Opera Lovers unite against the ROH and the BBC in unholy alliance

[french frank]

I'm delighted for you regulars. You've got something new to sneer about & a long weekend to make the most of it.

Ossie, why do you bother?

[alywin]

This really doesn't surprise me, I'm afraid. No matter who's at the helm, the BBC just thinks it can ride roughshod over the audience. Only the other day I was remembering (because I was looking at my DVD of it) what happened shortly after the House reopened, when it was decided to show a live performance of the Royal Ballet in Coppelia. That was a live, Saturday night performance (which, as usual with ROH practice, was scheduled to start at 7 pm, so that people living further afield had a better chance of getting home). But the BBC clearly decided that it didn't fit in with their schedule, and they were damn well going to show it live rather than with a delay of 30 minutes (which they could largely have caught up on by getting rid of an interval). By the beginning of Act III there were a lot of empty seats where punters with trains to catch had left. I don't remember any of us being offered a partial refund for the inconvenience.

And don't get me started on the will-we/won't-we/will-we/WE WILL! Gheorgiu Traviata recording ...

[John Skelton]

I'm delighted for you regulars. You've got something new to sneer about & a long weekend to make the most of it.

Perhaps this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrc6bVgJMGE will cheer you up?

[Panjandrum]

I saw some of the BBC's Maestro this evening. It was toe curlingly awful. If anyone says that conducting is just waving a baton around don't believe them. Some of the celebrities (I knew of two of the four) couldn't even do that properly.

Sorry Stanfordian but you shouldn't watch it. By doing so you boost the viewing figures and give the BBC the chance to say "look, we got x million watching; see how popular our arts programming is."

[Panjandrum]

Ossie, why do you bother?

FF, why do you bother responding to trolls?

[MrGongGong]

I'm delighted for you regulars. You've got something new to sneer about & a long weekend to make the most of it.

There is a point to this
and there is a bit of a "sneery" sense of ownership going on ............

So to be clear (are you listening at the back !!!)
I'm NOT a fan of the whole celebfest thing

BUT

there is a sense that many people's objections are based on "received wisdom" (my theme for the day and note the word MANY which last time I looked means NOT ALL)

The chorus of disapproval starts with a bit of irritation
and swiftly moves on to

"it's outrageous"
"shocking"
"an insult to Puccini" (at least it's REAL Puccini not fake ALW ................)

and quickly to

"the Linbury Studio is to become a lapdancing club"
"Classical music to be banned by the ROH"

etc etc


I also watched some of the programme as I have friends in the orchestra and they usually are lurking underground. Nice to see them in the Floral Hall (oops sorry not enough nod to the sponsor !) like pit ponies on a summer holiday.
Whilst much of it was cheesy (but that's what TV is like ) it DID communicate what the process of conducting is about. It really did show how that conducting isn't just standing there waving a stick about which is what Trevor Nelson was saying at the end. Many of the comments were very perceptive indeed. Most "music lovers" never stand in front of an orchestra and try to drive it.

having said that it's not the greatest idea in the world
but how many people who complain have been actively campaigning for tax increases to fund the opera house ?

[Prommer]

The Linbury Studio a lapdancing club? Now you're talking!

Wasn't that the new production of Rusalka?

[french frank]

FF, why do you bother responding to trolls?

It's my job to discourage them

MrGG - everyone uses their own choice of words to express their views (why, you have been known to do so yourself on certain subjects ) which allows a wide range of opinion. In the end, I don't think anyone so far has actually supported the idea - though making it clear at the outset that this would happen would at least have given people the option to book for a different performance, and indeed encourage those who think the celeb performance will be the most entertaining one to pack the house.

I'd guess it's not just about scenery shifting, but making use of a captive audience. Though how that particular audience will contrive to look enthusiastic I don't know - British politesse, perhaps.

[MrGongGong]

MrGG - everyone uses their own choice of words to express their views (why, you have been known to do so yourself on certain subjects ) which allows a wide range of opinion. In the end, I don't think anyone so far has actually supported the idea - though making it clear at the outset that this would happen would at least have given people the option to book for a different performance, and indeed encourage those who think the celeb performance will be the most entertaining one to pack the house.

Indeed
so maybe the real issue is a marketing failure rather than an assault by the barbarian hordes ?


(or even whoredes in the Linbury ?) ....... isn't that part of Nabucco ?

[John Skelton]

There is a point to this
and there is a bit of a "sneery" sense of ownership going on ............

So to be clear (are you listening at the back !!!)
I'm NOT a fan of the whole celebfest thing

So to be clear myself (are you listening anywhere !!!) - while I'm not a fan of the celebfest thing, if the BBC and the opera house had advertised it as a performance with Act 2 repeated conducted by oh you know who off what's it called, you know, it's got ... oh you know, off oh you know, then fair enough. But it seems outrageous to inflict it on people who booked to see an opera in three acts with an interval and not the celebrity repeat act just because that's what the BBC wants and no by your leave.

To move from the trivial - Puccini - to the important - football: it would be like the second half of a game being held up while 22 celebrities who had won a competition for almost being recognised played a thirty minute 'mini-match' on top of half-time. It would not go down well.

I hope the audience forget what nice people they unquestionably are and engage in an act of uncivil disobedience (I almost wish I had a ticket ).

[MrGongGong]

To move from the trivial - Puccini - to the important - football: it would be like the second half of a game being held up while 22 celebrities who had won a competition for almost being recognised played a twenty minute 'mini-match'. It would not go down well.

Maybe we should suggest that the OROH field 11 against the RPO ?
winner gets funded
looser gets to play for the Jubilee events

[MrGongGong]

Thinking about this again (and i STILL think its naff !)
What is "sneery" is the title

"Opera Lovers unite" ....... which implies that to enjoy this (don't know , wasn't there ) doesn't make you a "real Opera Lover"

because "Opera Lovers" wouldn't stand for this kind of thing would they
"Opera Lovers" wouldn't endorse the idea of celebrity
"Opera Lovers" worship at the temple of great art which mustn't be sullied by commerce
"Opera Lovers" don't clap between ............... oooooops

Opera IS a bit of a celeb fest ..................... oh Maria where are you now

[aeolium]

having said that it's not the greatest idea in the world
but how many people who complain have been actively campaigning for tax increases to fund the opera house ?

It's a b****y awful idea.
And I certainly won't be actively campaigning for tax increases to fund the opera house. The ROH after getting £78 million of lottery funding for a redevelopment not much more than a decade back are still getting a disproportionate amount of ACE funding both for capital and for ongoing expenditure:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/mar/29/big-hitters-arts-council-funding

And as you can see, more money for the ROH in times of austerity means that plenty of small companies all over the country are struggling and in some cases having to shut down. So you can count me out of the campaign.

[french frank]

Thinking about this again (and i STILL think its naff !)
What is "sneery" is the title

"Opera Lovers unite" ....... which implies that to enjoy this (don't know , wasn't there ) doesn't make you a "real Opera Lover"

That is exact. Enjoying Maestro at the Opera does not make you an opera lover (though I suspect you meant that enjoying it doesn't mean you can't also be an opera lover).

It is a bad idea; it is an imposition on those who have bought tickets without being told what would happen. And why shouldn't those who object 'unite' to say so?

Opera IS a bit of a celeb fest ..................... oh Maria where are you now

Oui, mon brave, but that's musical celebrities we're talking about here, not popular media stars chosen for their lack of musical knowledge. I perceive a difference.

[MrGongGong]

And as you can see, more money for the ROH in times of austerity means that plenty of small companies all over the country are struggling and in some cases having to shut down. So you can count me out of the campaign.

Don't fall for the "either / or" nonsense
what we need is BOTH

The issue of Opera funding is a long running saga in the arts. The bottom line is really whether we decide (and we never really have a proper debate about these things anyway) to have big Opera or not. In many ways it's that simple, we can decide NOT to have it, like not to have the Olympics () but it's an expensive business to do it well.

The ROH and South Bank do get a "disproportionate" amount of Arts Council music funding we could choose not to fund them and they would die out or become more of the things that folk in here often object to.

There is an issue of WHO should make these decisions. I know that much of the money they will get from the BBC will be well spent indeed.