Unfortunately, this great article confirms what many of us already know: if you want great opera, go to France or Italy; if you want great music and theater go to England or Germany; if you're wondering where this all leads, go to China. I'm just grateful we have YouTube because I for one would not spend one dime on these fools.
Unfortunately, this great article confirms what many of us already know: if you want great opera, go to France or Italy; if you want great music and theater go to England or Germany; if you're wondering where this all leads, go to China. I'm just grateful we have YouTube because I for one would not spend one dime on these fools.
As an opera lover, I haven't noticed a degradation of the quality of opera in the States, at least not with respect to the Metropolitan Opera. The quality is as good as ever, and I've also noticed a small but significant uptick in the number of Black singers, especially in secondary roles, at the Met. The recent productions of "Porgy and Bess" were fabulous. The outsized quantity and quality of Black singers on that stage was impressive, and I couldn't help but ask myself why I hadn't seen many of these talented individuals before. Lately there have been a lot more Black singers on the stage, and whenever somebody has the opportunity to sing a solo, even a small one, it's always noteworthy. And now we have the addition of two new operas by Terence Blanchard that give Black singers a greater chance to shine in a modern vernacular.
In some respects, being a Black opera singer has never been harder, because to the woke, opera is Exhibit A of white Colonialism, replete with every possible sex, class and race stereotype you can think of. This sets up Black opera singers to be viewed as race traitors. And yet, some of the greatest opera singers in the world are of African descent. For instance, there's Latonia Moore, a powerful Aida specialist as well as a sensitive interpreter of modern works, Lawrence Brownlee, a wonderful actor and brilliant Rossini-Donizetti tenor, and the magnificent Jeanine De Bique, originally from Trinidad, who has made Handel her own. These singers are not concerned with fashion or political correctness. They are artists.
Just my opinion, but I think opera is alive and well in the United States and the current efforts made to include more great Black singers in the mix can only be a good thing. Opera is an Olympian art form. "Equity" won't help the singer who can't keep up.
Addendum: One correction. The three artists I mention above do not work only in the States. They are world citizens of Opera.
Lawrence Brownlee is incredible. My son (who is in Graduate school for Vocal performance which includes Opera) showed me some videos and I was amazed what he can do with his voice. He is legit. I pray that opera keeps the high bar for its performers and pray even harder that my son can meet the high bar. To get to that level itтАЩs not just Talent people donтАЩt realize how much work goes into it. Thanks for the insight.
Patrick, I wish your son all success in his ambition to make it as an opera singer. You are exactly right: it's a demanding, highly competitive field that requires great sacrifice and commitment. There's a reason why we admire the virtuosi of opera, which includes wonderful artists like Lawrence Brownlee. Without that "high bar" that you refer to, there could be no opera. Mediocre performances are not worth listening to and the field would disappear if the talent were to dry up. Fortunately, I don't think the talent will dry up as long as we stay loyal to the canon of great operas of the past (and occasionally of the present). People want to sing that music and other people want to listen to it, because it is so beautiful. Obviously, I'm prejudiced, but in my opinion there's nothing like great opera.
I agree - to a certain extent. The quality of the voice is what matters most. My problem is the subtle de Christianization of certain works, and what I call "recession opera", not the race of the singer. Some of that has been rectified but Peter Gelb is not my favorite manager. I think the current "Hansel and Gretel " is a disgrace for example as well as the new "Lucia Di Lammermoor" Call me old fashioned but when I attend the opera I want to see GRAND OPERA - new productions are fine and I am open to artistic reinterpretations, but for me there is a limit. PS: I was a child when I fell in love with opera. My grandmother introduced me to a recording of Il Trovatore with the legendary Leontyne Price , as well as Richard Tucker and Leonard Warren ( my favorite baritone next to the late Dmitri Hvorostovsky). I long for the Zefferelli days. If they ever redo La Boheme I will riot. ;)
IтАЩm glad you responded. IтАЩve been shocked by all the likes on my comment, given that itтАЩs so far afield of the point of the article overall.
IтАЩm not familiar with the changes to Hansel and Gretel. What did they do to it? I also was not impressed with the modernization of Lucia, using gimmicky sets, costumes and video to distance the audience from the performances. However, SierraтАЩs singing is extraordinary and the cast as a whole was tremendous, so I let it slide. A certain amount of experimentation is inevitable and mostly itтАЩs going to stink. And yes, there is no substitute for Zefferelli, thatтАЩs for sure, and nobody will ever replace Hvorostovsky or Price. My god, we got to hear them live!
I try to be philosophical about experimentation in staging and the productions of atonal, terrible modern operas where thereтАЩs not a single discernible tune to be heard. I marvel that singers can even memorize that stuff. And I agree, there is a limit to how far we can go and still respect the art form. Optimistically, if we can hold onto the canon while nurturing great talent, hopefully weтАЩll make it past the corruptions of wokism. Lastly, IтАЩll be rioting with you if they touch La Boheme (my favorite opera).
Todays China has nothing to do with one from Cultural Revolution, but is extremly meritocratic society.
Entrance to top universities in China is managed purely on academic performance (trough Gaokao =>National College Entrance Examination). There is no DEI, no essay or some other affirmative action. Also if you show talent in sports, arts or anything else, you will be provided every opportunity to excel. Even to become member of CCP, person need to be in to 5% of your university class, only then you get invitation to join.
Chinese in China cannot fathom, that in US selection to top universities is not fully based on academic merit, but on some arbitrary parameters as one heritage or skin color.
Uyghurs are less then 1% of Chinese population. On scale of Chinese population even with direct discrimination of them problem is non existent, since from 100 studens, only 1 is might be Uyghur. Majority of Chinese population have never met or seen Uyghur.
For sistematic discrimination you should look at affirmative action and legacy admissions, that directly discriminated against Asian Americans who are 7% of population
So no preference is given to the children of high party officials? It is purely an egalitarian system and even Uyghurs are not discriminated against and admitted to universities. I do know they are admitted to the world's largest prison.
- preference is given to the children of high party officials. => Not, they also have to take Gaokao, and have same chance as rest. There is more corruption in our admissions through whole legacy & donor admissions than in China.
- Uyghurs are less then, 1% of Chinese population. Even if they are directly discriminated, on scale of China problem is so miniscule. But even they take same Gaokao and have same Chances to get in, since evaluation and rating of Gaokao is public.
Country is 92% Han (Incl Hui => Muslim Chinese). Next largest Minority are Zhuang People with 1.3%, on second place are Uyghurs with 0.84%. Becides Uygurs majority of other minorities have no issues.
Thus "preference for Han" is not really something that exist, since vast majority of population identifies as Han. For every 100 students in China there are 8 Minorities, even if there was "preference for Han" this would be negligible, what benefit would it get, 1-2 more Han?
Wu mao much? I'm sorry, but this constant need to affirm what is one of the most oppressive governments in the world seems highly suspicious. Echoes of the fifty cent army. I appreciate conversations of depth and would like to return to the points made in this article.
Do we want freedom and equal opportunity based on our minds-and-spirits or division based on our 'bodies' and our raised fists?
It boils down to this: do we base our artistic decisions on the concept of a Higher Unifying Principle drawing individuals to be their best and to forgive and love one another or on a crude and terminal materialism that sees only unthinking masses of Black and Brown or white 'Bodies'?
Fair comment. Now, do the % of Han in the top leadership of the CCP. China is a Han nation, though there are millions and millions who are not Han. Also, China isn't stupid enough to allow millions and millions of legal or illegal immigrants that will never assimilate.
do the % of Han in the top leadership of the CCP => Sure, no problem, Country is 92% Han+Hui, Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party that runs country and CCP has 24 seats, how many minorities should be in this body and which minority should be included?
What probability is there that 92% of population will yield more talented people (in absolute numbers) than 8% of population?
So should China do affirmative action and have fixed numbers of Minorities in their government?
Well you know, from the pics I see, Chna is overwhelmingly monochomatic, racially speaking..."diversity" over there is kind of a moot point. But yeah, I can believe that at this point, aspects China's system are more legit than ours.
China is not monochomatic (this is trope that is shown in western media), but very diverse, there is lots difference between Chinese in north, south, east, west of country (not only how they look, but food, culture). Large parts of country have their own dialects of Chinese language.
China is an overtly racist country, where only the Han count as real Chinese. Yes, there are many ethnic groups and dialects, but they are not treated equally. This is a fact. Verifiable by things like the removal of Africans who were kicked out of quarantine hotels during the pandemic, kicked out of McDonalds. An ad for laundry soap where they put a black man in a washing machine and he comes out Chinese. I do not blame the Chinese people, but the ideology of their tyrannical Stalinist government. Anyone who lived through the Cultural Revolution would have been traumatized. And that is what this article in the Free Press is about: the signs of that type of tyranny, the scaffold for building a nation based on fear and division.
"China is an overtly racist country, where only the Han count as real Chinese. Yes, there are many ethnic groups and dialects, but they are not treated equally. "
Probably true, but still better than in west. Where did all us German/Italian/French speaking population went ? 100 years ago there were plenty of vibrant communities that spoke other languages than English. Where are they now?
What about languages of natives in US? Were they allowed to thrive in liste 200 years or brought to brink of destruction, by active actions by Fedaral and local governments?
"Still better than the West" ?? Untrue. In the category of language, sadly, Mao destroyed much of the rich cultural heritage of Mandarin in his attempt to 'simplify' the language into what has been described as a crude version that lost nuance and literary value.
You are speaking to a language teacher. Yes, languages still thrive in many communities in the USA--often through churches, temples, mosques and community organizations. French in Massachusetts and other New England states, for example. Spanish is widespread in the USA as that is the current language of more recent immigrants. BTW, note the prevalence of Mandarin and its availability in High School as a study language. The U.S. and many 'Western' countries are leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion--to an extreme degree as you see in the article that prompted this .discussion.
I figured you would come back with some such comment...yeah, it's a big country, so you are going to have some "diversity"of culture...but last time I checked (this morning) China is 90% plus Han Chinese....so they fail the "diversity" test.
Han Chinese are very diverse among themself (culturally and how they look).
Last time I checked majority of population in US were Americans and speak English's language. US fails diversity test, there is more similarity between Ney Yorker and person from Los Angels, than between Northern and Southern Chinese (Culturally and linguistic ).
Let me know when "diverse" China opens its borders for decades to migrants from all over the world...then we can (maybe) talk about "diversity"in China.
Heh heh...you must not know much about the US...Los Angelenos are basically Left-Coast New Yorkers.
But it is true that the distinct regional and cultrural variations that were once so prominent in the US have been honed down by techno-mono-culture...one nation under Tik Tok/Instagram... sigh...
"Han Chinese are very diverse among themself (culturally and how they look)."
You know what? So are "white people." But you would never know that from they way we talk these days.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed the fallacy underlying the (as you would say) diversity "trope": even the most seemingly monochromatic groups are quite "diverse."
Nope, China fails the Diversity Test, at least in the way we use the term today.
- You know what? So are "white people." But you would never know that from they way we talk these days.
- You have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed the fallacy underlying the (as you would say) diversity "trope": even the most seemingly monochromatic groups are quite "diverse."
So you are basicly confirming everything I said, thank you. People can look similar phisicaly, but have vastly different ideas
- Nope, China fails the Diversity Test, at least in the way we use the term today.
That kind "diversity" (that you insinuate) exists only in heads of western liberals.
You are so missing the point here...of course people who superficially appear similar are often vastly different in other respects. But diversity/inculsiveness/equity ideology sees only skin color, and that is the problem.
But you are right--"that kind of diversity does exist only in the head of western liberals"...that's why we are critiquing it in this article/discussion.
Note that in China they have no problem putting their troublesome minorities into concentration camps for re-education. Or rape and murder. Is that what we want?
Unfortunately, this great article confirms what many of us already know: if you want great opera, go to France or Italy; if you want great music and theater go to England or Germany; if you're wondering where this all leads, go to China. I'm just grateful we have YouTube because I for one would not spend one dime on these fools.
As an opera lover, I haven't noticed a degradation of the quality of opera in the States, at least not with respect to the Metropolitan Opera. The quality is as good as ever, and I've also noticed a small but significant uptick in the number of Black singers, especially in secondary roles, at the Met. The recent productions of "Porgy and Bess" were fabulous. The outsized quantity and quality of Black singers on that stage was impressive, and I couldn't help but ask myself why I hadn't seen many of these talented individuals before. Lately there have been a lot more Black singers on the stage, and whenever somebody has the opportunity to sing a solo, even a small one, it's always noteworthy. And now we have the addition of two new operas by Terence Blanchard that give Black singers a greater chance to shine in a modern vernacular.
In some respects, being a Black opera singer has never been harder, because to the woke, opera is Exhibit A of white Colonialism, replete with every possible sex, class and race stereotype you can think of. This sets up Black opera singers to be viewed as race traitors. And yet, some of the greatest opera singers in the world are of African descent. For instance, there's Latonia Moore, a powerful Aida specialist as well as a sensitive interpreter of modern works, Lawrence Brownlee, a wonderful actor and brilliant Rossini-Donizetti tenor, and the magnificent Jeanine De Bique, originally from Trinidad, who has made Handel her own. These singers are not concerned with fashion or political correctness. They are artists.
Just my opinion, but I think opera is alive and well in the United States and the current efforts made to include more great Black singers in the mix can only be a good thing. Opera is an Olympian art form. "Equity" won't help the singer who can't keep up.
Addendum: One correction. The three artists I mention above do not work only in the States. They are world citizens of Opera.
Lawrence Brownlee is incredible. My son (who is in Graduate school for Vocal performance which includes Opera) showed me some videos and I was amazed what he can do with his voice. He is legit. I pray that opera keeps the high bar for its performers and pray even harder that my son can meet the high bar. To get to that level itтАЩs not just Talent people donтАЩt realize how much work goes into it. Thanks for the insight.
Patrick, I wish your son all success in his ambition to make it as an opera singer. You are exactly right: it's a demanding, highly competitive field that requires great sacrifice and commitment. There's a reason why we admire the virtuosi of opera, which includes wonderful artists like Lawrence Brownlee. Without that "high bar" that you refer to, there could be no opera. Mediocre performances are not worth listening to and the field would disappear if the talent were to dry up. Fortunately, I don't think the talent will dry up as long as we stay loyal to the canon of great operas of the past (and occasionally of the present). People want to sing that music and other people want to listen to it, because it is so beautiful. Obviously, I'm prejudiced, but in my opinion there's nothing like great opera.
I agree - to a certain extent. The quality of the voice is what matters most. My problem is the subtle de Christianization of certain works, and what I call "recession opera", not the race of the singer. Some of that has been rectified but Peter Gelb is not my favorite manager. I think the current "Hansel and Gretel " is a disgrace for example as well as the new "Lucia Di Lammermoor" Call me old fashioned but when I attend the opera I want to see GRAND OPERA - new productions are fine and I am open to artistic reinterpretations, but for me there is a limit. PS: I was a child when I fell in love with opera. My grandmother introduced me to a recording of Il Trovatore with the legendary Leontyne Price , as well as Richard Tucker and Leonard Warren ( my favorite baritone next to the late Dmitri Hvorostovsky). I long for the Zefferelli days. If they ever redo La Boheme I will riot. ;)
IтАЩm glad you responded. IтАЩve been shocked by all the likes on my comment, given that itтАЩs so far afield of the point of the article overall.
IтАЩm not familiar with the changes to Hansel and Gretel. What did they do to it? I also was not impressed with the modernization of Lucia, using gimmicky sets, costumes and video to distance the audience from the performances. However, SierraтАЩs singing is extraordinary and the cast as a whole was tremendous, so I let it slide. A certain amount of experimentation is inevitable and mostly itтАЩs going to stink. And yes, there is no substitute for Zefferelli, thatтАЩs for sure, and nobody will ever replace Hvorostovsky or Price. My god, we got to hear them live!
I try to be philosophical about experimentation in staging and the productions of atonal, terrible modern operas where thereтАЩs not a single discernible tune to be heard. I marvel that singers can even memorize that stuff. And I agree, there is a limit to how far we can go and still respect the art form. Optimistically, if we can hold onto the canon while nurturing great talent, hopefully weтАЩll make it past the corruptions of wokism. Lastly, IтАЩll be rioting with you if they touch La Boheme (my favorite opera).
Thanks for that. The only obligation we have is to be open to the best talent. In every way.
Thumbs up.
"go to China"
As American living in China, you are not correct.
Todays China has nothing to do with one from Cultural Revolution, but is extremly meritocratic society.
Entrance to top universities in China is managed purely on academic performance (trough Gaokao =>National College Entrance Examination). There is no DEI, no essay or some other affirmative action. Also if you show talent in sports, arts or anything else, you will be provided every opportunity to excel. Even to become member of CCP, person need to be in to 5% of your university class, only then you get invitation to join.
Chinese in China cannot fathom, that in US selection to top universities is not fully based on academic merit, but on some arbitrary parameters as one heritage or skin color.
Tell that to the Uyghurs
Uyghurs are less then 1% of Chinese population. On scale of Chinese population even with direct discrimination of them problem is non existent, since from 100 studens, only 1 is might be Uyghur. Majority of Chinese population have never met or seen Uyghur.
For sistematic discrimination you should look at affirmative action and legacy admissions, that directly discriminated against Asian Americans who are 7% of population
But everyone must be loyal to The Party.
TF if this article is correct, and I think it is, one must be loyal to the party here.
So no preference is given to the children of high party officials? It is purely an egalitarian system and even Uyghurs are not discriminated against and admitted to universities. I do know they are admitted to the world's largest prison.
- preference is given to the children of high party officials. => Not, they also have to take Gaokao, and have same chance as rest. There is more corruption in our admissions through whole legacy & donor admissions than in China.
- Uyghurs are less then, 1% of Chinese population. Even if they are directly discriminated, on scale of China problem is so miniscule. But even they take same Gaokao and have same Chances to get in, since evaluation and rating of Gaokao is public.
What do you do in China? What is your job?
Very interesting. Thanks for this comment.
China does have preferences for Han Chinese vs minorities though. However, I agree that in academics it is very performance focused.
Country is 92% Han (Incl Hui => Muslim Chinese). Next largest Minority are Zhuang People with 1.3%, on second place are Uyghurs with 0.84%. Becides Uygurs majority of other minorities have no issues.
Thus "preference for Han" is not really something that exist, since vast majority of population identifies as Han. For every 100 students in China there are 8 Minorities, even if there was "preference for Han" this would be negligible, what benefit would it get, 1-2 more Han?
Wu mao much? I'm sorry, but this constant need to affirm what is one of the most oppressive governments in the world seems highly suspicious. Echoes of the fifty cent army. I appreciate conversations of depth and would like to return to the points made in this article.
Do we want freedom and equal opportunity based on our minds-and-spirits or division based on our 'bodies' and our raised fists?
It boils down to this: do we base our artistic decisions on the concept of a Higher Unifying Principle drawing individuals to be their best and to forgive and love one another or on a crude and terminal materialism that sees only unthinking masses of Black and Brown or white 'Bodies'?
Fair comment. Now, do the % of Han in the top leadership of the CCP. China is a Han nation, though there are millions and millions who are not Han. Also, China isn't stupid enough to allow millions and millions of legal or illegal immigrants that will never assimilate.
do the % of Han in the top leadership of the CCP => Sure, no problem, Country is 92% Han+Hui, Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party that runs country and CCP has 24 seats, how many minorities should be in this body and which minority should be included?
What probability is there that 92% of population will yield more talented people (in absolute numbers) than 8% of population?
So should China do affirmative action and have fixed numbers of Minorities in their government?
Why not? Otherwise it's Han supremacy -- surely child's play for the most perfect society in the world to svoid.
Well you know, from the pics I see, Chna is overwhelmingly monochomatic, racially speaking..."diversity" over there is kind of a moot point. But yeah, I can believe that at this point, aspects China's system are more legit than ours.
China is not monochomatic (this is trope that is shown in western media), but very diverse, there is lots difference between Chinese in north, south, east, west of country (not only how they look, but food, culture). Large parts of country have their own dialects of Chinese language.
China is very diverse country.
China is an overtly racist country, where only the Han count as real Chinese. Yes, there are many ethnic groups and dialects, but they are not treated equally. This is a fact. Verifiable by things like the removal of Africans who were kicked out of quarantine hotels during the pandemic, kicked out of McDonalds. An ad for laundry soap where they put a black man in a washing machine and he comes out Chinese. I do not blame the Chinese people, but the ideology of their tyrannical Stalinist government. Anyone who lived through the Cultural Revolution would have been traumatized. And that is what this article in the Free Press is about: the signs of that type of tyranny, the scaffold for building a nation based on fear and division.
"China is an overtly racist country, where only the Han count as real Chinese. Yes, there are many ethnic groups and dialects, but they are not treated equally. "
Probably true, but still better than in west. Where did all us German/Italian/French speaking population went ? 100 years ago there were plenty of vibrant communities that spoke other languages than English. Where are they now?
What about languages of natives in US? Were they allowed to thrive in liste 200 years or brought to brink of destruction, by active actions by Fedaral and local governments?
"Still better than the West" ?? Untrue. In the category of language, sadly, Mao destroyed much of the rich cultural heritage of Mandarin in his attempt to 'simplify' the language into what has been described as a crude version that lost nuance and literary value.
You are speaking to a language teacher. Yes, languages still thrive in many communities in the USA--often through churches, temples, mosques and community organizations. French in Massachusetts and other New England states, for example. Spanish is widespread in the USA as that is the current language of more recent immigrants. BTW, note the prevalence of Mandarin and its availability in High School as a study language. The U.S. and many 'Western' countries are leaders in diversity, equity and inclusion--to an extreme degree as you see in the article that prompted this .discussion.
I figured you would come back with some such comment...yeah, it's a big country, so you are going to have some "diversity"of culture...but last time I checked (this morning) China is 90% plus Han Chinese....so they fail the "diversity" test.
I guess the tell on your comment was the use of the term "trope"...I don't deal in "tropes," I deal in facts. You?
Han Chinese are very diverse among themself (culturally and how they look).
Last time I checked majority of population in US were Americans and speak English's language. US fails diversity test, there is more similarity between Ney Yorker and person from Los Angels, than between Northern and Southern Chinese (Culturally and linguistic ).
Totally!
Mandarin and Cantonese are two entirely different languages.
In the spoken form. Identical in written form. So тАЬentirely differentтАЭ is a bit inaccurate here.
Let me know when "diverse" China opens its borders for decades to migrants from all over the world...then we can (maybe) talk about "diversity"in China.
Heh heh...you must not know much about the US...Los Angelenos are basically Left-Coast New Yorkers.
But it is true that the distinct regional and cultrural variations that were once so prominent in the US have been honed down by techno-mono-culture...one nation under Tik Tok/Instagram... sigh...
"Han Chinese are very diverse among themself (culturally and how they look)."
You know what? So are "white people." But you would never know that from they way we talk these days.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed the fallacy underlying the (as you would say) diversity "trope": even the most seemingly monochromatic groups are quite "diverse."
Nope, China fails the Diversity Test, at least in the way we use the term today.
- You know what? So are "white people." But you would never know that from they way we talk these days.
- You have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed the fallacy underlying the (as you would say) diversity "trope": even the most seemingly monochromatic groups are quite "diverse."
So you are basicly confirming everything I said, thank you. People can look similar phisicaly, but have vastly different ideas
- Nope, China fails the Diversity Test, at least in the way we use the term today.
That kind "diversity" (that you insinuate) exists only in heads of western liberals.
You are so missing the point here...of course people who superficially appear similar are often vastly different in other respects. But diversity/inculsiveness/equity ideology sees only skin color, and that is the problem.
But you are right--"that kind of diversity does exist only in the head of western liberals"...that's why we are critiquing it in this article/discussion.
Note that in China they have no problem putting their troublesome minorities into concentration camps for re-education. Or rape and murder. Is that what we want?
Great analogy but lost on the left.
Tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.