BEHIND THE SPOTLIGHT

I was not surprised to receive so many emails about my last post. While the debate continues, a few responses that I’ve received have prompted me to be a bit more clear about my feelings on this topic!

Many people emailed me directly about this, or posted comments on facebook (please, post your comments here so everyone can see and get involved in the discussion!).  One very strong opinion against making the workshop process public came from my friend Eric McNaughton in Atlanta:

Public opinion is the enemy of creativity. Far too much value is put on the thoughts and opinions of the faceless (myself included). Production by popular vote/comment/survey will only lead to bland and easily digestible works…like white bread. Fewer risks will be taken, and everything will become benign…like a tumor.

To some extent, I agree, but I believe a comment like “public opinion is the enemy of creativity” has to be qualified. Certainly, there are many masterpieces - in all genres, including opera - that would not be the masterpieces they are if their creators sought public feedback and then changed their vision in response to negative feedback.  Richard Strauss’s Salome, a piece that I love and think is rather brilliant, was banned in London for two years, and the original performers were reluctant to perform the piece. When it did premiere in London, it was actually modified, much to the amusement (and apparently, later, annoyance) of Thomas Beecham.  In New York, the premiere was suppressed by wealthy patrons, and it wasn’t until 1918 - 13 years after the premiere - that it premiered in Vienna, despite the passionate advocation of no less than Mahler! 

If Strauss had done a workshop, conducted an audience survey, and changed all of the parts of both the music and libretto that the audience did not “like” or found offensive, the world would have lost one of the greatest operas ever written (IMHO).

So, what’s the point?  Yes, public opinion can be the “enemy of creativity”. The key here is that it can be - it doesn’t have to be.  I would never suggest that creative artists bow down blindly to public opinion.  But I do feel that often, the public’s feedback on CERTAIN issues can be very useful when a piece is developing.

One of the challenges we face in opera is that in any country and in any period of time in which it was really thriving, it was a POPULAR art form, in the language of the people, that was both familiar and relevant. That simply is not the case in opera in the US today.

New operas can be a very useful way to attract new audiences to opera (in fact, 25% of those at our workshop this weekend had NEVER been to an opera before.) Listening to audience opinion is different than production by popular vote - which I agree, would be disastrous! But is it really wise not to at least listen to the opinions of the audience we hope to serve - the audience that we hope is going to buy tickets and tell their friends how much they enjoyed the opera? 

I think the real issue is balance. Do we bow down to public opinion? No. But do we listen? Is it possible to learn useful information? Absolutely. That simply cannot be done if we hide behind closed doors. That being said, there are a few issues I’d like to expand upon:

1. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE WHEN IN THE PROCESS YOU OPEN WORKSHOPS TO THE PUBLIC

This is very important point that I didn’t address in my previous post. The Golden Ticket will go into production in a year. The piece has been under development for many years, and there have been a number of closed workshops prior to this open one. (ALT did a closed workshop in May 2007, and much has been done to develop the piece since that time).  I feel that workshops should be open to the public when those involved feel a work is very close to completion, and once they feel their vision of the piece is clear.  Opening earlier workshops to the public would be counterproductive. In other words, an open workshop is potentially useful to the creative process only when the overall shape of a piece, musically and dramatically, has been determined by the composer and librettist, AND once they feel they have fulfilled that vision.  I do not believe a workshop should ever be used to determine what a piece should be.  I do believe a workshop can help writers see, from an invaluable outsider’s perspective, if they have been successful in fulfilling their own vision.

2. WHAT YOU ASK THE AUDIENCE TO TELL YOU MATTERS?

Market research is an art in itself. Surveys can be useless and even counterproductive if not properly executed.  We ask our audience answers to questions we want answers to.  For example, I didn’t ask:  Do you like that Augustus falls into the chocolate river?  That’s the story. Period.  As pointed out by Eric, it would be like asking a preview a audience at West Side Story if they would have preferred that Tony and Maria ride off into the sunset. We’re not looking to the audience to write the piece.  What we DO want to know is this: is what we are doing being clearly communicated to the audience? Is the storytelling clear?  These are areas where audience perception is very useful.  We don’t ask - how could this be more clear? We ask - is this clear? It is up to the composer and librettist to make the storytelling clear. YOU CANNOT LEAVE THAT TO A DIRECTOR!  A gifted director may be able to make a weak piece stronger, but ultimately, a piece should be - as Mark Adamo calls it - director proof.  If it’s not in the score and it’s not in the libretto, at some point, in some production, it will not appear on stage. (I’ll write another post on the concept of being “director proof” because, as both a stage director and producer, I find this a very useful concept.) If  the telling of the story through the music and words is not clear to an audience who has no previous exposure to a piece, that is a problem - and it is a problem that is not always apparent to those deeply involved in the writing process.

Of course, a few people at our workshop of The Golden Ticket suggested modifications to the opera that the creative team vehemently disagreed with.  You can be sure that the writers aren’t going to change anything that modifies their vision of the piece.  At the same time, there were some very constructive comments made that can be used by Peter and Donald to reinforce their vision.  I think that is really what it boils down to:  audience perceptions during the development phase of a piece can help writers identify opportunities to make their vision of a new work stronger.   Opening the process is not intended to influence what that vision is in the first place. Tony should die in West Side Story. Bernstein, Sondheim and Laurents knew that (of course, so did Shakespeare!).  In The Golden Ticket, Wonka should give the Chocolate Factory to Charlie.  That was Roald Dahl’s decision, and one that Peter and Donald bring to life in the opera. The public is not being invited into those kind of decisions!

I know public workshops will always be a contentious issue.  Workshops can be an incredibly useful tool in the development of new works, but how one workshops a piece is crucial. Too often, workshops don’t do as much as they could - periods where a new piece is heard by those directly involved, without the ability to get invaluable distance from their own work. 

By opening the workshop process, we are not asking the audience to write our new operas for us. What we want is to discover how well the creative vision of our artists is being communicated in the work they write. You can’t communicate with an audience if they are not there. If we wait until a work is complete, a valuable opportunity - if properly used - is lost. Does that really serve audiences or artists?