. The Met is not alone now in providing high quality movie versions of operas – sometimes live – sometimes taped and edited – for the big screen. In his keynote address at the OPERA America conference, Daniel Catán suggested a model whereby new works are filmed and broadcast nation wide through a cost-sharing model that could make it possible for multiple communities to see new operas almost simultaneous with the audiences in the cities in which they originate. While the cost structure of Daniel’s idea would have to be more thoroughly examined, and an enormous collaborative network would have to be developed, the basic principal behind his idea has great merit and with some thought, creativity and cooperation from the unions, could likely be made to work financially.

I recently read about the 3D Carmen that is being produced from The Royal Opera. An interesting project… in all honesty, how I feel about it will depend completely on how well it is done. I enjoyed Avatar 3D. But that was Avatar. I like and admire the director (Francesca Zambello) and many involved with the production, but I have to ask, does Carmen as a piece need to be 3D? If we want to embrace that technology, might we look at more contemporary operas where the intersection between mainstream pop-tech and great new art could actually help bring more NEW people to opera. How about a 3D filming of Moby Dick?! Or The Golden Ticket?! Imagine Augustus Gloop drowning in the chocolate river – in 3D… or Violet Beauregard blowing up like a blueberry – in 3D… all with the wonderful music Peter Ash has composed, and the witty libretto Donald Sturrock has crafted. I believe that a 3D movie of some contemporary operas would do more good for the field at large than a 3D filming of a classic.

But, oh, yes, I forgot… Carmen is safe. Carmen sells tickets. I’m not knocking Carmen – it’s a great opera. I’ve directed it and it is a powerful piece of music theater. But if we really want to serve the growth of opera as an art form, and opera audiences, I have to wonder (as loudly as I can!), why do we keep looking back when we need to be looking forward? If we were to expend more energy and resources on ensuring the best possible future for successful new works, I believe the impact on the future of opera would be a hell of a lot brighter.

Categories : Arts Administration, Commissions, Marketing, The Golden Ticket

Comments (0)

BEHIND THE SPOTLIGHT

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

SEARCH

THE AMERICAN-NESS OF AMERICAN OPERA DEPENDS ON AMERICAN AUDIENCES

TWO NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS FOR OPERA COMPANIES

DEAR OPERA COMPANIES: ADVERTISING AND MARKETING AREN’T THE SAME THING

DECONSTRUCTING THE MYTH – OPERA’S DEPOPULARIZATION

DECONSTRUCTING THE MYTH

BEYOND THE PREMIERE