I frankly detest Church, Bocelli, et al. But I cannot agree that they are
either stealing existing listeners from the opera audience, nor that they
are diverting potential new opera audience members from listening to
"real" (vs. "pseudo") opera.
Frankly, I don't think the two audiences overlap at all. The people who
listen to Church, Bocelli, Amante, Watson, Brightman, et al never listened
to opera before, nor would they ever listen to it now. They will listen to
their pseudo-opera icons sing operatic repertoire because that's what
those icons choose to sing. But they will also listen to them sing musical
theatre, Neapolitan songs, and pop ballads. They frankly don't care about
WHAT these icons sing - they just want to hear those particular voices.
People who already know and love good classical singing are not going to
listen to these pseudo-opera icons because they can see through them so
easily, recognize all their technical, musical, and artistic shortcomings,
and because they already have so much other good singing to listen to (and
recognize the fact).
There is, however, a slight possibility that some people in Camp #1 (the
pseudo-opera icon worshippers) might actually be "seduced" by some of the
glorious opera music rendered by their icons, and that they might actually
want to hear more of that music even when it's NOT sung by those icons.
There is not, by contrast, the remotest possibility that true
dyed-in-the-wool opera lovers will ever want to hear more of these
pseudo-opera icons singing ANYTHING - at least not unless and until those
icons take a few actual voice lessons first.
So frankly, I think the only real threat posed by the opera icons is the
amount of money, time, and energy they are given by their promoters - in
the record industry, on PBS, etc. - arguably, if this money/time/energy
wasn't going to them (i.e., because they didn't exist), it MIGHT go
towards promoting what we consider "more worthy" artists. On the other
hand, it might not - and indeed, I think this is a much more likely
possibility. If "true" opera singers were so inherently marketable, the
record industry would have figured this out already, and - the Three
Tenors phenomenon notwithstanding (an exception to the rule) - tons of
opera singers would be topping the charts, with full support of their
promoters, PBS, etc.
The sad (?) fact is that a serious opera career precludes the kind of
availability one has to have in order to become a public relations
commodity. Opera singers are just too damned busy learning roles,
coaching, taking lessons, travelling from opera house to opera house,
rehearsing, and performing, to be able to "play the game" in terms of
going on tons of TV morning talk shows, do stadium concerts, etc. Also,
serious opera singers tend to be quite concerned about their vocal health,
and thus (the phenom Placido Domingo notwithstanding) tend to avoid
overcrowding their schedules with irrelevent activities that don't
directly relate to their singing in the opera house or concert hall. They
also tend to have musical standards, developed through years of study and
exposure and experience, that often give them a slight revulsion when it
comes to devoting too much time to singing second-rate pop music. If it's
a choice between Verdi and Ahrens, I think we can all be sure which a
singer like, say, Dolora Zajick would choose.
Also, most people making the incredible commitment in terms of effort,
time, dedication, etc., to an opera career are NOT primarily concerned
with becoming rich and famous. They are concerned with singing opera.
Their ambition to get into the world's top opera houses is not driven by a
desire for fame and fortune - it's driven by a desire to prove, mainly to
themselves, that they have reached the top of their professions in terms
of singing (and general performing) ability. Getting rich (modestly) and
famous (again modestly) may be byproducts that some singers enjoy, but I
doubt that the vast majority, if any, of them are actually MOTIVATED by
them.
ONe might argue, based on interviews the pseudo-opera singers have given,
that they are similarly motivated by artistic ambitions, not fame and
fortune. But such declarations on their part are belied some what by the
willingness of these singers to submit to the crass handling of their
publicists. If they really cared more for the art than for the money and
fame, they would choose a different path towards achieving success - and,
more importantly, they would define success itself very differently than
all evidence leads one to believe they do.
Karen Mercedes
http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
***************************************
What lies behind us, and what lies before us
are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
