2 ms·

The best marketing for opera that I ever saw was from Fred Rogers. As kids we knew nothing about the art but he presented it as something that could be modern

by ken 8y ago

The best marketing for opera that I ever saw was from Fred Rogers. As kids we knew nothing about the art but he presented it as something that could be modern and relevant. Anyone could just make up a story and write a little song about anything they cared about. I would bet his (American!) operas have been seen by many more people than even "Porgy and Bess". Perhaps not coincidentally, Fred Rogers was also the best marketing I've ever seen for ballet. He introduced ballet as something his friend Lynn Swann did for fun. It was impossible to learn any old stereotypes when the first person we see dancing is a football player. I think I disagree with the article's implication that opera is a European art form, and Americans have rejected it in favor of native musical theatre. You're a bit closer with your observation that the marketing is terrible. There's also some truth in Gelb's observation that there's "a cultural and social rejection of opera as an art form", though I'd say most of the performing arts are suffering today in America, not just opera. Most of all, I suspect there simply isn't any great American opera to be performed. I'm not even a big opera fan (I saw one dress rehearsal when I was a kid, and I own one opera on CD), yet I can name a dozen German and Italian operas off the top of my head. Outside of The Neighborhood of Make-Believe, and before reading this article, I'd have had difficulty naming even one. Where's the American Wagner, or Verdi? Probably smart enough not to call their work an "opera", I bet.

bsder 8y ago
> You're a bit closer with your observation that the marketing is terrible. This is by design. Performance troupes rely on a very small number of extremely wealthy patrons and so, consequently, you cater to those tastes exclusively and you dare not risk upsetting them with something controversial. It's one of the reasons why you so rarely hear things like the "Bernstein Mass", for example. It also doesn't help that concert tickets for "classical" events like this are ferociously expensive. For a something that I may only marginally like--I'm coughing up almost $100+. I can see one of my absolute favorite artists for less than that. And a lot of music festivals have weekend tickets that are less than some classical thing that may only be marginally interesting. > Probably smart enough not to call their work an "opera", I bet. Pretty much exactly--for America it's a "musical" or "Broadway". "Hamilton" sure seems relevant and doing well, for example. "Rent" was supposed to be a modern "La Bohème". etc.
- ken 8y ago
  > It also doesn't help that concert tickets for "classical" events like this are ferociously expensive. That's common knowledge, I admit, but I just checked and at least in Seattle today, it's actually backwards. Seattle Opera tickets for the upcoming "The Turn of The Screw" (in English and with subtitles, in case anyone is worried!) are $25 to $314. The Seattle Symphony this Thursday is $22 to $122. Those starting prices are only a couple bucks more than a movie (Cinerama: $18.50). It's pop music that's crazy expensive: Childish Gambino tickets for next weekend are $114 to $589. Festivals aren't necessarily any better: Bumbershoot tickets last month were $130 (single day) to $775. I would say it's definitely a marketing problem when even people who might consider going to a concert assume that tickets are several times more expensive than they really are. $25 tickets are not aimed at 'extremely wealthy patrons', yet SO and SS ads don't mention tickets or do anything to dispel the myth of high prices.

by ken 8y ago

bsder 8y ago

> You're a bit closer with your observation that the marketing is terrible. This is by design. Performance troupes rely on a very small number of extremely wealthy patrons and so, consequently, you cater to those tastes exclusively and you dare not risk upsetting them with something controversial. It's one of the reasons why you so rarely hear things like the "Bernstein Mass", for example. It also doesn't help that concert tickets for "classical" events like this are ferociously expensive. For a something that I may only marginally like--I'm coughing up almost $100+. I can see one of my absolute favorite artists for less than that. And a lot of music festivals have weekend tickets that are less than some classical thing that may only be marginally interesting. > Probably smart enough not to call their work an "opera", I bet. Pretty much exactly--for America it's a "musical" or "Broadway". "Hamilton" sure seems relevant and doing well, for example. "Rent" was supposed to be a modern "La Bohème". etc.

ken 8y ago
> It also doesn't help that concert tickets for "classical" events like this are ferociously expensive. That's common knowledge, I admit, but I just checked and at least in Seattle today, it's actually backwards. Seattle Opera tickets for the upcoming "The Turn of The Screw" (in English and with subtitles, in case anyone is worried!) are $25 to $314. The Seattle Symphony this Thursday is $22 to $122. Those starting prices are only a couple bucks more than a movie (Cinerama: $18.50). It's pop music that's crazy expensive: Childish Gambino tickets for next weekend are $114 to $589. Festivals aren't necessarily any better: Bumbershoot tickets last month were $130 (single day) to $775. I would say it's definitely a marketing problem when even people who might consider going to a concert assume that tickets are several times more expensive than they really are. $25 tickets are not aimed at 'extremely wealthy patrons', yet SO and SS ads don't mention tickets or do anything to dispel the myth of high prices.