The Envy of the World?

[aeolium]

Db was talking about snobbery. That's not the same as wealth. The only remotely similar occasion I've attended was one at the ROH for Die Tote Stadt. I paid £28 for my seat and wore my jeans because, except for family weddings (we don't have many), I always do. No one looked askance at me. If people enjoy dressing up to go out, it's no skin off my nose. And I haven't found I'm any skin off theirs

But cost of tickets, and the image of the opera house venue, are important if it's a question of encouraging people to go along who are not flush with cash and would like the experience to be a casual, not a formal one, as it usually is for most kinds of other entertainments. Some people, like you, are not put off by the environment, but I'm sure others are.

I should have distinguished, for ferney's benefit, between the Glyndebourne Touring Opera (who I would have included among my second category of opera companies, along with WNO, ETO etc) and the Glyndebourne Festival venue. I did attend quite a few GTO productions in the 1970s and 1980s and enjoyed them, though the environment is quite different from that of the Festival site - and IIRC the GTO productions had different casts, generally with young talented singers, a different orchestra, and of course very different prices.

It's really a question of whether opera companies are serious about wanting to remove the heavy weight of class - and financial - exclusivity which for so long was inextricably associated with the experience of going to an opera. In my view, some are, and I have mentioned some of them, but some really aren't sufficiently bothered: like posh restaurants, they would rather keep the high prices and illusion of exclusivity.

I agree with the point that the BBC should screen more operas, and publicise them as major events.

[Lat-Literal]

Popular interests following in the post-war period of rationing and austerity were heavily shaped by consumerism, for which America provided the model and the culture associated therewith.



It's hard to generalise: the extent to which individual inclination and background intersect with demographics in any era are subjects for sociological research.



The exploitation of "snobbery" and "elitism" for populist purposes harks back to an age when "ordinary people" were excluded from the cultural interests of the ruling classes, who had the time and support domestically to indulge them. Consumerism quite probably marks the watershed between that kind of inclusiveness won in return for higher spending power and shortened working time which Herbert Marcuse characterised in his 1964 book "One-Dimensional Man" - the appeal being for disposable product, in line with capitalism's growing need to create rapid turnover.

Once the "loadsamoney" society had been secured in the collective cultural mindset, with Britain at the helm in shaping youth culture tastes from Mary Quant to 1990s Britpop, the resultant self-afforded quotidian informality could express itself in self-identification with a "right" to self-caricature, (viz the Ealing Comedies, Monty Python, etc etc) which it could then embody in representative figureheads such as Boris Johnson. After all, had we, the plucky Brits, not "laughed" our way to victory, relying on the ad hoc on the local level through the war and making do while the Generals dealt with the more important stuff?
I've always wondered if the advantages conferred by geography on Britain's dominating position in world affairs up to and just about including the Edwardian era were the disobligating factor when it came to our lack of an intellectual tradition of any depth. Our main contribution to philosophical thought would appear to have been Logical Positivism; whenever we have sought to look beyond surfaces it has been to foreign thinkers that we have turned, notwithstanding the fact that some of these have chosen Britain as their place of residence. If the Elgin Marbles can be regarded as symbolic in this sense alone, it is as if the treasures stored up in our copious libraries, archives and museums can be taken for granted - they, or rather the associated tourist monies accruing, help both Exchequer and in sustaining the homegrown myths that make up "heritage" for as long as historical memory ("Who Do You Think You Are?) can hold. These will provide our society's emotional binders, until, as you suggest:

Thank you. I think it is a good post. I mainly go along with what you say about consumerism but I also feel that was and is more closely linked to domestic goods rather than popular culture. In a sense, all of the Paul Morleys placed pop culture into an intellectual setting. You do still get that strand not only in music but fashion and art and comedy and sport but it is fading into nothing other than Amazon. Of course, unlike most of our counterparts, we never had a revolution and if we ever do it will probably be as an extension of a global pattern.

[french frank]

like posh restaurants, they would rather keep the high prices and illusion of exclusivity.

Would lowering the prices mean they needed bigger subsidies? Or are a lot of people creaming off a lot of money from the high prices?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It's really a question of whether opera companies are serious about wanting to remove the heavy weight of class - and financial - exclusivity which for so long was inextricably associated with the experience of going to an opera. In my view, some are, and I have mentioned some of them, but some really aren't sufficiently bothered: like posh restaurants, they would rather keep the high prices and illusion of exclusivity.

But the only companies that you have named to suggest this were Glyndebourne Festival Opera (who don't receive public funding) and Covent Garden, where tickets are cheaper than at certain "popular" cultural events.

[teamsaint]

Would lowering the prices mean they needed bigger subsidies? Or are a lot of people creaming off a lot of money from the high prices?

Here's a recent report.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/static.roh.org.uk/about/annual-review/pdfs/annual_review_1516.pdf

74% of income from ticket sales and commercial activity. At a guess, those paying the big ticket prices also probably spend big in the restaurants, bars etc.

I don't think that the report makes quite clear what percentage of tickets for opera are at the £30, £40 or £50 level, I would guess rather fewer than the numbers shown, which are for all performances.

I'd think that report shows that there probably isn't much scope for cutting ticket prices , unless they can find other funding elsewhere.

Big salaries...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/opera/11711346/Why-does-the-Royal-Opera-House-pay-directors-so-much.html

Probably just a few people ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Have you lost your mind, or have you found a use for that long-lost shovel you recently discovered in the garden shed??!!

You're going to have to do better than asking questions like that, Beef.

[french frank]

I'd think that report shows that there probably isn't much scope for cutting ticket prices , unless they can find other funding elsewhere.

That was what I was wondering. Just because some things are very expensive doesn't mean it's easy (or possible) to cut the prices.

Big salaries...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/opera/11711346/Why-does-the-Royal-Opera-House-pay-directors-so-much.html

Probably just a few people ?

If they'd paid Pappano and Holten £0, I doubt that would have reduced annual costs for productions significantly. The people who pay £150 for their tickets are obviously subsidising either the productions or the cheaper seats.

[aeolium]

But the only companies that you have named to suggest this were Glyndebourne Festival Opera (who don't receive public funding) and Covent Garden, where tickets are cheaper than at certain "popular" cultural events.

I did also mention the country house opera venues, also not AFAIK publicly funded, and surely you should be comparing the heavily subsidised Covent Garden with popular cultural events which are also heavily subsidised. Though my point was not just about price, but about the whole experience. I have no particular enthusiasm to return to see an ROH production, not least as I find the WNO (and ETO) environment much more congenial. If I, a white middle-class person who is very keen on a fair bit of the operatic repertoire, think that, then what about people who are just getting interested, particularly from working class or ethnic backgrounds?

[teamsaint]

That was what I was wondering. Just because some things are very expensive doesn't mean it's easy (or possible) to cut the prices.




If they'd paid Pappano and Holten £0, I doubt that would have reduced annual costs for productions significantly. The people who pay £150 for their tickets are obviously subsidising either the productions or the cheaper seats.

,
Why are people paying £150 subsidising the cheaper seats ? Surely there is just a certain level of demand £150 which is more or less known, and the number of tickets at top price for best seating areas are increased ( or reduced) to satisfy the demand ?

At an awful lot of concert halls the most expensive tickets tend to sell first. Same is true for opera at the Mayflower in Southampton.

As to whether the £150 seats subsidise the performances, that really just depends on your point of view, although I accept you (one) could see it that way.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I did also mention the country house opera venues

That isn't exactly "naming" them, though.

also not AFAIK publicly funded, and surely you should be comparing the heavily subsidised Covent Garden with popular cultural events which are also heavily subsidised.

Why? A price is a price - people can either afford it or they cannot.

Though my point was not just about price, but about the whole experience. I have no particular enthusiasm to return to see an ROH production, not least as I find the WNO (and ETO) environment much more congenial. If I, a white middle-class person who is very keen on a fair bit of the operatic repertoire, think that, then what about people who are just getting interested, particularly from working class or ethnic backgrounds?

We're moving away from how/if R3 is "the envy of the world" and onto personal anecdotes now, but as a "white, middle class person" you seem to be regarding "people ... from working-class or ethnic backgrounds" as a sort of homogenised entity here, all with the same preconceptions and attitudes. "Working class" covers a wide spectrum of social conditions - from unemployed, unskilled people forced to live on money from social funding, through individuals, couples, and families with one or more individuals in paid employment in social housing, to families with at least two members in full-time employment who "own" their own homes. There is a similarly vast spectrum of reasons why many people from these groups keep away from Opera and Classical Music events (and Theatre, and Jazz, and all sorts of cultural venues and events) - and of reasons why some do attend.

And we haven't mentioned cinema screenings of operas, ballets, and plays. Again, resorting to my personal anec-dotage, I know of two retired (pairs of) couples who live in the same Council Houses that they have lived in all their adult lives. They go regularly to every National Theatre screening - in their local Library Theatre - and to the some of the ballet screenings, too - and they report back eagerly, enthusiastically giving me all the details. When I asked them if they'd been to any of the operas, they went a bit quiet, and then told me that they don't, because they "can't stand that type of singing". Knowing these people as I do, I can quite imagine that if you suggested that they were keeping away from Covent Garden because they were put off by some of the richer attendees, they'd let you know in no uncertain terms what you could do with your suggestion! Might it be that it is the "white middle-class" who are more dissuaded by the appearance of some of the richer clientele than "working-class or ethnic" people?

And even if so; what does one do to remedy such perceptions? Should Covent Garden have bouncers turning punters away because they're wearing a tie? Initiate a "SingalongaCarmen" policy? Refuse to issue tickets to anyone with a more-then-five-figure salary?

[LMcD]

,
Why are people paying £150 subsidising the cheaper seats ? Surely there is just a certain level of demand £150 which is more or less known, and the number of tickets at top price for best seating areas are increased ( or reduced) to satisfy the demand ?

At an awful lot of concert halls the most expensive tickets tend to sell first. Same is true for opera at the Mayflower in Southampton.

As to whether the £150 seats subsidise the performances, that really just depends on your point of view, although I accept you (one) could see it that way.

If memory serves, I saw The Beatles, Chuck Berry and The Moody Blues - not on the same bill, I hasten to add - at what was then called the Gaumont. I also saw what I believe was the premiere of a musical called 'On The Level' (the subject being cheating at exams) and a performance - in English I think - of 'A Masked Ball'.

[aeolium]

There is a similarly vast spectrum of reasons why many people from these groups keep away from Opera and Classical Music events (and Theatre, and Jazz, and all sorts of cultural venues and events) - and of reasons why some do attend.

But isn't one reason putting off people clearly the image of opera? Every time the BBC shows a Glyndebourne production and pans across the groups of people in suits and dresses on the lawns, with hampers of food and wine or champagne, isn't that another image which tells people, this isn't really an art-form for everyone but for those of a certain social status, with an income to match? We don't do this with other places of entertainment and the arts - the National Theatre, or the wonderful South Bank Centre, or art galleries, or museums, or pop festivals, or sports events, or the Proms; it only seems to be opera that clings to ostentatious display of the trappings of social status as a kind of badge, and only opera in certain venues too. Of course the cinema broadcasts are a good way of expanding the audience and bringing opera, plays, concerts to people who couldn't otherwise see them. But I think that misses the point that the venues themselves - at least those which take hefty slices of the Arts Council cake while many regional arts companies are scrabbling for crumbs - should be as open and accessible as possible.

And even if so; what does one do to remedy such perceptions? Should Covent Garden have bouncers turning punters away because they're wearing a tie? Initiate a "SingalongaCarmen" policy? Refuse to issue tickets to anyone with a more-then-five-figure salary?

Well, the Proms and the South Bank Centre are examples of ways in which the access to the arts can be popularised without having to compromise on the actual provision (some might disagree re the Proms). No-one fusses about dress code at those venues, they are open to everyone and with a good number of tickets at very low prices. No-one need feel intimidated. It's at least a model of what might be possible to bring more people to opera.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But isn't one reason putting off people clearly the image of opera?

It's certainly one of the many reasons why some people (from all classes) are put off, I agree - but I don't think that it's the most important one. I think that the principal reason that puts off most people (of all classes) is that they don't like the way Opera is sung - or, perhaps more accurately, the way they believe/perceive it is sung.

Every time the BBC shows a Glyndebourne production

If only!

and pans across the groups of people in suits and dresses on the lawns, with hampers of food and wine or champagne, isn't that another image which tells people, this isn't really an art-form for everyone but for those of a certain social status, with an income to match? We don't do this with other places of entertainment and the arts - the National Theatre, or the wonderful South Bank Centre, or art galleries, or museums, or pop festivals, or sports events, or the Proms; it only seems to be opera that clings to ostentatious display of the trappings of social status as a kind of badge, and only opera in certain venues too. Of course the cinema broadcasts are a good way of expanding the audience and bringing opera, plays, concerts to people who couldn't otherwise see them. But I think that misses the point that the venues themselves - at least those which take hefty slices of the Arts Council cake while many regional arts companies are scrabbling for crumbs - should be as open and accessible as possible.

But people who do go to local cinema screenings of Theatre and even ballet events don't go - in as many numbers - to screenings in the same cinemas of Operas (ask the manager of the cinemas who host such screenings about ticket sales for the different types of such screenings). This obviously has nothing to do with venues, dress codes, or people feeling "intimidated".

And, (pulling the topic back to the Beeb) if there is any fault with BBC broadcasts of Opera which broadcast shots of the wealthier audience members, is that the fault of Covent Garden (to keep to public-funded venues) - or of the Beeb for not showing the casually-clad majority up in the cheaper seats?

[french frank]

But isn't one reason putting off people clearly the image of opera? Every time the BBC shows a Glyndebourne production and pans across the groups of people in suits and dresses on the lawns, with hampers of food and wine or champagne, isn't that another image which tells people, this isn't really an art-form for everyone but for those of a certain social status, with an income to match?

It would tell me Glyndebourne isn't for me. Does it say anything about opera?

If the BBC shows film of football hooligans, does that tell people football isn't a sport for them?

[Richard Tarleton]

Nothing elitist about this, all looks perfectly normal to me