Isabelle Bracamonte wrote:
> But why do professional theater productions not have
> this problem? Big theaters on Broadway, ACT, etc.,
> have at least five weeks of rehearsal for each piece
> they put on, right? What enables straight theater to
> rehearse more than operas are able to?
They make a profit, at least if they sell enought tickets.
Whereas when opera sells every ticket, it operates at a
loss.
> What makes rehearsing an opera so much more expensive
> than rehearsing a straight play?
I think it's because plays and musicals do 8 performances a
week with the same casts. So the fixed production costs are
spread over many more available seats to sell. An opera
with a single cast is usually done 2 or 3 times a week. Big
difference on the balance sheet, I think. Also opera casts
on stage AND in the pit are far larger. A small opera
orchestra is bigger than the average pit orchestsra (and the
musicians no doubt are higher-quality and must be paid what
they're worth, as the best would rather play opera music
than a boring Broadway orchestra score - I know, I've played
them and it's deadly work even for 8-10 community theater
shows in a run). Not to mention the size of the chorus and
the number of opera singers you have to hire for the big
operas.
For example, a big problem with Sondheim's Follies in terms
of turning a profit wasn't because it wasn't well-received,
but that it was way too expensive to produce - not only the
very large cast, but also the expense of the
neo-Zeigfeld-Follies costumes. That's why they can't revive
it on Broadway in other than a low-cost concert version.
Compare Follies to the average opera, and it's
small-potatoes in terms of what you see on stage. I can
imagine the cost of a cast-of-thousands production like
Boito's Mefistofile, or Aida, or Boris Gudonov, or La
Traviata or Tosda. Even La Boheme, a relatively small opera,
has a big chorus and 3 major sets.
Peggy
--
Margaret Harrison, Alexandria, Virginia, USA
"Music for a While Shall All Your Cares Beguile"
mailto:peggyh@i...
|
|  |
