Opera meets Pop in NY - 'a mere lark'?

[Tarantella]

Get ready all you discerning New Yorkers, an Aussie pop 'diva' is about to hit the opera stage:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/aust ... e-classics

Some of the airhead comments from the "diva" are probably expected because this article was located in the execrable "Guardian", which is constantly at war with the disgusting 'rich' (LOL), the 'establishment' and, finally, itself!

Pop and opera are apparently "completely different worlds". Who'd have thought? And it's not how high you sing but how you use your voice. (Sorry, Kate, I think this applies to all singing.) Added piquance appears in the form of coarse language.

More penetrating insights courtesy of "The Guardian".

The class-warriors sans class!!

[John F]

She may be about to hit the stage of the Sydney Opera House, in the Joan Sutherland Theatre no less, but apparently not to sing any opera. In the article she says, "The opera thing, at the moment, feels like a very extravagant hobby. Something that I studied many years ago." Being curious, I looked through YouTube for any opera or classical music she might have recorded and found none.

[Tarantella]

She may be about to hit the stage of the Sydney Opera House, in the Joan Sutherland Theatre no less, but apparently not to sing any opera. In the article she says, "The opera thing, at the moment, feels like a very extravagant hobby. Something that I studied many years ago." Being curious, I looked through YouTube for any opera or classical music she might have recorded and found none.

My understanding from this article is that's she's about to 'reprise a role' in "The Death of Klinghoffer" at The Met. I don't know this opera so I cannot say how demanding or otherwise the role would be for Kate.

What I do know is that Kate has made appearances on an unamusing, rather coarse pub-style quiz show on our national broadcaster which is aimed at 20-somethings. Other classical musicians and opera singers have also appeared on this program, presumably to demonstrate their 'chops' as consumers of pop culture and to show us all that, despite being four-square classical musicians, they have a life and a sense of humour after all!! On almost every occasion it's been embarrassing to watch them downplay their years of rigorous training and demanding professions. I'd go so far as to suggest they appear to behave like performing monkeys for a non-discerning audience.

It's a variant of the last-century Australian phenomenon known as "the cultural cringe".

[jbuck919]

Get ready all you discerning New Yorkers, an Aussie pop 'diva' is about to hit the opera stage:

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/aust ... e-classics

Some of the airhead comments from the "diva" are probably expected because this article was located in the execrable "Guardian", which is constantly at war with the disgusting 'rich' (LOL), the 'establishment' and, finally, itself!

Pop and opera are apparently "completely different worlds". Who'd have thought? And it's not how high you sing but how you use your voice. (Sorry, Kate, I think this applies to all singing.) Added piquance appears in the form of coarse language.

More penetrating insights courtesy of "The Guardian".

I'm not sure how I feel about your remarks regarding the highly respected Guardian, which is frequently the source of stories or versions of stories here. I don't see any class warfare aspect to this (though I admit that I wouldn't care much if I did, since the war in the US is already well underway, having been waged by the disgusting rich, note lack of inverted commas, upon everyone else for some time now). The article is a perfectly reasonable bit of reportage on an item of pop culture. In the US, it might have been preempted by Rolling Stone, which is still not a mark of disgrace.

[Tarantella]

The problem, John, is that those who are considered 'the rich' are actually the middle class. The bar has been lowered thanks largely to news-sites like "The Guardian" and cynical governments who want to label those earning $80,000 or more a year as "rich" so they can justify higher taxes.

We'll have to disagree about "The Guardian". I absolutely detest class warfare.

[jbuck919]

The problem, John, is that those who are considered 'the rich' are actually the middle class. The bar has been lowered thanks largely to news-sites like "The Guardian" and cynical governments who want to label those earning $80,000 or more a year as "rich" so they can justify higher taxes.

If The Guardian has a serious editorial policy such as you suggest, then I can see why you object, though this is the first I have heard about it. I only know them from occasional encounters with excellent journalism.

It's not the same in the US (exactly the opposite in fact), where it would not be a great exaggeration to say that you could add at least two zeroes to your figure to define who is rich today (three might be more like it). They are the ones (many of them anyway), not the liberal press, who are suggesting imposing all the burden, tax and otherwise, on the middle class and working poor while they increasingly pursue lives of privilege and entitlement separate from the interests and needs of the great mass of the people.

I apologize for doing this on the music board, but it had to be addressed. I won't post any further on the topic unless it is in the Pub. Of course, the thread started with a story about a pop music singer, though I realize that Tarantella was pointing out her coming from classical training.

[lennygoran]

she's about to 'reprise a role' in "The Death of Klinghoffer" at The Met. I don't know this opera so I cannot say how demanding or otherwise the role would be for Kate.

Sue I ordered tickets for that for my create-your-own subscription for next season. Regards, Len

[John F]

My understanding from this article is that's she's about to 'reprise a role' in "The Death of Klinghoffer" at The Met. I don't know this opera so I cannot say how demanding or otherwise the role would be for Kate.

Ah so. If she's in it at all, it's not in a major role. Here's as much of the cast as the Met has announced:

Marilyn Klinghoffer: Michaela Martens
Molqi: Sean Panikkar
The Captain: Paulo Szot
Leon Klinghoffer: Alan Opie
Mamoud: Aubrey Allicock
“Rambo”: Ryan Speedo Green

The other roles for female singers are Omar, one of the terrorists, and three usually sung by the same singer, Swiss grandmother/Austrian woman/British dancing girl. That's Austrian, not Australian. Ms. Miller-Heidke was the British dancing girl for the English National Opera, in a production being shared with the Met. So we may indeed see her here in an opera, if we don't blink.

Apparently she has a big-time pop career, so it's enterprising of her to take on a bit part in a contemporary opera. Good for her.

[barney]

Wow, I'm really surprised that you feel like that about the Guardian. Fairfax papers are nowhere near as good as they were for a variety of reasons, but News Ltd papers - all of them - are merely agenda-driven propaganda sheets and quite contemptible, imho. Look at the Telegraph using a stock US photo to say Australian disability pensioners are all able-bodied bludgers. Honest? Fair? Or despicable? And not even news, as they did the same thing in 2011. Or the opening paragraph to the budget in the Sun saying Hockey had introduced a tough budget to "fix Labor's financial mess". One might well think Labor left a financial mess,but it is a value judgment and has no place in a front page news article. It belongs to the analysis, separately. For Murdoch, news is a vehicle to push propaganda aimed at promoting his commercial interests.

No News publication had anything negative to say about Hockey's budget until they woke up and found they were so utterly on the wrong side of public opinion they couldn't ignore it any more. Then suddenly they acknowledged that the Government has a problem. If there is class warfare in this country's media, the Guardian lags a long way behind the Murdoch puppet master.

[Tarantella]

Totally disagree, but this is beyond the brief of the Chatterbox.

However, I don't want to get into a political argument. Too acrimonious. Better stick to discussions between friends who are like-minded!

[barney]

We can disagree and remain friendly, but I don't want to push you into anything uncomfortable.

Against that, I think that keeping discussion to like-minded people is one of the curses of the age. We don't engage people who think differently, we just shout into the echo chamber of our own views. The Net has reinforced this trend, because it is much easier to find like-minded people even if you are neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist who likes country music (not that I suggest you are!). I say we can remain friendly because we can each accept that our interlocutor is an intelligent person who holds a position in good faith - and then you try to analyse the position. I don't think you are a bad or inferior or unintelligent or less moral person because you see the world differently from me. To the contrary, I am interested in whether we differ on the facts or it's how we weigh the facts. Without such discussions, how can you grow or change? Of course, it may be that journalists are more used to robust debate.

If you do want to engage, with what part of what I said do you disagree? You can't disagree that the examples I gave happened, because a simple google search will confirm that they did, so do you have a different interpretation of what they mean?

[John F]

Seems to me that true, civil discussion can only happen among people who are like-minded in some fundamental way. Here in Classical Music Guide our like-mindedness is right there in the forum's name - we are alike in thinking that classical music is important, valuable, worth discussing seriously. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. Of course we differ in our opinions, and when we discuss other topics, but we still come from essentially the same source.

Some CMG members have left when they felt isolated by a forum consensus to which they didn't belong. We used to have quite a few politically conservative members who posted in Corner Pub about social and political topics, including Lance's co-moderator Corlyss, but they're almost all gone. I suppose the reason may have been that they felt discussion was not possible with the not-like-minded majority, only quarreling. If you say what you think and nobody ever agrees with you, why keep on saying it? Essentially, you're talking to yourself, and that can get wearisome.

barney, how would you go about "engaging" a neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist who likes country music, if such a person happened to wander into CMG? I should think you would try to find common ground, things you can agree on - in effect, like-mindedness. Otherwise, it would be like trying to teach a pig to sing. (Cf. Robert Heinlein.)

[barney]

Of course you are right that common ground is a good starting point. Sometimes conversation is not possible, especially online, because the interlocutor is very defensive and not prepared to expose his or her ideas. Or he or she may not be confident of his or her ability to express the thoughts. I don't think the latter case applies here; Tarantella is highly articulate.
But in any discussion it is possible to ask such questions as: why do you think that? What is the evidence for that? Did particular life experiences or reflections incline you to that position? Is this something you have deeply reflected on, or is it an intuitive position? With the Neo-Nazi, I might only discuss country music. Some views I don't want to give oxygen to, including Holocaust denial. But I don't think a disagreement about Australian media falls into that category, and I am genuinely curious about Tarantella's position on Murdoch media, which seems to me incongruous. My suspicion is that she likes them not because she thinks they are accurate or well-informed, and she cannot possibly imagine them to be impartial, but because they reinforce her political presuppostions, as Fox does for some in the US. And we are all prone to this to some extent.

[Chalkperson]

The Guardian may be many things, but I don't think it's execrable, and I think the quotes come from the person being interviewed rather than the journalist, personally I don't think she is worthy of a Thread here but that's beside the point. Perhaps you should have checked to see how big her Met Opera Role was before trumpeting her arrival on these shores.

You may not have noticed but there's a new generation out there, and in the UK the Rich are despised, mainly because the country is being run into the ground by a bunch of immature, pea brained, arrogant Old Etonians.

Execrable would be the perfect word to describe the Dirty Digger, Rupert the Murdoch who has singlehandedly brought journalism further into the gutter than anyone else in media history.

[Tarantella]

The Guardian may be many things, but I don't think it's execrable, and I think the quotes come from the person being interviewed rather than the journalist, personally I don't think she is worthy of a Thread here but that's beside the point. Perhaps you should have checked to see how big her Met Opera Role was before trumpeting her arrival on these shores.

You may not have noticed but there's a new generation out there, and in the UK the Rich are despised, mainly because the country is being run into the ground by a bunch of immature, pea brained, arrogant Old Etonians.

Execrable would be the perfect word to describe the Dirty Digger, Rupert the Murdoch who has singlehandedly brought journalism further into the gutter than anyone else in media history.

We'll have to disagree. If you think differently about "The Guardian" then you have a constitutional right to that opinion and I respect your right to freedom of expression.

And don't confuse one man, Rupert Murdoch, with the thousands of highly educated journalists and commentators who work for his newspapers (one of whom was my son). If journalism has hit the gutter I'm sure I've seen no evidence of it in Australia and it takes two to complete that paradigm: newspaper AND reader.

And would at least some of those "pea brained, arrogant, old ex-Etonians" be the same people heading up companies and operating businesses which are employing the people of the UK?

I think you'll find the situation with regard to the UK economy is much more complex and nuanced than name-calling a select group of people.

[John F]

I'm not getting into this one, but where Rupert Murdoch is concerned, I have just four words: News of the World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World

[Tarantella]

I'm not getting into this one, but where Rupert Murdoch is concerned, I have just four words: News of the World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World

And I've got just two:

NEWSPAPERS/READERS

[Chalkperson]

The Guardian may be many things, but I don't think it's execrable, and I think the quotes come from the person being interviewed rather than the journalist, personally I don't think she is worthy of a Thread here but that's beside the point. Perhaps you should have checked to see how big her Met Opera Role was before trumpeting her arrival on these shores.

You may not have noticed but there's a new generation out there, and in the UK the Rich are despised, mainly because the country is being run into the ground by a bunch of immature, pea brained, arrogant Old Etonians.

Execrable would be the perfect word to describe the Dirty Digger, Rupert the Murdoch who has singlehandedly brought journalism further into the gutter than anyone else in media history.

We'll have to disagree. If you think differently about "The Guardian" then you have a constitutional right to that opinion and I respect your right to freedom of expression.

And don't confuse one man, Rupert Murdoch, with the thousands of highly educated journalists and commentators who work for his newspapers (one of whom was my son). If journalism has hit the gutter I'm sure I've seen no evidence of it in Australia and it takes two to complete that paradigm: newspaper AND reader.

And would at least some of those "pea brained, arrogant, old ex-Etonians" be the same people heading up companies and operating businesses which are employing the people of the UK?

I think you'll find the situation with regard to the UK economy is much more complex and nuanced than name-calling a select group of people.

The old Etonians I refer to are Osvourne, Cameron, Johnson and their cronies in the government.

I refer to the Chipping Norton Set, a number of whom will soon be in jail for running newspapers the Murdoch way.

So your sun worked for the Dirty Digger, and that makes phone tapping a grieving family OK does it.

Murdochs heavy handed way with world leaders must be ok with you too then.

You are like a racecourse, you wear blinkers to avoid seeing the real world.

If there was no gutter press people would not buy the rags he produces, and you like your gossip, don't you...

[Tarantella]

This thread was about music. I don't see any point pursuing a political angle and, frankly, it doesn't interest me - especially with regard to the UK.

There's a lot of reductionism and anger in your comments and I'm afraid I'm bored now.

I'll be at the Kentucky Derby if you need me!!

[Chalkperson]

This thread was about music. I don't see any point pursuing a political angle and, frankly, it doesn't interest me - especially with regard to the UK.

There's a lot of reductionism and anger in your comments and I'm afraid I'm bored now.

I'll be at the Kentucky Derby if you need me!!

Then quit bringing it into the Chatterbox, you could have left out your comment on the Guardian and the Thread would not have veered in this direction.

Frankly, you are the cause of the problem in this Thread, not those of us who chose to disagree with you.

Keep those kind of comments for the Pub, that's what it's there for.