Re: RAT SUPERBOWL INTERVAL HIJINKS

[mego1911@gte.net]

UNCLE already - you win!  My Analogy sucked.  Sheesh.
m.e.
----------
>From: Chris Jeffries <cjeffries@seanet.com>
>To: "RAT List" <rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com>
>Subject: Re: RAT SUPERBOWL INTERVAL HIJINKS
>Date: Wed, Feb 2, 2000, 8:45 PM
>

>I too must leap in.  First, there is indeed a huge resurgence in opera 
>attendance.  We don't hear about it because in America, the opera houses 
>are nonprofits, and therefore Entertainment Weekly and the conglomerate 
>newspapers, who are owned by corporate interests directly competing for 
>those entertainment dollars, naturally sweep it under the rug since they 
>themselves don't get to cash in on the extra publicity (sound familiar?). 
> 
>
>Opera "elitist?"  Maybe it seems that way in the always-gets-it-wrong 
>U.S.  So what.  Go almost anywhere in Europe and see if you can hurl 
>without some of it splashing against a busy, thriving, fun, popular opera 
>house.  There are tons of places in the world where fights break out in 
>the pubs over this week's opera (I saw this in Sydney, a jock town if 
>ever there was one).  Not a sign of "out of touch" to be seen.  Leave it 
>to us to turn a fabulous art form into a snobs-only furfest -- but as 
>Allison points out, even that ground is shifting radically as we speak.  
>As is the nature of opera itself -- it pops up in many guises besides the 
>one we think of.
>
>Opera "high art?"   Heavens.  Nearly all operas, famous and forgotten, 
>are potboilers written for a mass audience.  Most are claptrap.  Most are 
>glorious.  Opera is the Evel Knievel of concert music.  The singers, 
>players, and conductors are all performing awesome feats of athletic 
>prowess, or failing spectacularly at same.  Some operas go the 
>Shakespeare route and manage to also be high art, and some are hermetic 
>and only try to appeal to connoisseurs.  But most were written to be 
>nothing more or less than rip-roaring crowd pleasers, and they still 
>would be if we didn't all settle for the party line that what we're 
>watching or performing is important, and serious, and boring.        
>
>By the way, what Peter Sellars does with opera is the tip of the iceberg 
>if you ask me.  His takes are fresh, and funny, and sometimes big eye 
>openers -- and he does long rehearsal periods, which is refreshing -- but 
>it's still the same package, with all the same trappings.  It only looks 
>like the cutting edge if your reference point is creaky old Met stagings. 
> The real advance guard is taking it out of the Met, way out.  But that 
>aside, I'd rather see even a same-old-same-old opera production than most 
>"theatre."  As the kids say.
>C       
>
>>Subject:     Re: RAT SUPERBOWL INTERVAL HIJINKS
>>Sent:        2/6/1920 2:53 AM
>>Received:    2/2/2000 7:12 PM
>>From:        mego1911@gte.net
>>Reply-To:    RAT List, rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>>To:          RAT List, rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>>
>>was not aware of the big opera craze sweeping the nation (would seem the
>>under 35 set has cought on to eliteism)...my point being that the lofty
>>ideals of creating high art often leave one out of touch with the audience. 
>>
>>m.e. <------product of public education - forgive
>>----------
>>>From: Allison Narver <anarver@yahoo.com>
>>>To: rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
>>>Subject: Re: RAT SUPERBOWL INTERVAL HIJINKS
>>>Date: Wed, Feb 2, 2000, 11:58 AM
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>Wow.  I gotta beg to differ.  I think that Opera is
>>>far from being a dinosaur today.  It in fact far
>>>outsells theater (particularly in younger ticket
>>>buyers -- under 35).
>>>
>>>Just putting my two cents in.
>>>XOXO
>>>A
>>>--- mego1911@gte.net wrote:
>>>> Really Mr. Houts I think it's our responsibility to
>>>> differentiate  between 
>>>> >Mass Popular Culture and High Art. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ....um, isn't that what made opera the dinosaur it
>>>> is today?
>>>> m.e.
>>>> 
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
>>>http://im.yahoo.com
>>