Rural Opera in Upstate NY

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am spending the summer as the artistic intern at Glimmerglass Opera.  To recap, Glimmerglass is a summer-only opera company.  Nestled in the remote wildnerness just outside Cooperstown, New York, the company annually presents innovative and new stagings, as well as rarely performed operas.  A significant aspect of their artistic talent is comprised from members of the their Young American Artist Program (YAAP).  This program annually brings in the best of new U.S. talent.

This season’s Young Artists, or “YAAPs” as they are lovingly referred to within the company, arrived just this week.  This year there is a larger than usual number; 36 singers and 2 coaches/accompanists.  They come from all different parts of the country, with varying educational and experiential backgrounds.  The one thing that unifies them all is that they are the few chosen from an applicant pool of over 800.  In other words, their damn good at what they do.

So what of the title of this post?  What is “Opera- a rural setting” referring to?  Well, for anyone who knows the geographical area Glimmerglass is situated, they will know what I’m talking about.  To put it into perspective, the closest Walmart is 45 minutes away. There are little to no streetlights on any of the streets.  Most of the buildings one sees while driving are barns.  Even the Alice Busch Opera Theater of Glimmerglass resembles a barn.

Alice Busch Opera Theater

One could count enough wildlife on a daily basis to start their own petting zoo…. You get the picture.  So this ultimately begs the question – “Why start an opera company out in the middle of nowhere?” And furthermore, “Who is going to come to the middle of nowhere to see opera?”

I ask myself this question everyday. These questions especially come to mind when I drive the 16 miles from my residence to the opera offices, and pass road signs indicating “Cow Crossing”, “Tractor Crossing” and the rarely seen horse and cart sign indicating “Amish Horse & Cart”.  With all these speciality signs one is accustomed to seeing on country roads, it only seems fitting for the opera to have their very own “Opera Crossing” sign.  It sits about 100 yards before the entrance to Glimmerglass Opera facilities.

Opera Crossing

At first mention, it seems like creating an opera company in the middle of nowhere would be a colossal waste of time, energy and money.  However, Glimmerglass must obviously be doing something right.  As a company, they have been in existence since 1975, and their Young American Artist Program since 1988.  They have continued to garner support over the years from some of the most well respected names in opera direction, conducting, and singing.  Most recently, it was announced that come September 2010, Glimmerglass will come under the general and artistic leadership of renowned opera director Francesca Zambello.

In my short time here, I have noticed one thing in particular that Glimmerglass does differently than most other opera companies. The difference rests in the way the company utilizes and incorporates the resources of its community.  Virtually all of the rehearsal and coaching spaces are venues within the local community that have either been rented or donated to the opera.  Many of the opera choruses are comprised of local singers.  Teachers are invited to bring their classes to tour the facilities and incorporate learning about opera into their lesson plans.  The examples could go on and on, but in the interest of time and your patience, I won’t.

One last item.  I think localizing art, engaging communities, and utilizing local facilities is one of the tenets to a a successful future for opera, and classical art forms alike.  As they say, “all politics are local”.  Well, in a culture where seeing is believing, maybe having people SEE art and artists engaging their community and its resources is part of the answer to the question of how we build support, respect and value for the arts within out communities and our country as a whole.  I hope to touch on this notion of greater localization of opera companies in a future post.  Happily, seeing what I’ve seen so far, I think Glimmerglass Opera is a prime example of an organization that presents world-class talent in an accessible and intimate setting fit for its community.

Please, save me from my cynicism!

Welcome readers of The Clyde Fitch Report.

So, you know how sometimes you read something significant, but the significance of it doesn’t strike you until later?  WELL, I just had one of those moments.

Last semester,  I read former NEA Chair Bill Ivey’s book, “Art’s Inc.”  It is a great book about many things including cultural policy and our cultural rights as Americans.  Towards the end of the book, in his aptly titled chapter “The Failure of Government”, he recalls a discussion he had with a Republican senator whilst trying to garner Congressional support for the NEA’s Challenge America Initiative.  To grasp the full effect of this conversation one must read the entire exchange for themselves.  Try not to cringe.

As NEA chairman working to restore good relations with the Hill, I met one-on-one with well over two hundred members of Congress.  One afternoon I’d taken a meeting with the chief of staff serving John Shadegg, a conservative Republican from Arizona who was then head of the “CATs” – the secretive Conservative Action Team (now called the Conservative Study Group) that set the informal agenda for far-right Republican members of the House.  I patiently explained the changes that had been made at the agency, how we were helping communities realize their dreams through the arts with our Challenge American Initiative.  He was nodding his head in agreement as I made my points and seemed to be getting the message.  About fifteen minutes into the meeting I asked what he thought; would his boss support us?  As I remember it, he said: “You’re doing a great job, but we’re still going to oppose you: you’re just too good an issue for us.”

Obviously this part of the book made an impact on me, because I wrote a note in the margin saying “how much harm are attitudes likes this having on important issues facing Americans?”  Ivey apparently learned his lesson as well.  He says, “…I’d been given a valuable lesson in the politics of culture: members of Congress don’t go to the mat over “grace note” issues, but they will – angling in from the left or the right – speak out if there’s an opportunity to score political points.”

Does reading this cause anyone else to feel discouraged or cynical?  It certainly has that effect on me.  How can we as a country, with a representative republic form of democracy, ever hope to achieve noble causes like quality education, viable healthcare and a burgeoning arts and culture scene, if we have people representing us who only look at these issues as opportunities for their own political gain.  Is it too much to ask that they simply be honest and follow what they think is right and not what they think will get the elected?

Go ahead.  Think of the cliche statements that come to mind: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, “You can’t always get what you want.”, “Everything happens for a reason.”.  Well, those don’t make me feel any better in this instance.  How are we, as current and future arts and cultural leaders going to argue our case for support with those who have these types of political attitudes?  In a culture that is becoming ever increasingly segmented and niche focused, how can we break through the clutter and garner support for solid and supportive arts and cultural policy?  Policies that foster growth and expression rather than limit and obscure it.

Some may say I am being a segmented, niche lobbyist in my own right, fighting for issues I may believe are important but others do not.  To those I say, “Point taken. But you’re wrong, and I’ll tell you why.”  The vast majority of people in this country derive pleasure, enjoyment, even inspiration and enlightenment from some kind of arts or cultural activity.  The real die hards get it.  They know that those organizations who provide arts and cultural activities don’t simply create money out of thin air.  It takes massive amounts of support both financially and in human talent to keep those organizations afloat.  It is the vast majority of casual arts patrons who simply don’t realize this.  This is why funding and research are needed to not only support organizations that help bring this enjoyment and inspiration to millions of people’s lives, but also discover how these organizations will develop and adapt to best meet the needs of a 21st century audience.

Is this all too “idealistic”? Too, “dreamy”?  Or, should I just go back to being a cynic?

Please hold your applause… until you feel compelled to do so.

I’ve quickly realized since beginning this blog that most of what goes into it isn’t the writing, but rather the research behind the writing that takes all the time.  That being said, I’ve discovered many wonderful and interesting voices out there, all having their own interesting angles and perceptions about arts culture, where it is, and where it is going.

Most recently I came across Alex Ross, music critic of the The New Yorker.  After a general perusing of his site, I can now understand why fellow arts blogger and opera enthusiast, Olivia Giovetti, candidly lists Mr. Ross on her blog under a list of links titled “Obsessions”.  His knowledge of music history is simply uncanny.  He is a wealth of knowledge and musical insight that someone like me can only hope to have one day…. I digress.

A post on his blog that caught my attention dealt with the history of applauding at classical concerts.  Namely, the act of applauding during performances and in between movements.  This is an action I have wavered on both for and against, but have yet to settle upon a solid position either way.
As history attests, the currently acceptable etiquette of only clapping at the very end of a full concert is one that is historically quite a new custom.  One of the more interesting theories as to why we moved from clapping to not clapping posits that the change symbolizes a shift of classical music moving from a “middlebrow” “music-for-the-masses” mentality, to a more “highbrow” or “elite” mentality.  Apparently clapping is uncouth.  For a full and well detailed synopsis of the subject matter I suggest you read the post for yourself.

Personally, I don’t find clapping necessarily distracting, but more so the constant little unnecessary noises of crumpling paper or the always dreaded crinkling of cellophane candy wrappers.  Seriously, does it really take 45 seconds to unwrap a cough drop?  However, the act of clapping in principal is not offensive to me.  I think it is something that shouldn’t necessarily fit into a format.  You come on stage: we clap.  You play your piece (all however many movements, and only when we are absolutely sure you are finished): we clap.

robotic applause

This kind of regimented ritual only adds to the stuffiness and elite qualities that are too often attributed to classical music.  I think if the momentum, energy and emotion of a piece compel you to clap, then you should clap.  Often times I feel clapping is an almost “forced” action.  It is as if the audience feels they MUST clap, and so does so with feigned enthusiasm.

Opera viewing etiquette is somewhat different.  As opera is a theatrical expression of emotions, story and music, it is often the case that clapping occurs throughout the performance and at different points depending on the quality of the performance.  This would seem a more realistic expression of appreciation and enjoyment.  I recently viewed a Metropolitan Opera production of Donizetti’s “La Fille du Regiment” in which both Natalie Dessay and Juan Diego Florez both received applause throughout their

performances.  This wasn’t distracting for me as a viewer.  Granted, I wasn’t actually there, but I felt the applauding only added to theatrical experience.  Almost like studies that show how viewers found comedic sitcoms more funny if they heard others laughing at the jokes, thus the inclusion of laugh tracks.

Alex Ross ends his post with an insightful quote from the author Christopher Small’s book Musicking. Small says:

The silence that will greet tonight’s performance while it is in progress suggests a different attitude [from the audience behavior of past eras]. Those who wish perfect communion with the composer through the performance can have it, uninterrupted by any noise that may signal the presence of other spectators. On the other hand, while our attention is without doubt active, it is detached; we no longer feel ourselves to be part of the performance but listen to it as it were from the outside. Any noise we might make would not be an element of the performance, as were the sighs and murmurs of the Parisian audience, but an interruption or distraction. I have even known the minute clinks and jingles of a female listener’s Charm bracelet to put its wearer’s neighbor in a rage. Who we are, then, is spectators rather than participants, and our silence during the performance is a sign of this condition, that we have nothing to contribute but our attention to the spectacle that has been arranged for us. We might go further and say that we are spectators at a spectacle that is not ours, that our relationship with those who are responsible for the production of the spectacle—the composer, the orchestra, the conductor, and those who make the arrangements for tonight’s concert—is that of consumers to producers, and our only power is that of consumers in general, to buy or not to buy.

Clearly, am I just as guilty of Small’s criticism as noted earlier in this post where I complain about the “crinkling of cellophane wrappers.”

This sentiment expressed by Small is both uplifting and depressing for me.  Uplifting because it pointedly expresses a sentiment I have held for some time, but have not found the eloquence to express.  Depressing, because it exposes a cultural mentality towards orchestral music that is counterproductive and anti-progressive.  It shows that we culturally treat this kind of art as holier than Thou entertainment, not to be disturbed or disrupted without following the proper protocols.  This is an attitude that  I realize, as well as many of my fellow arts bloggers do, is part of our cultural heritage in desperate need of critical discourse and new valuation.

“Without Culture, There is no Life.”

The title of this post comes from a video produced by the Pittsburgh Filmakers, an affiliate of the Pittsburgh Center for the Arts.

This video was made in response to the Pennsylvania’s state government proposal to eliminate ALL arts funding for the state.  As you can imagine this came as somewhat of a shock, and surely angered many people.  Yes, we are in a recession, but why are the arts and education expendable government programs and always the first on the budget chopping block?

This short video conveys the human impact the arts have on culture and society.  Cutting this funding will do more to hurt the state of Pennsylvania and will, in the long term, cost the state even more both financially and culturally.

Viva la France! Why Americans Could Use a Dose of French Renaissance

I just read a blog posting that both lifted my spirits and brought them down at the same time. Norman Lebrecht and his blog “Slipped Disc“, most recently wrote about the latest data showing that the average age of the French concert and opera patron is 32.  Great news! Right?  Yes, for the French.

Viva la Revolution! err...Renaissance

 

 

With all the junk pop culture that America exports to the world every year, its not surprising the French have always been so resistant of our influence on their culture.  After all, we clearly do not value the same things culturally.  How has a younger generation of French citizens come to love a musical genre that is so often associated in the States with the likes of “rich people” and old ladies who enjoy the occasional blue-rinse?  

According to Lebrecht:

Instead of politicians and media projecting an image of serious music as elitist and expensive, in France they present it as both aspirational and enjoyable – a good way to spend an evening and an environment where young people are likely to meet people they like.

That is definitely not the picture I get from a majority of US opera companies and orchestras.  Orchestral concerts and opera are too often marketed here as events of lavishness and the subliminal message I get is, “unless you have the money to be here, don’t come.”

Something I wish would change in the US, as I see it has in France, is standard concert dress code.  Can we please get rid of the tuxedo and black dress getup?  Seriously.  Not only does it give an heir of extreme formality, it is also very uncomfortable.  At this point I feel it is a matter of tradition, for traditions sake.  That is a stifling attitude to have, and one that prevents serious progressive change from occuring.

 Why should we, as Americans, take this same attitude the French are taking towards their culture?  Although there are many reasons of varying significance, the main reason I believe has to do with the creation of a more stable and culturally healthy society.  The classical arts require both those creating it and those consuming it to be intellectually involved.  This is not a passive form of entertainment.  Listening, (notice i didn’t say hearing), reading, drawing, painting, sculpting, playing an instrument, singing, these are all activities that require patience and keen attention to detail.   Patience, creativity and an attention to detail, are dispositions I believe no one would argue against promoting.  Hence, society as a whole benefits.

I was very pleased to hear about the additional $15 million slated for the NEA this week.  Again, it feels like drops in the bucket, but I guess its better than nothing.  Maybe president Obama should take a lesson from the French in this case and use a little bit of his touted political capital on the arts.  We sure could use it.