Artistic freedom and constraint: How creative can artists be within the parameters of the classical industry?

Since the second half of the twentieth century, the assessment of opera and classical music as mere ‘museum arts’ has forced the classical music industry to revitalise opera by increasing the number of diverse casts, daring productions and access to marginalised audiences. This regeneration has been gradual, perhaps due to the reserved nature of the classical industry and has created tension between a canon that venerates the past and modern audiences and performers who wish to disrupt the status quo. 

However, this problem is not novel to the twenty-first century as audiences have shaped cultural tastes and repertoire for centuries. Eighteenth-century Parisian aristocrats controlled the Palais Garnier and even influenced the layout of the auditorium and changes to productions, at times overriding the conductor’s wishes. As the twenty-first century has promoted diversity so to has the opera world. Performances are held in unconventional venues such as pubs and football grounds to increase accessibility and casting is more representative when featuring all-women casts or disabled people. Houses often publicise accessibility and diversity in their online mission statements but are not doing enough to create substantial change. In order to examine why performers are constrained in the classical industry I will assess how esteemed artists have practiced interpretation, how opera companies have shown creativity, how audiences have impacted creativity and how twenty-first-century musicians are making efforts to embolden creativity in the classical industry. 

 Since the early nineteenth century, the conservatoire model has promoted the tradition of obeying musical scores and performing within the parameters of notation and libretti. This tradition endorsed the idea that every composer wrote with precision which stemmed from a deep understanding of instruments and musical styles. Currently, renowned works are viewed as unquestioned masterpieces which must be prevented from being spoiled by inauthentic performances based on modern tastes. For example, Widor’s Toccata in F is often played faster than Widor’s original tempo. Conductor Jeffrey Schindler noted this when he performed at St Paul’s Cathedral and concluded that the consideration of tempo was in fact a consideration of the parameters that individual musicians adhere to and by extension, who they are as artists. A comparison can be drawn to Ivo Pogorelich’s experimentation with tempi. Pogorelich’s deviation from the composer’s intention is a clear consideration of his parameters as he wants to show how the same piece can convey different moods through different tempi and he cannot be dismissed as an uninformed artist as his technique is excellent. Nonetheless, Pogorelich’s interpretation was heavily criticised by Andrews Clements in The Guardian which said his 2015 performance at the Royal Festival Hall was a ‘deeply depressing experience’. Whilst The Guardian noted that a difficult period in Pogorelich’s life might have influenced the performance it does show that the industry can be less forgiving of artists who are more individualistic despite their excellent ability. 

Pogorelich’s performance at the Wigmore Hall inspired Giordano, from our tutorial group, who wished to emulate Pogorelich’s bravery to not be constrained by the parameters of the score. However, to achieve such bravery one must demonstrate proficient technique so that the audience does not assume that the experimental performance is a deceptive method to cover up a lack of technique. To this end, the conservatoire model (focussed on providing good technique) helps performers to emulate Pogorelich’s unconventional performances. Whilst its focus on tradition and reproduction might not promote experimentation, the conservatoire model does provide musicians with a strong foundation from which more provocative performances can be produced. Consequently, in order to promote change in the opera world, performers do not have to deconstruct the entire artform but can define their parameters and use their technical abilities to promote an artform which they feel is more suitable to the twenty-first century.

An absence of artistic interpretation is an absence of creativity, relegating the work to a technical exercise instead of a performance. However, interpretation is not so much an issue of the practice of interpretation but an issue of performer versus the audience’s personal taste. Indeed, composers have to concede that performers will interpret their work in order to appeal to audiences, but musicians are skilled at balancing music of the past in a present setting. They conduct research to produce historically informed performances which helps them to understand a composer’s original intention as well as the societal context in which the opera is produced. However, whilst a composer may support the theory of interpretation and producers support the practice of interpretation, audiences do not always support a performance which disrupts their view of the piece. Lucian Pintilie’s production of Carmen at the Welsh National Opera received hundreds of complaints, saying that his interpretation of a south American guerrilla camp was inappropriate for Carmen. Patrice Chereau’s production of The Ring at Bayreuth was ridiculed by the press. Tom Sutcliffe noted that this was because modern interpretation has proved to be as divisive and unpopular as modern art, but such criticism is not exclusive to the twenty-first century. In fact, whilst the founder of East Berlin Komische Oper thought of Wieland Wagner as a talented producer, his 1950s productions of Parsifal and Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg were viewed as desecrations by the wider audience.  

Indeed, the influence of the audience has dominated productions and is an entrenched issue in opera. For example, The Jockey Club in Paris had so much control over the Palais Garnier that Wagner felt they could even override the emperor. Their preference for ballet forced the opera to be conducted in the first act so that some could dine while it was performed. Eighteenth and nineteenth-century operatic works often included an aria di sorbetto which would be sung by a minor character. During these arias, audiences were free to order drinks or use the bathroom, knowing that they wouldn’t miss out on any important details or outstanding performances. The Jockey Club also used claques (professional applauders) to demonstrate their support, or lack of support for performers onstage. So influential were the claques that Wagner’s Tannhauser staging was withdrawn after the claques derided its initial performances. Whilst arrogance on the part of the Jockey Club is clear, so is the fact that their tastes influenced the performance. In a similar vein, the emergence of the Parisian middle class led to the introduction of programme notes which also quietened the rowdier aristocratic audience. Again, the audience’s requests influenced the production but, in this case, improved the experience. These examples serve as good advice for any young performer to interpret their audience. These issues, whilst appearing to constrain the artists’ intentions, could sharpen their interpretative practice. Understanding an audience’s dislikes can help the artist focus on what the audience will enjoy, or indeed, find provocative. Once the importance of the audience is realised, their identity must be seen as vital to the interpretation of the production. In the case of modern interpretation, productions must make efforts to appeal to new audiences and be aware that experimental performances might be seen as provocative, even if this is unintentional.

    In order to excite new audiences and develop as an art form, opera must inhabit new spaces. The move towards alternative spaces has attracted new audiences which can encourage interpretation from both the artists and the audience. For example, a production of Die Zauberflote in the Reichstag subway station in 2008 or Fidelio at Aston Villa football club in 2001 allowed companies to dismantle the formality of the nineteenth-century opera house and to realign the barrier between the performers and the audience. A production of Il ritorno d’Ulisse, set in an immigration centre, made attendees experience an identity check and view the first act behind a wire fence. These examples addressed the issue of opera as a ‘museum art’ by shifting the audience’s role from observers to participants. Furthermore, technological developments have been embraced by the Royal Opera House’s live streaming service to nationwide cinemas and the use of Facebook and Twitter has been used to attract younger audiences and develop online opera communities. This illustrates the importance of interpreting what is happening offstage as well as onstage. As young artists, using social media to build an online platform might appear obvious but it might be viewed as degrading opera by some. The fact that major opera houses have expanded their audience online not only legitimises its use but also builds a community where artists can find inspiration and benefit from professional and amateur feedback.

Wynton Marsalis and Peter Martins’ Jazz provoked a conventional ballet audience by using a jazz composition. Whilst this was not as radical as using a football club or train station it did introduce audiences to a new artform and performers to a different discipline. The ballerinas’ collaboration with the musicians brought to light their shared talent for improvisation which allowed for a more organic performance. This also meant that the final performance was more profound as they had been able to share their skills and allow their identities to be part of the production. Also, this highlights the fact that artists do not have to necessarily be radical in order to diversify their artform. The classical dancers and Julliard-trained musicians performed in a conventional venue, but they interpreted the work from its inception and were encouraged to put their mark on the final product. This shows that young artists can attract audiences by using their creative identity, radical or more reserved. 

Inspired by Marsalis and Martins, artists can build a platform to explore their identity within the opera world. They can share skills with similar artists and build an appreciative audience some of whom might not be used to opera. A key example of this practice is Polish countertenor and amateur break dancer, Josef Jakub Orlinski, whose aesthetic work with Warner Classics has built a receptive audience attracting millions of views on YouTube. Orlinski used his debut album Anima Sacra to showcase pieces which had not been recorded before rather than a more expected collection of famous works because he wanted to ‘do something that would mean something special for [him]’. In this case, not only has Orlinski adhered to his parameters but he has introduced an audience to music that they otherwise might not have been exposed to. Both Marsalis and Orlinski provide excellent examples of how young musicians can successfully realign the barriers between artists and audiences and that interpreting an audience is as vital as interpreting one’s own art. They have also shown how their identities can positively shape their work to attract audiences and in the case of the Royal Opera House and Orlinski, have promoted the use of social media which previously might have be derided by the classical industry’s traditional outlook.

    In conclusion, the classical music industry has taken positive steps to reshape its art from mere ‘museum arts’ to a more exciting and interactive artform. The observation of strict notation has been loosened as artists experiment with interpretations, reproductions of the past are less frequent as artists use their identities in their performance and the role of the audience has been adjusted  from observer to participant as opera houses have expanded their accessibility. This has been achieved without deconstructing the conservatoire model, lowering expectations or diminishing the highly skilled artform. Young artists can use the industry’s approach to develop their identity as a professional musician and ensure that they are not merely reproducing the past or imitating other artists. They can develop their own audience and share their skills with other artists as well as directors and producers whilst exploring their own identity. In doing so, they can continue to reshape classical music, not necessarily by disrupting the status quo but by developing their own platforms and expanding the classical community. These artists show promising signs to prevent opera from becoming a mere ‘museum art’ and are inspiring examples of creativity can be embraced in the classical industry not to the denigrate the artform but expand its appeal for both performers and audiences.