This week's New York Times article "The Screen Can't Hear When You Yell Bravo" by Zachary Woolfe is incredibly true! If you haven't read it yet, give it a look over. The article is basically discussing how, although live broadcasts have their advantages, so much is lost in a movie theater setting such as the participation and enthusiasm of a live performance. Woolfe describes the awkwardness that happens when the live audience yells bravo and claps, but the streaming audience looks around and waits for someone to take the initiative and possibly embarrass themselves. So...the question is "Does streaming opera really attract new audiences or does it turn them off completely?"
This past spring I was lucky enough to attend (and not play in the pit) my first opera at the MET. I had very little experience with full opera productions and didn't know what to expect. I was totally blown away! I loved getting dressed up, going to the gorgeous opera house, the over-the-top sets and costumes, crazy excited people shouting bravo, the hundred mini intermissions, etc. I can't wait to go back. Obviously, I wouldn't have had this same reaction going to a streaming. But I wonder... if I had attended a streaming prior to going to the MET, would I have gone to the live performance at all or would have I refused the tickets, said "Been there, done that," and gone out drinking?
It takes $500,000 to do one live streaming. Would this money be better used in subsidizing tickets for live performances or give out more discounted tickets? I understand that streaming is for those who may not be able to travel to the MET or can't afford a regular live performance ticket. But is this a disservice to them? Is there a better way?
I completely agree with Hannah on this one. I love cinema and I love the opera, but I am not convinced that the two should ever meet. Part of what makes movies great is the cinematography and innovative story lines - which can be non-existant in live-streaming of operas. Operas, on the other hand, have the physical qualities of raw music as well as both artist and audience energy that makes it so appealing - and likewise, this is almost entirely lost with live-streaming. In short, the experience that comes with viewing a video of an opera is nothing compared to the actual live performance.
However, I do think that when done well - certain operas can be successful for live-streaming. Operas like Carmen or La Boheme, for example, are very well know and have story lines that fit with the "suspense" and "entertainment" that cinema is known for. Thus, when you see such performances from in video form, their qualities translate better for audiences than other operas would. For example, a Baroque opera like Hercules would be a disaster for live-streaming because, by nature, it is extremely repetitive and requires a decent amount of dedication from the viewer to both listen and observe closely.
So what is the solution then? Personally, I think opera organizations needs to be more selective about which operas they stream to the masses and alternately integrate opera overall into other artforms and media. Firstly, choosing operas for streaming more wisely will allow the true nature of the opera experience to be both perceived better and enjoyed by more people - creating more of an incentive to see performances live. Secondly, opera has become an "archaic" artform over the past century and thus needs to be reintegrated into society. For example, a friend of mine recently recorded an operatic aria with a rapper, creating a musical collaboration of epic proportions. This kind of work allows both sides of the musical coin to become more aware of the other side. Similarly, I think that opera companies could do much more to become larger parts of both the arts world and of society as a whole. Why not perform an opera scene at a museum opening from the same time period (where many of the themes match)? Or why not perform more contemporary operas about issues/themes that contemporary society is concerned with? Or even why not use that $500,000 from a live stream to educate the public about opera in a more accessible way?
I totally agree with Hannah and Lauren. I think the idea of live streaming is absolutely brilliant in terms of making opera much more accessible to more audiences. However before it goes further, there're at least two concerns that need to be solved: 1. Like Hannah mentioned, how to ensure audience participation and enthusiasm in the cinemas? We all know that audience participation is a key part in audience engagement/development. 2. Like Lauren said, opera organizations needs to be more selective about which operas they stream to the masses. I'm wondering what the criteria should be taken into accounts? To compete against films and put more "butts in seats", opera companies would have to stream operas that better fit into the mass cultural. Would if blur their missions or gradually lead the opera organizations profit-driven?
Besides, about "why not perform more contemporary operas about issues/themes that contemporary society is concerned with?". We've discussed about this topic in the Cultural Policy Seminar. Professor Matt showed us this video which I think is relevant to this question.
I agree with all your comments concerning defining the true value created through streaming art performances. I especially agree with your perspective Lauren, the traditional film experience heavily differs from the story-telling of opera. It’s interesting to know if audience members attending with an expectation of pure entertainment similar to a movie walk away underwhelmed from the arts presentation.
Thanks for including the link to the first 3D ballet production of Giselle. It made me wonder why this was produced, were there more artistic benefits and nuances captured in 3D as compared to a straightforward simulcast. Reading multiple reviews, the consensus was no. The camera techniques were relatively straightforward, just as if the audience member was sitting in the back of the house. One critic was bothered by the artistic choice to not show the entire dancers’ bodies at certain intervals, instead focusing on just the emotion in the face or on their feet for jumps. This relates back to creating the movie theater experience more artistic and not just a bland replaying of the performance. For more novice viewers, they may never notice the difference from stage to screen, but for the seasoned experts, there can be critical elements lost in the translation of mediums.
This week's New York Times article "The Screen Can't Hear When You Yell Bravo" by Zachary Woolfe is incredibly true! If you haven't read it yet, give it a look over. The article is basically discussing how, although live broadcasts have their advantages, so much is lost in a movie theater setting such as the participation and enthusiasm of a live performance. Woolfe describes the awkwardness that happens when the live audience yells bravo and claps, but the streaming audience looks around and waits for someone to take the initiative and possibly embarrass themselves. So...the question is "Does streaming opera really attract new audiences or does it turn them off completely?"
ReplyDeleteThis past spring I was lucky enough to attend (and not play in the pit) my first opera at the MET. I had very little experience with full opera productions and didn't know what to expect. I was totally blown away! I loved getting dressed up, going to the gorgeous opera house, the over-the-top sets and costumes, crazy excited people shouting bravo, the hundred mini intermissions, etc. I can't wait to go back. Obviously, I wouldn't have had this same reaction going to a streaming. But I wonder... if I had attended a streaming prior to going to the MET, would I have gone to the live performance at all or would have I refused the tickets, said "Been there, done that," and gone out drinking?
It takes $500,000 to do one live streaming. Would this money be better used in subsidizing tickets for live performances or give out more discounted tickets? I understand that streaming is for those who may not be able to travel to the MET or can't afford a regular live performance ticket. But is this a disservice to them? Is there a better way?
I completely agree with Hannah on this one. I love cinema and I love the opera, but I am not convinced that the two should ever meet. Part of what makes movies great is the cinematography and innovative story lines - which can be non-existant in live-streaming of operas. Operas, on the other hand, have the physical qualities of raw music as well as both artist and audience energy that makes it so appealing - and likewise, this is almost entirely lost with live-streaming. In short, the experience that comes with viewing a video of an opera is nothing compared to the actual live performance.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that when done well - certain operas can be successful for live-streaming. Operas like Carmen or La Boheme, for example, are very well know and have story lines that fit with the "suspense" and "entertainment" that cinema is known for. Thus, when you see such performances from in video form, their qualities translate better for audiences than other operas would. For example, a Baroque opera like Hercules would be a disaster for live-streaming because, by nature, it is extremely repetitive and requires a decent amount of dedication from the viewer to both listen and observe closely.
So what is the solution then? Personally, I think opera organizations needs to be more selective about which operas they stream to the masses and alternately integrate opera overall into other artforms and media. Firstly, choosing operas for streaming more wisely will allow the true nature of the opera experience to be both perceived better and enjoyed by more people - creating more of an incentive to see performances live. Secondly, opera has become an "archaic" artform over the past century and thus needs to be reintegrated into society. For example, a friend of mine recently recorded an operatic aria with a rapper, creating a musical collaboration of epic proportions. This kind of work allows both sides of the musical coin to become more aware of the other side. Similarly, I think that opera companies could do much more to become larger parts of both the arts world and of society as a whole. Why not perform an opera scene at a museum opening from the same time period (where many of the themes match)? Or why not perform more contemporary operas about issues/themes that contemporary society is concerned with? Or even why not use that $500,000 from a live stream to educate the public about opera in a more accessible way?
Also - Apparently Ballets are doing live-streaming now - IN 3D... what will they think of next?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.specticast.com/Giselle_3D.jsp
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Hannah and Lauren. I think the idea of live streaming is absolutely brilliant in terms of making opera much more accessible to more audiences. However before it goes further, there're at least two concerns that need to be solved: 1. Like Hannah mentioned, how to ensure audience participation and enthusiasm in the cinemas? We all know that audience participation is a key part in audience engagement/development. 2. Like Lauren said, opera organizations needs to be more selective about which operas they stream to the masses. I'm wondering what the criteria should be taken into accounts? To compete against films and put more "butts in seats", opera companies would have to stream operas that better fit into the mass cultural. Would if blur their missions or gradually lead the opera organizations profit-driven?
ReplyDeleteBesides, about "why not perform more contemporary operas about issues/themes that contemporary society is concerned with?". We've discussed about this topic in the Cultural Policy Seminar. Professor Matt showed us this video which I think is relevant to this question.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sing+me+a+song+with+social+significance&oq=sing+me+a+song+wi&gs_l=youtube.3.0.0.1916.5115.0.6491.19.13.1.3.4.0.188.1045.6j5.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.9OSr-q97c-g
sorry, try this link below instead of the one above:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzgD2QvOdlk
I agree with all your comments concerning defining the true value created through streaming art performances. I especially agree with your perspective Lauren, the traditional film experience heavily differs from the story-telling of opera. It’s interesting to know if audience members attending with an expectation of pure entertainment similar to a movie walk away underwhelmed from the arts presentation.
ReplyDeleteThanks for including the link to the first 3D ballet production of Giselle. It made me wonder why this was produced, were there more artistic benefits and nuances captured in 3D as compared to a straightforward simulcast. Reading multiple reviews, the consensus was no. The camera techniques were relatively straightforward, just as if the audience member was sitting in the back of the house. One critic was bothered by the artistic choice to not show the entire dancers’ bodies at certain intervals, instead focusing on just the emotion in the face or on their feet for jumps. This relates back to creating the movie theater experience more artistic and not just a bland replaying of the performance. For more novice viewers, they may never notice the difference from stage to screen, but for the seasoned experts, there can be critical elements lost in the translation of mediums.