X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Opera

ENO must go

Of course one regrets that musicians will lose their jobs. But why should we have to pay for the opera company’s random experiments?

27 February 2016

9:00 AM

27 February 2016

9:00 AM

Last week Darren Henley, chief executive of Arts Council England, revealed that opera receives just under a fifth of the Arts Council’s total investment in our arts organisations, which amounts to many millions of pounds. Yet it accounts for ‘between 3 and 4 per cent of live audiences in theatres’. How can these figures possibly be justified? Especially when the art form is so obviously a plaything of the wealthy.

Once upon a time there was an organisation that had the intention of providing opera at reasonable prices to the less well-off. It was based in a poor part of London, where it pursued its ideals by presenting everything in English and emphasising the dramatic aspect of its chosen repertoire. From these roots the English National Opera has grown, which helps to explain why it is now in such trouble. Although it continues to perform everything in English, and hopes to employ young British singers, composers and designers whenever possible, it has badly lost its way.

Its ticket prices now rival those at Covent Garden and attract the kind of public for whom foreign languages are less of an inconvenience than for some. As a sign of how the ideal of comprehensibility has tripped the management up, in 2005, after years of debate, it decided to provide surtitles to the translated texts. This was as a result of a survey that revealed that only a quarter of its public could hear what was being sung, which led to the depressing reflection that modern singers pronounced their words less clearly than their predecessors. Lord Harewood, as managing director, had argued against surtitles on the grounds that opera in English was pointless if it couldn’t be understood and that they would undermine the case for a publicly funded opera company that sold itself on its English-language productions.

[Alt-Text]


That argument might have been better heeded, since by having surtitles ENO comes closer to the world of Covent Garden. It is interesting that in the financial crisis that the company is currently experiencing no one I’ve heard has suggested merging it with the Royal Opera House. This idea was standardly aired during the crises of the past, but every time it was felt that ENO offered something uniquely valuable. Since then that something has become a run of very alternative ways of looking at opera, often produced by people with no previous experience. The public has reacted more or less well to these initiatives — in the 1980s the productions made a big name for themselves. By 2013 the Telegraph was referring to one of them as ‘unmitigated piffle’.

Spending millions on desperate experiments has become a habit of mind. It is the last of the patrician gestures in which our system of public sponsorship will allow an educated (sort of) elite to impose its preferences on everyone else. Opera still has that allure. Yet it is indefensible whatever the state of the economy. Of course one regrets that many musicians would lose their jobs if ENO were to close — the current alarm is that the chorus will have to take a pay cut of 25 per cent, which surely must be the tip of the iceberg — but the mistake is more fundamental, and was bought into long ago. Why were those chorus members encouraged to think that this whopping imposition on our pockets was tolerable in the first place?

In upheavals like this it is the management that always comes across as villainous, the public instinctively taking the side of the seemingly innocent rank-and-file employees. But I would rather be a singer, about to be paid off and able to ply my trade elsewhere, than have a national institution die on my watch. For example, how will the Arts Council’s chairman Peter Bazalgette, a former chairman of ENO, deal with the opprobrium that is surely stacking up for him if ENO does die?

Ultimately, the question is whether opera can survive without public money, and whether we care if it doesn’t. I care that a form of entertainment that gives some people a lot of pleasure should flourish, but I don’t see why I should have to pay for random experiments to be made in its name. New York has recently discovered that it cannot sustain two opera companies. Even there it was found that when push came to shove there wasn’t the will to pay up. In this sense the possibility of being funded by the Arts Council distorts the real picture. If people want the Mikado, they can pay for it. If they want the Ring, they can pay for that too.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close