I realize I'm a bit late commenting on this bit of news. Unfortunately, I have been working seven days a week at the "pay the bills job," and by the time I get home, I can't focus enough to write. This article: Opera singer Boe bites the (tiny) hand that feeds him
however, has been on my mind since I read it, and I have been wanting to blog about it ever since.
I'm not really familiar with Mr. Boe's work - I've only ever heard/seen him perform as Jean Valjean in the 25th Anniversary Les Mis Concert, and, to be very honest, I didn't care for him. My opinion of Mr. Boe as a performer, however is irrelevant in regards to this.
In a rather public forum, Mr. Boe has admitted to not really caring for the genre of music in which he has made his name as a performer. He has, of course, been blasted for it by fans and other professionals in that genre. This brings up the question - Does one HAVE to like the work they do in order to be proficient or to even excel at it? Mr. Boe is known primarily as an opera singer, however, he admits to preferring (*gasp*) rock and pop music to opera. He admits to not attending opera and even to (blasphemy!) falling asleep while watching opera.
If you had an accountant who admitted to you that, while that was the way he earned his living, and he had a gift for it, he didn't care for accounting, would you think less of him? Would you blast him for not eating, sleeping, and breathing his profession even in his off hours? Would you fire him and look for another accountant? This is exactly the attitude being projected at Mr. Boe.
Award-winning opera director Sir Jonathan Miller, in defense of opera felt the need to take a dig at Mr. Boe by pointing out that "...he sings rather well but I know he comes from something other than opera. He was a car mechanic, I believe." Really? You mean he is less of a talent because he had a job other than singing prior to having a singing career? Whatever Mr. Boe - or any other singer - did in order to support themselves, in order to pay for their training, in order to pursue their dream, should have no relevance or bearing on the how they are treated by the industry. The TALENT, what they do in the audition or performance is the only thing that matters. At least, it is the only thing that SHOULD matter. This is the kind of snobbery and elitism about the opera world that I detest - and a large reason why I didn't pursue an operatic career, much to the dismay of past voice teachers.
My dream is, and always has been to perform on Broadway. Yet, when I started taking my singing seriously and studying, most of my teachers were from a classical/operatic background. I was asked again and again "Why do you want to waste your time on musical theatre? You're a lyric coloratura - you can sing Lakme!" Well, quite honestly, like Mr. Boe, if I am not performing it, opera, in general, bores me - Nixon in China totally put me to sleep. I love singing the arias. I don't care for a lot of the more incidental things, in most cases, I don't care for opera as a whole (there are exceptions - operas and opera singers I will do whatever I have to in order to see them), and, most importantly, I don't like the elitist attitude that comes more often from the producers, directors, and staff of opera companies than from the performers. When not performing, I don't feel opera is "my world" any more than Mr. Boe, but when the opportunity presents itself to perform opera, I enjoy it. I put myself into what I am singing heart and soul. I am a dedicated performer, whether what I am performing appeals to my aesthetic or not. Would you know from my performances that I don't particularly care for opera? Would you know from Mr. Boe's performance? No. Our personal feelings are irrelevant as long as our performances do not suffer because of our personal feelings.
Just random musings of a New York soprano on whatever happens to strike her fancy at the moment.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
A Bit of a LND Rant....
This whole Love Never Dies thing has taken on quite a life of it's own and gotten more than a little ugly as far as fan bases are concerned. It also seems to be the main theme of my blog and the main thing that gets me worked up enough to write.
One thing that has bothered me from very early on in this "debate" is the fans of Love Never Dies telling those of us who dislike it that we have no right to dislike it if we have not seen it. Of course, they believe it is perfectly alright to be a complete fanatical fan without having seen it.
I would just like to put a few things out here. I would like to explain WHY I have the opinion of the show that I have - without *gasp* having seen it.
I was skeptical about a proposed sequel to Phantom of the Opera from the moment I heard about it. The show has a DEFINITIVE ending. Really, there are no questions left. Christine CHOOSES Raoul and says her farewells to the Phantom. There is nothing left to be said between them. As someone who believes Christine was NEVER in love with the Phantom (and until the moment she gives him the ring back, he was not in love with her, either), I had my own ideas of what happened after the musical ended. I assumed Raoul and Christine went off together, married, and lived a relatively happy life together. I thought the Phantom may have had a few different options open to him - but continuing to pine for Christine and behave in an obsessive manner about her was NOT one of those options.
The thing is, I have all the information I need to have an opinion - positive or negative - of Love Never Dies without having to shell out an insane amount of money to see it. I picked up the cast album (which, with all the changes made to the show is now more of a concept album) - you can read my initial review of that here and here - I read everything I could get my hands on - plot synopsis, reviews, etc, and formed my opinion. No, I did NOT base my opinion on the negative reviews - two of my absolute favourite shows were completely panned by the critics. Upon doing all the same sort of research I have done on LND (although, LIKING these shows, I did put out the money to see them - several times), I formed my own opinion and took exception to the critical reviews.
Here's my problem with LND - the PLOT. The plot will not change by being seen. In the end, the Phantom has still learned nothing from the first show. He is still obsessing about Christine. He still sounds like a whiny Emo teenager. He still tricks Christine into coming to Coney Island. He still makes a bet with Raoul about Christine's fate and takes away her choices. Worst of all, with the rewrites, he now BLACKMAILS Christine and THREATENS her for no good reason. Raoul is still a useless, abusive, drunken gambler. He still makes a bet with the Phantom about Christine's fate. Christine is still a faithless slut who has no backbone, takes no initiative, behaves like a battered woman, and allows things to happen to her and her son. She has lost all the strength she gained in the original production. I couldn't possibly care less that she dies at the end. I just wish she would do it faster.
I don't like this story. I don't like the lyrics. I don't like these characters. I wouldn't like them if they were unrelated to Phantom. Change the names to Tom, Dick, and Sally, and really, what are you left with? A poorly written soap opera. A giant pissing contest between two childish and abusive men (I won't even get into the Meg/Mme Giry sub-plot - frankly, I find it rather forgettable). Any woman should be offended by the way Christine is portrayed and by the way the men treat her like property.
One reviewer who saw the show both in it's original form and it's rewritten form liked it originally and hated it the second time. In his first review, he said the "Andrew Lloyd Webber allows us to fall in love with the Phantom and Christine all over again." In his second review, he panned the characters pretty much the same way I did here. When I called him on this in the comment section - as the characters did not change between version one and version two - he said that the theatrical framing - the SPECTACLE of the original version - negated the character flaws. I'm sorry. I go to theatre to see a GOOD story and characters I can care about, not to see spectacle for the the sake of spectacle. There's nothing wrong with spectacle when it is well done and appropriate to the story (the falling chandelier in POTO or the helicopter in Miss Saigon), but when spectacle REPLACES good story telling and character development, it doesn't interest me.
Oh, and, this has bugged the HELL outta me since day one - Gustave, Christine and the Phantom's supposed love child. According to everything ALW has said and everything in LND, the show takes place EXACTLY 10 years after POTO. According to LND, Gustave is EXACTLY "TEN YEARS OOOOLLLLDDD!!!" This EXACT age, his seeming status as a musical prodigy, and his fascination with all things dark and dangerous brings about the "logical" conclusion that Gustave's father is not Raoul but the Phantom.
OK, let's break this down a bit. Christine and her father were both exceptionally gifted musicians. It does not require BOTH parents be musically inclined for the child to be musically inclined. I am proof of this. My mother is musical. My father couldn't carry a tune in a bucket if his life depended on it. I was a bit of a child prodigy. Gustave's musical ability is, in NO WAY, an indication of his paternity.
He has a fascination with all things dark and dangerous. Well, duh! He's a 10 year old boy! They are ALL fascinated by the dark and dangerous! An attraction to the dark and dangerous is not an indicator of paternity.
Gustave is EXACTLY 10 years old. I realize this is theatre and one must - to a degree - suspend disbelief, but, this is just TOO much. According to the plot of LND, Christine found the Phantom the night before her wedding and had sex with him. The next morning, he was so consumed by guilt, he ABANDONED her (uhhh...yeah....right), and every indication is that she then went to her wedding and things proceeded as expected - there is no indication she and Raoul did not consummate their marriage. There is absolutely no way (without a modern day paternity test, or the child inheriting the Phantom's genetic defect) to definitively know who the father is. However, let's look a bit deeper into this.....if this is truly exactly 10 years later, Christine had to sleep with the Phantom almost immediately after leaving the Phantom's lair. Now, let's look at biology - a term pregnancy for a human is 9 months. This means, if it is EXACTLY 10 years after POTO, Gustave would not be 10, but about 9 years and 3 months. Looking even more realistically into this....Raoul and Christine PROBABLY didn't get married the second they arrived at street level. They probably would have gotten married as quickly as possible - even so, I imagine it would have been 3 to 6 months after the final lair. Raoul was an aristocrat after all, and there are certain proprieties to observe. When all is said and done, Gustave should be more around 7 or 8. Of course, we all know ALW can't do math.
This isn't to say there aren't things about the show that I DO like. Some of the music is absolutely gorgeous. Out of context - and often without lyrics - I like it. I have the title theme firmly in my repertoire - with the original lyrics, not the current show lyrics - and enjoy singing it. The performers do the best they can with the material they are given and cannot be faulted for their contributions.
Yes, I AM a member of Love Should Die. However, I have NEVER made any kind of personal attack on the Love Never Dies fan base - nor has anyone I know from that group. While I don't see a problem with people liking the show, I really just want to know WHY. Given all the points I have outlined, what is the appeal? My interest is to actually DISCUSS these things RATIONALLY. Not to attack or insult anyone who likes the show. No one should be PERSONALLY attacked or belittled for their opinion of a show. They should, however, be allowed to express their opinions and discuss things in an adult manner without resorting to insults and name calling.
One thing that has bothered me from very early on in this "debate" is the fans of Love Never Dies telling those of us who dislike it that we have no right to dislike it if we have not seen it. Of course, they believe it is perfectly alright to be a complete fanatical fan without having seen it.
I would just like to put a few things out here. I would like to explain WHY I have the opinion of the show that I have - without *gasp* having seen it.
I was skeptical about a proposed sequel to Phantom of the Opera from the moment I heard about it. The show has a DEFINITIVE ending. Really, there are no questions left. Christine CHOOSES Raoul and says her farewells to the Phantom. There is nothing left to be said between them. As someone who believes Christine was NEVER in love with the Phantom (and until the moment she gives him the ring back, he was not in love with her, either), I had my own ideas of what happened after the musical ended. I assumed Raoul and Christine went off together, married, and lived a relatively happy life together. I thought the Phantom may have had a few different options open to him - but continuing to pine for Christine and behave in an obsessive manner about her was NOT one of those options.
The thing is, I have all the information I need to have an opinion - positive or negative - of Love Never Dies without having to shell out an insane amount of money to see it. I picked up the cast album (which, with all the changes made to the show is now more of a concept album) - you can read my initial review of that here and here - I read everything I could get my hands on - plot synopsis, reviews, etc, and formed my opinion. No, I did NOT base my opinion on the negative reviews - two of my absolute favourite shows were completely panned by the critics. Upon doing all the same sort of research I have done on LND (although, LIKING these shows, I did put out the money to see them - several times), I formed my own opinion and took exception to the critical reviews.
Here's my problem with LND - the PLOT. The plot will not change by being seen. In the end, the Phantom has still learned nothing from the first show. He is still obsessing about Christine. He still sounds like a whiny Emo teenager. He still tricks Christine into coming to Coney Island. He still makes a bet with Raoul about Christine's fate and takes away her choices. Worst of all, with the rewrites, he now BLACKMAILS Christine and THREATENS her for no good reason. Raoul is still a useless, abusive, drunken gambler. He still makes a bet with the Phantom about Christine's fate. Christine is still a faithless slut who has no backbone, takes no initiative, behaves like a battered woman, and allows things to happen to her and her son. She has lost all the strength she gained in the original production. I couldn't possibly care less that she dies at the end. I just wish she would do it faster.
I don't like this story. I don't like the lyrics. I don't like these characters. I wouldn't like them if they were unrelated to Phantom. Change the names to Tom, Dick, and Sally, and really, what are you left with? A poorly written soap opera. A giant pissing contest between two childish and abusive men (I won't even get into the Meg/Mme Giry sub-plot - frankly, I find it rather forgettable). Any woman should be offended by the way Christine is portrayed and by the way the men treat her like property.
One reviewer who saw the show both in it's original form and it's rewritten form liked it originally and hated it the second time. In his first review, he said the "Andrew Lloyd Webber allows us to fall in love with the Phantom and Christine all over again." In his second review, he panned the characters pretty much the same way I did here. When I called him on this in the comment section - as the characters did not change between version one and version two - he said that the theatrical framing - the SPECTACLE of the original version - negated the character flaws. I'm sorry. I go to theatre to see a GOOD story and characters I can care about, not to see spectacle for the the sake of spectacle. There's nothing wrong with spectacle when it is well done and appropriate to the story (the falling chandelier in POTO or the helicopter in Miss Saigon), but when spectacle REPLACES good story telling and character development, it doesn't interest me.
Oh, and, this has bugged the HELL outta me since day one - Gustave, Christine and the Phantom's supposed love child. According to everything ALW has said and everything in LND, the show takes place EXACTLY 10 years after POTO. According to LND, Gustave is EXACTLY "TEN YEARS OOOOLLLLDDD!!!" This EXACT age, his seeming status as a musical prodigy, and his fascination with all things dark and dangerous brings about the "logical" conclusion that Gustave's father is not Raoul but the Phantom.
OK, let's break this down a bit. Christine and her father were both exceptionally gifted musicians. It does not require BOTH parents be musically inclined for the child to be musically inclined. I am proof of this. My mother is musical. My father couldn't carry a tune in a bucket if his life depended on it. I was a bit of a child prodigy. Gustave's musical ability is, in NO WAY, an indication of his paternity.
He has a fascination with all things dark and dangerous. Well, duh! He's a 10 year old boy! They are ALL fascinated by the dark and dangerous! An attraction to the dark and dangerous is not an indicator of paternity.
Gustave is EXACTLY 10 years old. I realize this is theatre and one must - to a degree - suspend disbelief, but, this is just TOO much. According to the plot of LND, Christine found the Phantom the night before her wedding and had sex with him. The next morning, he was so consumed by guilt, he ABANDONED her (uhhh...yeah....right), and every indication is that she then went to her wedding and things proceeded as expected - there is no indication she and Raoul did not consummate their marriage. There is absolutely no way (without a modern day paternity test, or the child inheriting the Phantom's genetic defect) to definitively know who the father is. However, let's look a bit deeper into this.....if this is truly exactly 10 years later, Christine had to sleep with the Phantom almost immediately after leaving the Phantom's lair. Now, let's look at biology - a term pregnancy for a human is 9 months. This means, if it is EXACTLY 10 years after POTO, Gustave would not be 10, but about 9 years and 3 months. Looking even more realistically into this....Raoul and Christine PROBABLY didn't get married the second they arrived at street level. They probably would have gotten married as quickly as possible - even so, I imagine it would have been 3 to 6 months after the final lair. Raoul was an aristocrat after all, and there are certain proprieties to observe. When all is said and done, Gustave should be more around 7 or 8. Of course, we all know ALW can't do math.
This isn't to say there aren't things about the show that I DO like. Some of the music is absolutely gorgeous. Out of context - and often without lyrics - I like it. I have the title theme firmly in my repertoire - with the original lyrics, not the current show lyrics - and enjoy singing it. The performers do the best they can with the material they are given and cannot be faulted for their contributions.
Yes, I AM a member of Love Should Die. However, I have NEVER made any kind of personal attack on the Love Never Dies fan base - nor has anyone I know from that group. While I don't see a problem with people liking the show, I really just want to know WHY. Given all the points I have outlined, what is the appeal? My interest is to actually DISCUSS these things RATIONALLY. Not to attack or insult anyone who likes the show. No one should be PERSONALLY attacked or belittled for their opinion of a show. They should, however, be allowed to express their opinions and discuss things in an adult manner without resorting to insults and name calling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)