On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Shawna wrote:
> With the exception of some wonderful arts organizations, educational
> institutions and a core group of fans, most American music, and indeed
> performing arts in general, is about the money. You do what sells.
But hasn't it always been this way? Typically, the people with staying
power have talent *and* have a timely selling point. 19th century opera
was written for 19th century people.
While Bocelli would not be good on a real opera stage, he is very musical,
and his small voice and sense of style are appealing to the CD buying
public. He can speak to the aesthetic sensibilities of contemporary
people. Musical legitimacy is not based on arbitrary technical rules (ie
big voice, no breath admixture, no double portamentos, whatever) - it is
about communicating and touching people.
> I think that the more educated the populace becomes, and the more critical
> of being marketed to, the more we'll see more discerning tastes. People may
> still not be able to sit through 4 hours of Verdi, but at least they'll be
> able to tell you why.
This isn't saying much, but Americans now are probably much better
educated on average than people who went to the opera in the past. I bet
you anything there were some nice-looking or quirky stars centuries ago
who were not so talented. Also, the castrati were "all the rage" partly
because they were a freakshow. Do you honestly think they were all great?
A big part of it was very "daytime talk show" in character.
You just don't hear about the bad singers and operas anymore, just as
noone will know who the "Back Street Boys" were in 100 years. People
*will* probably remember Prince, and people who are actually talented
*and* have something timely to say. I get the feeling we are
over-romanticizing the greatness of past operas. Most of them were
awful. We just kept a few good ones.
Tako
|
|
|  |
