Contemporary opera is on the up. But where is the passion?
Do today's successful operatic compositions really explore human emotion?
Recently I went to the London-premiere of George Benjamin’s much-hyped London premiere of Written on Skin. Having read nothing but praise for the piece, I had very high hopes indeed. 'More sensuously beautiful and, at times, more fiercely dramatic than anything Benjamin has written before', raved The Guardian. 'Sensual and evocative', cried the FT.
And indeed it was. Luminous counterpoint, carefully-paced libretto, and hauntingly beautiful orchestration weaved the plot together with an expert craft. But the intense passion and fierce drama that I had read about over and over again seemed to be decidedly absent.
Martin Crimp’s stylish libretto, with its clever self-narration adds a contemporary twist to the medieval action, but often feels like it is trying to keep any real human experience at arm’s length. It is as if the story is under the same clinical light that bathed director Katie Mitchell’s ingenious set. The score creates a beautiful yet restrained world, with long pedal notes and unsettling instrumentation giving the impression of watching the opera from behind a wall of glass. Climaxes are carefully constructed so that the orchestra never drowns the singers. Good for the singers perhaps, but frustrating for the audience. The raw emotion of the story is held back, never exploding into real passion, real anger, real despair.
I enjoyed every minute of the evening, but afterwards found myself feeling cold and indifferent. This highlights for me a trend that appears to be emerging in contemporary opera which avoids the humanity of a story. Narrative is prized over emotion, and clarity over the protagonist’s passion. As enjoyable as Written on Skin is, when reviewers are describing it as 'the best opera…since Wozzeck' (Le Monde) one wonders if something might have gone awry.
The passion and struggle found in nearly all opera is the essence of the genre. It seems that composers nowadays are too easily scared by the need to please an audience, and so focus on creating a careful narrative with filmic underscoring, rather than exploring human emotion. A prime example of this is Mark-Anthony Turnage’s 2010 opera Anna Nicole. Billed as the future of modern opera, its first production at the ROH was equally as entertaining and well-constructed as Written on Skin, but as with George Benjamin, Turnage seemed to be handling his subject matter with distance. Instead of the exquisite delicacy of Written on Skin, Turnage’s detachment comes through his use of kitsch and music-theatre parody, creating a wonderfully bright and glitzy world for the action, but completely losing the intimacy of emotion that such a tragic story really needs to touch the heart. It was perversely only in the rapturous orchestral interludes that we really felt Turnage flexing his emotional muscles. These small glimpses of tragedy were simply not enough to give Anna’s despair a real depth, and the audience was left considering the bright pink curtains, not wiping away a tear from its collective eye.
This is not intended as a criticism of Benjamin, Turnage or indeed any of the wonderful casts that have brought these works to life. Rather the culture behind contemporary opera, which too often moulds the genre into glorified recitative. Any passion is fractured as if seen through a kaleidoscope, and any emotion distanced. It is a wonderful thing that contemporary opera is flourishing, and hats off to the numerous opera companies that are helping to make this happen. However, by avoiding the emotional impact that we feel with composers such as Wagner, Strauss and Verdi, the very essence of opera is taken away. The genre simply will not be able to flourish until composers can embrace emotion and wear their heart on their sleeve.
Toby Young is a composer and lecturer from London, specialising in contemporary vocal and choral music. He is published by Faber Ltd.


Comments
I have for years to see an Opera worth remembering it. Contemporary Opera is already the opposite of what was supposed to be: a genre for the general public. For the few critics and individuals, who think they find something special there, let it be. For the rest of us, thanks, but we let it go...
Parla
Although passion, struggle, real anger and real despair have always been part and parcel of opera, it is a mistake to think that something has gone awry when considering the way in which contemporary opera composers approach this genre. Throughout classical music history, people have had to come to terms with an ever changing compositional landscape that includes the invention of the dramatic oratorio, constantly expanding harmonic language, the replacement of God by the creative
artist as the centre of the masterpiece, the ever increasing dominance of atonality, in other words, gradually watching the entire rule-book of tonality being thrown out by the window.
This, then, would include the searing passion and melodrama that opera has always been associated with. Given all that has happened, maybe it is
no longer a requirement amongst composers that opera has to be so raw. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable; my point here perhaps is to clarify why it seems that contemporary composers might be avoiding raw emotion when it comes to opera. In the same way that you have the introduction of the large-scale fractured narrative flow of Mahler in his symphonies, and the no-narrative of Ligeti especially in works such 'The Macabre', representing the overthrowing of probably thousands
of years of tradition, so now you have the 'sober' opera in which fractured passion and emotional distance are the point. And it's not all that new either. Stravinsky's Oedipus Rex comes to mind.
As for composers being afraid to please an audience, it may help to realise that post-modernist composers have not been afraid to let their music be informed and marginally influenced by other genres (including classical tonality), much to the irritation of the high avante-garde, so they will
not be afraid to show emotion in their operas if they so choose. Maybe, then, it is to be argued that post-modernists (and others) should be actively encouraged to make their operas more raw, but to whatever extent they are comfortable with.
I do NOT agree that as things stand now, opera won't be able to flourish without emotional intensity as the entire issue is a little more complex than that. Maybe, as I have argued elsewhere on this site, it is up to composers to express themselves artistically, perhaps regardless of public opinion, and then wait for people to come to terms with what they have written.
Dear Toby and all,
You have effectively highlighted the endemic problem with most modern opera and moreover "serious" music, that I succinctly and respectfully characterize by "the toilet test".
That is, would you, or indeed anyone on planet earth, ever actually choose to relax and enjoy this piece of opera/music while contemplatively enthroned on a normal morning at home. If the answer in NO, it apparently fails to enter into the collective history of music. It may be brilliant technically, creative, innovative, trans-cultural ... all these intellectually correct words and more ... but if it is not actually enjoyable to at least some minority, it is unlikely to endure. Please note that my view is pragmatic, and not at all reactionary. Together with my Bach through Wagner treasures, I admit a touch of creative rap and even symphonic metal rock. Nothing at all conservative or exclusive, but ALL founded on the elusive concept of engendering enjoyment, as distinct from intellectual exercises bordering on auditory and emotional suffering.
Summarising more succintly, how many reviewers and admirers of avant-garde "serious" music actually voluntarily listen to it, enthroned or wherever. The statistics of answers to this question would be embarrassingly revealing, methinks ...
An alternative and objectively probing question might be, what is actually the purpose of a piece of music? Pleasure, glory, pain, suffering, novelty ... ?!?!?!?!?
PS: well, there are many OTHER places and times to enjoy music, but my own sensibilities are particularly acute in the morning ...
Very droll amco...... :) but just a few points......
The problem with some of your assertions is that, auditory- and emotional suffering aside, this music IS being enjoyed by more than just a minority of punters. It would be foolish to reason that the audience for this type of music is anywhere near the same size as the followers of the great tonalists, but composers like Stockhausen have been enjoyed by literally thousands of people around the world. Boulez regularly fills concert halls with fans of his music (and others). In a recent concert in New York City, a major (and long overdue) premier of a Stockhausen work sold out quickly.
I have been present at many well-attended concerts of contemporary music in London which were enthusiastically received, blah blah blah. Okay, fine, I was at the Barbican in which a guy booed the Hartmann on the programme, but otherwise the audience were at least civil in their response. So if numbers were to be crunched, I think the picture that emerges is far less catastrophic than what many would believe.
As for the toilet test: Harpo Marx loved to take his harp into the lav and play a bit to help the whole process along, so you ARE in good company, but this is hardly a legitimate musicological pursuit...... :)