Read on Twitter
I am not sure whether this is a hot take or not but here we go: #contemporaryopera
A large percentage of operatic repertoire (Don G, La Boheme, Don Carlos, Carmen, Die Fledermause etc) is now over 100 years old and extends back at least another century +. They are incredible works and have been revered as such since their premiere.
Some performers will choose to perform and specialise in these works for their whole career. Works that were written before their great grandparents were born. And there’s nothing wrong w/that
Now, on the other side of the musical spectrum, so-called “contemporary”rep begins 100 years ago and continues to present day. They are incredible works and deserve more performance.
Some performers will choose to perform and specialise in these works for their whole career. Some of which were written before their grandparents were born, others written yesterday. And there’s nothing wrong w/that either.
However the disparity remains. Nothing is said when performers choose to solely dwell in the realm of 100+ year old music and never venture beyond. However, when a performer makes the equally valid choice to specialise in the latter, it is seen by many as pigeonholing.
Both are valid choices. My point is there should be as much respect for the choice to explore and create living repertoire as there is for the choice to honour the older catalogue. There should also be respect for the flexibility of performers that choose to honour both worlds.
So, my question to traditional classicists in opera: is specialising in contemporary rep really *that* niche or do you personally just not like it?
