most of the people i have encountered outside the world of classical singing, when refering to someone as an 'opera singer', usually accompany their voicing with an unflattering pantomime. even classical instrumentalists are often found to have a grim view of 'opera singers' (sometimes making the distinction between 'musician' and 'singer'), finding the general 'timbre' ridiculous and uninviting. if these 'educated' musicians find it unpleasent, imagine how put off the general public must be.
in fact, the listening audience for opera and classical singing is still rather small. in the past thirty years, more of the general public has been risking spare time on it. and, i would have to credit popular mediums for this increased interest. certainly, there has been much interest by 'non-believers' in pavarotti (as an operatic tiger woods. david letterman told him "when it comes to opera, you're it. you're all i know") but, exposure on television on johnny carson, letterman, and other popular shows as well as pseudo 'pseudo-opera' like 'phantom', 'les miz', etc. and people like bocelli, church, sarah (not so) brightman, has made the idea of listening to opera, more palatable to the general public who, generally speaking, are more interested in something else.
so perhaps the time for 'purism' has not yet arrived as 'opera' still is at risk of extinction (and yes, i know a mule just isn't a horse). imagine an extra-terrestial insisting we pronounce his name correctly five minutes after landing.
mike
|
|
| |