Is Jonas Kaufmann really an exceptional tenor?

Opera is popular theatre? By what yardstick do you apply the term "popular theatre" to opera? It's a phrase used to describe pantomime, could apply to most genres of movie, but opera? Any small town can mount panto but the resources required to produce grand opera are far out of reach for most places, the logistical, administrative and financial considerations so complex that few towns and cities around the world are willing to set up the infrastructure to support it.

And your second claim just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If opera is all about singing then why bother staging it? Why not dispense with all those boring recitatives? Why not present it in plain concert format? Why did Wagner want his Festspielhaus when the Margrave Opera House was already sitting there, perfectly capable of accomodating recitals or concerts? Why did Verdi spend so much time on his librettos, pay such close attention to the structure of his operas, chop and change them to achieve the dramatic effect so important to him? Why do people who would never dream of buying an opera cd flock to see filmed Met performances? Because opera is a unique mix of theatre, drama, visual effects, music, singing and literature (dancing too, in many cases). Is it still opera if you remove one of these facets? I believe not.

Dear Tagalie, you don't read me well.

When I said "Opera is a popular form of theatre", I didn't mean it is cheap or trivial. It's a form of theatre (with music and actors who sing) for the people. Compared to any other genre of Classical Music, it's the one who can address the wider public, more than the Chamber Music with its very exclusive fans, more than the concert-goers, who need a minimum knowledge of the Symphonic repertory and preparation for the concert, more than the very solemn character of Choral Music. A Carmen or a Barbiere or a Traviata have the immediate appeal to the people, regardless of preparation and with a direct effect much stronger and more effective than almost anything else in Classical Music.

In Berlin, they struggle to keep up with the two Orchestras they have, while they can serve well the three Opera Houses. In Dresden, after the restoration of Semper Opera, the House is almost full, all the time. The Dresden Philharmonic?..(Still, some faithful ones go to some concerts in their conventional Hall).

As for my second "claim", I said : "The Voice and the Music make all the difference". Which means that, of course, the drama, the staging, the literature (is any libretto real literature that can stand any performance of its own?) and dancing (when applicable) are necessary, but without the Music and the Voice(s) the other factors cannot work, while with the voices and the music you can tolerate the rest. So, I never implied to remove any element of the Opera; I simply claimed that we need the great voices and the respective conductors to reach this level of the unique Opera performance.

To give you an example: As a potential producer in an imaginary time, are you going to stage "La Boheme" with Pavarotti and Freni along with mediocrities in direction, visual effects, costumes, etc. or the same work with the best stage director, the greatest costume designer, the best available visual effects and anything else you may wish, but with a third rate voice tenor and a wobbly dissonant soprano?

I hope by now, you may comprehend my point(s).

Parla

sachs, I'm intrigued with your use of the word squillo.  Not being an opera expert I had to look it up and found that the Wikipedia entry is disputed and online dictionaries are no help.  Even Oxford Music Online returned no results.

Would you confirm your definition please?

Indeed, Parla, I read you perfectly. And as you always do when you’re called to task, you’ve shifted ground. You said in your previous post, “Opera is neither a multi-faceted and definitely not an "incredibly complex art form. It's simply a popular form of theatre”. So forget about your definition of “popular” (which elsewhere, and repeatedly, you’ve argued means simple and trivial when applied to music). Let’s just go back to my original post:

“I'm very happy that dvd/bluray and televised performances are allowing a wider audience to assess opera for what it really is, a multi-faceted and incredibly complex art form, not just a vehicle for singing.”

If you want to get into a debate about its popularity, go for it. On any given night along the length of the west coast of the USA and Canada there will be thousands upon thousands of local theatre groups, bands and musical ensembles, revues and comedy shows, in performance. You’ll be lucky to find a single opera. As popular theatre, it’s having a very tough time. Outside of Berlin, of course.

But could I get you to focus on my original point, which is that opera isn’t just about singing? Tsaraslondon said it perfectly. Click onto Amazon and look at reviews for the Australian Opera performance of Boheme. I have the performance. Vocally, Cheryl Barker and David Hobson are very sound, but hardly a match for Freni and Pavarotti. So why do 59 Amazon.com reviewers give the Australian performance 5 stars against 13 for the Freni/Pavarotti Met performance. Because in every respect except for singing, the Australian performance is vastly superior. It’s better-staged, better acted, far more dramatic, better-looking, a more enjoyable total experience. And that, aside from a few die-hards who go on and on about mythical past golden ages, is what most people look for in opera.

I'm off down to the boozer. Two-for-one special on draught and they're doing Alcina tonight.

Tsaraslondon, you may have a "plethora of orchestras" in London, but how many survive the test of time and which is the amount and the diversity of the people who attend their concerts? As far as I can tell, the "two permanent opera companies" are doing a much better and solid job, over there.

As for "L Boheme", you (and Tagalie) picked up two specific performances to build your argument. My question is who and what make all the difference in Opera? I don't speak of all round balanced performances or any production that can avoid the worse. I simply claim that the great voices give the thrill of the music the composer wrote and that matters more than anything else. All the rest (acting, staging, visual effects, dancing) add or deduct something of all the extra musical and theatrical features, which might be necessary, can support but cannot serve the actual score.

Since we speak with specific examples, I can mention one: few years ago, in Semper Opera of Dresden, I attended a very well staged, powerfully acted, with excellent costumes and lighting performance of Wagner's Flying Dutchman. In this quite brilliant production, the theatre couldn't find the adequate or at least balanced singers, so they resorted to the first singers available in the...neighbourhood, while for the conducting of such a masterpiece someone Mr. Markl was chosen. The result was an excruciatingly painful listening experience that even my very tolerant wife found it unbearable.

In any case, what I learned from my old professors is that Music should be brilliant, not well-balanced, charming, vital or better-looking, more dramatic and the rest. Brilliance comes with the exceptional talent and skills of the specific artist(s).

Parla

Thank you, you beat me to it there, Tsaraslondon, probably because I was too busy laughing at Parla's risible observations on the London orchestral and operatic scenes which have, along with his other equally nonsensical witterings on opera, gone way beyond parody. But what would you or I know? We just go to listen to these orchestras and opera companies performing.It would be easier simply to consult some authority or other. I wonder who......

Try a little irony and see where it gets you, eh?

Parla, you've confused me now - I thought you were our resident authority. Me, I'm a simple soul and tend to call first on the evidence of my own ears and eyes. My professors (and my teachers before them) were at pains to drill home that their students make up their own minds and not simply take their word as Holy Writ. Still, what did they know, the deluded empiricists?