{"id":342,"date":"2024-11-28T11:39:59","date_gmt":"2024-11-28T11:39:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/omarshahryar.info\/?p=342"},"modified":"2024-11-28T13:04:30","modified_gmt":"2024-11-28T13:04:30","slug":"the-business-of-opera-summit-part-2-of-4-what-in-operas-name-are-you-talking-about","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/omarshahryar.info\/fr\/the-business-of-opera-summit-part-2-of-4-what-in-operas-name-are-you-talking-about\/","title":{"rendered":"The Business of Opera summit (Part 2 of 4): What in opera’s name are you talking about?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"A<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\"\"<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

The Business of Opera summit (Part 2 of 4): What in opera’s name are you talking about?<\/span><\/h2><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/p>\n

<\/a>Thursday 28 November 2024<\/p>\n

My second takeaway<\/a> from the Business of Opera summit was that the content was irrelevant. To be clear, I believe this not because of what was said, but because of what was not<\/strong> said.<\/p>\n

The event was centred upon the release of a study the Laidlaw Opera Trust had commissioned about public perceptions of opera. While the research, well executed by Public First<\/a>, had some interesting findings, it mostly reaffirmed what the opera sector already knows. The title of the study itself\u2014\u201cIt\u2019s passionate… it\u2019s posh, but it\u2019s got some bangers!\u201d<\/strong>\u2014was a stark reminder of the misconceptions plaguing opera.<\/p>\n

For those unfamiliar with opera, this conclusion might seem fair. However, it reflects an overemphasis on the “posh” aspects, particularly grand opera companies, which already dominate the sector. This limited perspective underscores the lack of deeper understanding by the Laidlaw Opera Trust which skewed the research questions and outcomes.<\/p>\n

One Key Insight Emerges<\/h2>\n

Despite its flaws, the study revealed one key division among future audiences: traditionalists<\/strong>\u2014often returning customers who prefer performances close to the source material\u2014and experimentalists<\/strong>\u2014newer audiences seeking innovative interpretations of the genre. This divide resonates with my concern about what we actually mean by the word “opera.”<\/p>\n

In my PhD research on opera for young audiences, I identified four distinct definitions of opera:<\/p>\n

1. A musical score (e.g., Beethoven finished the opera).<\/p>\n

2. A performance (the opera was delayed by half an hour).<\/p>\n

3. A venue (I\u2019m going to the opera tomorrow).<\/p>\n

4. A style of singing (they sang opera at the opera, from an opera by Beethoven).<\/p>\n

The Laidlaw study’s identification of the differences among new and traditional audiences proves that there is a deeper tension behind the meaning of the word “opera”.<\/p>\n

Heritage artefact or artistic practice?<\/h2>\n

What do<\/em> we mean by \u201copera\u201d? Above all, are we referring to heritage opera<\/strong>, works of the past that shape our culture, or contemporary opera<\/strong>, which departs from tradition to reflect modern society as an artistic practice?<\/p>\n

In the opera sector, these two forms are often conflated, but traditional grand opera dominates, so discussions about “opera” tend to focus on Carmen or La Traviata, neglecting contemporary works and their relevance. This tendency was glaringly evident at the Business of Opera summit. While the study acknowledged the value new audiences place on contemporary opera and unconventional venues, the conversation at the summit revolved around the classics, the grand houses and finding the next great singer. Inevitably, the value and difficulty of contemporary opera creation is overlooked at key discussions within the industry.<\/p>\n

The Sector\u2019s Blind Spot<\/h2>\n

Nobody at the summit distinguished between opera as a heritage product and opera as artistic-cultural expression. This lack of clarity led to assumptions or feigned expertise, rendering much of the discussion irrelevant. Without clearly defining what “opera” means, the sector risks alienating new audiences by stifling innovation AND alienating traditional audiences by bastardising cultural heritage.<\/p>\n

A Healthier Vision for Opera<\/h2>\n

To address this, we must distinguish between “heritage opera” (perhaps a better term exists) and contemporary opera. As a contemporary opera composer, my work is grounded in tradition but entirely different from La Traviata or Carmen in content, form, and audience. I love the old stuff, but I’d never mistake it for something new. If I was to introduce you to my grandmother, I’d introduce her to you as who she is, I wouldn\u2019t force her to breakdance in front of you.<\/p>\n

I believe that by embracing this perspective, the opera sector can thrive. We must create more space for contemporary opera, support its creators, and stop forcing Mozart to breakdance\u2014AGAIN. Heritage opera and contemporary opera can coexist, but only if we stop conflating them and give each the attention it deserves.<\/p>\n

Click here to continue to Part 3. An opera conference of negative vs positive impact<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Click here to go back to Part 1. A toxic conference<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>Back to Blog<\/a><\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>