Opera appreciations and discussion

[Steve5380]

44 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

Yes to the first point. As to the second, I will respond when you respond to my earlier question about which opera you saw in the Sydney Opera House which made you issue the statement -

 

The opera theatre in that iconic building in Sydney (we definitely agree on that) is lousy for opera. Audiences say, that, critics say that, singers say that, orchestral musicians say that. Having seen one opera, I agree! I don't really understand the response because it seems as though you are actually suggesting that perhaps Sydney itself is not damaged by the inadequacy. There I aiso agree. Pre covid19, visitors flocked to Sydney with the Opera House building top of the 'must see' places. Not 'must attend opera', though. Many young Japanese and Chinese now use the front steps for their wedding photos.

 

If you are so interested,  I will respond to your question:  No, I didn't see any opera, any concert there during the 12 days I was there,  because they were not performing anything that interested me.  And I didn't plan my visit so that they had some performance attractive to me.  Who makes plans for a visit to Sydney around... an opera?

 

And I think that the lousy acoustics in its opera hall is not an obstacle for the glory of Opera or Sydney.  The audiences, the critics, the singers, the orchestra musicians may disagree, but I don't care.  They are a small fragment of the people who evaluate the iconic building and enjoy its being there.  Sydney's opera fans can always enjoy the good videos of operas with good sound in YouTube, or in the "live-streams" that you like so much.  Many couples who will do anything for their good wedding photos could not care less about what goes inside, beyond the front steps of the building they like so much.

[InBangkok]

Thank you for the response. I do sense, though, that you see the problems in that opera theatre as not being an obstacle to the building's stunning exterior rather than to those creating and watching performances in the theatre. Just my view.

 

As to any difference between streaming and opera on youtube. I'm not trying to dodge the question but the fact is i have never once watched a full opera on youtube. Yes, I have indeed watched operatic arias and sometimes longer excerpts. And let me say here that this is definitely one area where opera excerpts on youtube can be of direct benefit. It can provide newcomers with a sampling of what they might hear in the opera house and whether they might like it or not. I fully agree it is also a valuable historical record.

 

I would just add one thing. The CD label Naxos has a series of about 24 introductions to specific operas. These are narratives interspersed with audio examples from the full opera CD. They are extremely well written and delivered - not like a university lecturer delivering a thesis - and I know more than one friend who has been encouraged to try an opera as a result of listening to one. Since I am not accustomed to most of what is on youtube, are there similar introductions to opera? I expect so, and if so then I believe that can be very valuable for audiences in the future.

 

Thanks to the pandemic, though, I have seen several operas streamed on to my computer. I knew all the operas beforehand and the style of production I was likely to see. So I did not dip into any new territory as I complement you on doing with Wozzeck and Mahler's Das Lied. I suppose there is little difference with a youtube video. The sound was generally good to very good. What I found most difficult is sitting just watching a screen with my eyes virtually in a fixed position. At an opera performance the stage is obviously much larger with a lot more going on that that focussed solely by the camera. I also like occasionally to sense the reaction of others around me and to watch those in the more expensive box seats. I love the feeling of being in a large theatre. These are just some reasons why I could not get involved in streaming as I do actually at the performance.

[singalion]

On 12/14/2020 at 4:44 PM, heman said:

I  agree with what Singalion's  comment. Live performances keep music world alive. Too much of canned music can be sterile if one repeatedly listen to it.  As for me watching live performances of either  concert or opera opens a new dimension each time i witness it. It has nothing to do with elitism. I am happy in our small island state most concerts, ballet or operas are usually well attended and tickets are reasonably priced.

 

As to my knowledge the European Union has implemented a new directive (but still not resolved in final whether the uploading of music, live performances on youtube and other channels constitutes an IP infringement). I didn't read into the complete issues, but this new law will change the environment soon.

 

The copyright owners have been fighting with Youtube on the uploading of copyrighted material. Youtube is making the money with ads but the copyright owners suffered clear violations on their art works.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quote: Under the new rules, which member states have two years to formally write into law, tech platforms like YouTube could be held liable for hosting copyrighted content without the proper rights and licensing. That’s a big change from the status quo, which generally assumes platforms are not legally liable for their users’ uploads so long as they take down infringing content once flagged. But according to the directive, companies like YouTube can soon be held liable unless they can also prove they made “best efforts” to get authorization for the content and prevent it from being shared without rights in the first place.

 

https://creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/manage-copyright-permissions_copyright-permissions-overview_video#strategies-zippy-link-1

YouTube and its users face an existential threat from the EU’s new copyright directive

Published Sun, May 12 2019 6:00 AM EDTUpdated Mon, May 13 20198:23 AM EDT

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/youtube-faces-existential-threat-from-the-eus-new-copyright-directive.html

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Currently, we are in a 2 year phase for implementation. It will probably take longer as first bills drafted by the 27 European countries are going ping pong with courts and the governments in each country.

 

What I assume: a lot of these free performances need to disappear after the two year's period.

It is said that youtube will come with filters to sort out such copyright issues.

 

Some writing here as "unlimited access for an unlimited future" on youtube will change soon.

 

Enjoy Youtube until 7 June 2021, after that a lot of items will need to disappear due to copyright infringements.

 

I m sure the bands and concert groups will write in to the sharing platforms to get all infringing items out of the net.

If Youtube had had some business sense instead of just exploiting the internet and "free platforms" it had created something like a fee collection company and had shared the profits from the ads at youtube with the infringed artists and performers but unfortunately these new media companies don't have any business culture (or maybe only making most money out of nothing by exploiting others...)

 

However, there are some concert operators who publish concerts. Not sure, how the copyrights are with these, will have to see.

 

[singalion]

On 12/14/2020 at 4:44 PM, heman said:

I  agree with what Singalion's  comment. Live performances keep music world alive. Too much of canned music can be sterile if one repeatedly listen to it.  As for me watching live performances of either  concert or opera opens a new dimension each time i witness it. It has nothing to do with elitism. I am happy in our small island state most concerts, ballet or operas are usually well attended and tickets are reasonably priced.

 

But I feel prices for concerts at Esplanade had increased the past 3 years. On times you could grab $15 tickets at quite good seating areas (maybe to fill the audience). the past years these prices are more between 40 to 100 S$. Even the second gallery front seats are now mostly quite costly, even reaching S$70 on times.

 

The only good thing: if ticket sales had not been good, for regular concert goers the Esplanade called you up and offered discounted tickets. Took the chance and sat in the row 20 for a 40$ deal... 😄

Only disadvantage: They call on very short notice... like 4.30pm before concert at 7.30pm on the same day.

 

But what I noted the SSO mostly runs around the same composers, variety is not that much. Look at Mahler they played all and again and again. Not that I didn't like it but, they could try some more variation as to composers. Plus, they always have some supposed to be superstars but then they play a piano part for 20 mins following with a different music type concert. Not sure whether this is a good idea. For European concert halls that would be quite uncommon.

In my point would be better to allow the famous pianist to play a full concert or different plays on their own and separate it from the other part. Can always give the star a break inbetween and just play something "intermediary" without the star.  I mean if you bring in a well known violinist to Singapore then you want to enjoy the skill and not just such nippets.

 

Have to admit I did not watch much at Victoria Hall after the renovation.

Any comments on Victoria Hall?

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by singalion

[singalion]

On 12/13/2020 at 1:28 PM, wilfgene said:

The staatsoper was where I watched the first opera of my life and commented 'It ain't over till the fat woman sings'.  No wonder it wasn't demolished even if the Sudeten Germans were driven out.

Couldn't tell the difference in term of audio effects from Narodni Divadro even then.  

Anyway, you reaffirm life is a journey.  The view along the way may well be more memorable than that at the designation itself.

Thanks.

 

He probably meant Prague. But that part was not Sudetenland. Not sure whether they had some State operas in Sudetenland. The Sudetenland only covered the areas bordering to Germany in Bavaria up to Saxony but not the capital of Czech Republic (or after war Czechoslovakia) .

The proper spelling of the National Theater to Prague is Národní divadlo which means "National Theatre".

 

But as spoken out earlier: Nothing beats the live experience...

Edited December 16, 2020 by singalion

[InBangkok]

17 minutes ago, singalion said:

In my point would be better to allow the famous pianist to play a full concert or different plays on their own and separate it from the other part. Can always give the star a break inbetween and just play something "intermediary" without the star.  I mean if you bring in a well known violinist to Singapore then you want to enjoy the skill and not just such nippets.

I think it’s not unreasonable for a soloist to play more than just one concerto provided the main concerto is not overlong. Joshua Bell played the Bruch No. 1 here about 3 years ago and added a shorter work after the interval. I remember some years ago in Singapore Stephen Hough performed both Liszt concerti in the same programme. He also played Beethoven 1 and 4 in the same programme. Much earlier, Rubinstein was performing two concertos in his late ‘80s!

On the other hand, I don’t think it’s a good idea to add a second work if the main concerto is one of the warhorses. The 3 Brahms solo concerti, Beethoven’s Violin Concerto and some others really should stand on their own, don’t you think? 
 

Mind you, I remember attending the 20th anniversary concert of the Hong Kong Philharmonic when Cho-liang Lin was the soloist. I found it ridiculous that for an orchestra’s anniversary they had Lin perform both the Brahms and Beethoven concerti. The only item played just by the orchestra was Dvorak’s Carnival overture!!

[singalion]

On 12/3/2020 at 11:16 AM, InBangkok said:

You stick to your youtube masterpieces and the rest of us will spend some of our time enjoying the thrill of live performances.

 

Maybe Texas is just too far off from any live opera performances.... 😉

 

But one comment was right: Young audiences have an issue to sit and watch some live performance. I was next to a teenager once and had to write a note to the mother to stop her kid from making noise all the time. Lucky the Esplanade cuts off the signal for handphones. Otherwise it would be a disaster...

[InBangkok]

15 minutes ago, singalion said:

Maybe Texas is just too far off from any live opera performances.... 😉Lucky the Esplanade cuts off the signal for handphones. Otherwise it would be a disaster...

Texas actually has very good opera companies in Dallas and Houston!

 

I agree 100% that there should be a cell phone blocker in every entertainment venue. But if the promoter does his job properly, it should not always be necessary. Most halls only make an audio announcement some minutes before the start. So latecomers don’t hear it and by the interval everyone has forgotten about it. 

 

At the Verbier Festival, just before the audience lights go out, a young lady crosses the stage holding a very large sign making it clear that phones must be switched off. I suppose that works because the Verbier audience is mostly rich and understanding.

 

But when Kristian Zimerman was in Bangkok to perform the Brahms First, it was known that he is especially unforgiving of cell phones and tablets. So an announcement was made three times prior to his coming in stage. Absolutely no phones were heard and it was the first occasion here when I never saw any tablet taking vdo!

 

But blocking signals should definitely be mandatory in my view.

Edited December 16, 2020 by InBangkok

[singalion]

4 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

I think it’s not unreasonable for a soloist to play more than just one concerto provided the main concerto is not overlong. Joshua Bell played the Bruch No. 1 here about 3 years ago and added a shorter work after the interval. I remember some years ago in Singapore Stephen Hough performed both Liszt concerti in the same programme. He also played Beethoven 1 and 4 in the same programme. Much earlier, Rubinstein was performing two concertos in his late ‘80s!

On the other hand, I don’t think it’s a good idea to add a second work if the main concerto is one of the warhorses. The 3 Brahms solo concerti, Beethoven’s Violin Concerto and some others really should stand on their own, don’t you think? 
 

Mind you, I remember attending the 20th anniversary concert of the Hong Kong Philharmonic when Cho-liang Lin was the soloist. I found it ridiculous that for an orchestra’s anniversary they had Lin perform both the Brahms and Beethoven concerti. The only item played just by the orchestra was Dvorak’s Carnival overture!!

 

Don't ask me how they sometimes mix the music.

 

What I meant is they fly in so called super star piano player A to play a 16.35 mins piece of music with some concert players joining in and then they have a 45 mins concert of something else. Esplanade has been doing this for years now.

The longest solo appearance was Hillary Hahn on Shostakovich Violin Concerto No. 1 in A minor, Opus 77 at 35 mins.

 

Esplanade doesn't have a past concert list. Can't look it up, need to browse the booklets at home.

 

What I noted for Esplanade / SSO: mostly they hire those medium to younger classical instrument players (who probably don't cost too much, ha ha). Foreign conductors mostly turn around the same, the Finnish one ... At least you get some variation on different types of music and not just Mahler.

 

I was surprised on some Russian composers they played, quite impressing pieces as well.

[singalion]

when I first read the title of this thread I thought it was meant as an exaggeration of drama queens...

 

I guess plenty of guys browsed through in hope to find some bitching comments on such characteristics or stories mounting around "opera queens".

 

ha  ha. this just on a note.

 

but it seems the drama just incurred on a discussion level between some of the actors... ha ha

 

I guess you forgive me for my comment. ha ha  🤣

[InBangkok]

1 hour ago, singalion said:

But what I noted the SSO mostly runs around the same composers, variety is not that much. Look at Mahler they played all and again and again. Not that I didn't like it but, they could try some more variation as to composers. Plus, they always have some supposed to be superstars but then they play a piano part for 20 mins following with a different music type concert. Not sure whether this is a good idea. For European concert halls that would be quite uncommon.

In my point would be better to allow the famous pianist to play a full concert or different plays on their own and separate it from the other part. Can always give the star a break inbetween and just play something "intermediary" without the star.  I mean if you bring in a well known violinist to Singapore then you want to enjoy the skill and not just such nippets.

You raise several points.

 

First, with all respect you are not correct in suggesting that concerts in Europe will always have a soloist play longer than one actual concerto. If violinists are booked only to play the Mendelssohn or a Mozart concerto, that is what they will play - plus perhaps an encore or two. If they have indeed been asked and agreed to play two shorter works, mostly they will agree. Only in recitals will the artist perform for the full two hours or so.

 

Second, what an orchestra plays is generally a matter for the Music Director in conjunction with guest conductors. Usually the Music Director will plan out the main artistic focus for a season. Unfortunately, some guess conductors will always want a show-off work in their programmes, Nowadays the orchestra will also have an Artistic Administrator. I know the SSO has one. It is his job to take all the suggestions and then fashion an interesting season that gets final approval from the Music Director. Some MDs only really care about their own prorgammes. Others are much more involved in the season as a whole.

 

One thing the Artistic Administrator should definitely be doing is avoiding repetition. So if Beethoven's First concerto is played in one season it is not played again for at least several more seasons. However, the next problem is that the soloist has to be linked in to the jigsaw. 'Name' soloists are expensive and are usually only available if they are on a longer Asian tour. Some artists happily offer a choice of several works. Others, like Sarah Chang, used always to play just one concerto per season. So if she played the Brahms in Singapore, that is what audiences everywhere else would get if they booked her that season. She would then record it after the season. In fact she played the Brahms about 10 years ago and then recorded it with Kurt Masur.

 

Every MD/Artistic Administrator should definitely have a list of works performed each season for at least the last 7 or 8 years. If Singapore does not, someone is not doing their job!! There is absolutely no excuse for any repetition of works in concert seasons 

Edited December 16, 2020 by InBangkok

[heman]

Indeed the ticket prices have increased considerably here in Singapore but it is still affordable if you take the second or even third circle seats when compared to ticket prices in Europe , Australia or Japan. As for myself being a senior citizen the usual discount is about 40 percent. One of the best seats and very affordable is the central seats in the front three rows in the second circle.

Well the SSO repertoire is wide. Indeed during the Mahler's so called the Mahler's series they performed quite a few of his works especially the central three symphonies. Other than that perhaps only one or two of his work per year. 

SSO also ventured to more modern work like Shostakovich , Stravinsky, Barber and even Schonberg. The repertoire is expanding past few years. Bear in mind that most new concert goers , especially the younger audiences still look forward to Beethoven , Schubert and Mozart.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by heman

[heman]

I really miss our live performances since the lockdown

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by heman

[heman]

5 minutes ago, heman said:

I been to the revamped Victoria Concert Hall and Theatre a couple of times. It is a more intimate surrounding and more suited for chamber music. I was amazed by the organ in Poulenc's organ concerto about three years ago and Schonberg's Lunate Parriot plus an awesome performance of Brittan's The turn of a Screw. What i missed now is the annual piano series held there. The acoustic is improved remarkably since the renovation.

 

 

[InBangkok]

3 hours ago, singalion said:

The copyright owners have been fighting with Youtube on the uploading of copyrighted material. Youtube is making the money with ads but the copyright owners suffered clear violations on their art works.

 

Sorry to jump back to the earlier post by @singalion but this is a big subject. I agree basically. Although youtube does pay billions for some uploaded material, it is usually for original content and it pays little if anything to the original copyright holders of classical music works. That's because it regards itself as purely a middle man. It provides a platform so that anyone can upload a classical vdo or recording to be seen by those who wish to do so. Last year Google estimated that 500 hours of video content was uploaded every minute! Although there is a warning prior to uploading about not uploading copyright materials, hardly anyone pays any attention to it. Thus increasingly we are seeing more classical vdos being withdrawn because the original copyright owners have issued formal objections.

 

But youtube and other similar companies make increasing profits. On the Instrumental Music thread, GKS posted a vdo that is less than a week old of the Dvorak Concerto and a Mozart Symphony performance by Stephen Isserlis and the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra. Since I wanted to know the participants, I opened a new window and watched it as an official youtube video rather than opening it on the post. I noticed it is officially streamed by the BBC for a month. So there is no question of a royalty payment being required. But - and this massively pissed me off - the 110 minute vdo was interrupted twice by loud, garish 30 second advertisements. It would have been bad enough had they been inserted between movements. They were inserted during movements. And that is increasingly happening. All that advertising cash goes directly into youtube's pocket.

 

The only time a licence should not be required is when, as with Sony and the quite recent uploads of the 4 movements of the new recording of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony with Teodor Currentzis, the recording company itself provides the uploads on a free upload basis. 

 

For all types of music performance, the law is clear in most countries - the copyright holder has the right to control the reproduction of its/his/hers/their work by any means. This includes services like youtube. Ironically this is not yet true in the USA although there have been moves for several years to make it so. I believe this is one reason why youtube is slowly switching to a paid streaming service and increasing ghastly ads into the middle of all its content, including classical music.

 

There does seem to be more than a touch of irony that the USA has been screaming for years at China for the theft of intellectual patents and copyrights. Yet a US company is openly stealing works in copyright from many hundreds if not thousands of worldwide classical music recording companies without seeking formal licences and paying appropriate rights fees. Naturally a recording company that has DVDs on the market for anything between US$15 for a symphony and up to $50 for an opera is mightily pissed off that someone uploads one of the CD/DVDs and it gets nothing. And that is before the copyright protection of the artists who made the recording is considered. They also get nothing. Copyright lawyers are already chomping at the bit to get a big share of the pie!

[wilfgene]

7 hours ago, singalion said:

 

He probably meant Prague. But that part was not Sudetenland. Not sure whether they had some State operas in Sudetenland. The Sudetenland only covered the areas bordering to Germany in Bavaria up to Saxony but not the capital of Czech Republic (or after war Czechoslovakia) .

The proper spelling of the National Theater to Prague is Národní divadlo which means "National Theatre".

 

But as spoken out earlier: Nothing beats the live experience...

Am I thinking too much or is this your subtle innuendo on Steve's preference for or self-limiting to versions of performances deemed up-to-par by some directors/dictators?

Bordering to or on the border of Germany?

Or are you just enticing me to ask for your own definition of Silesia?

[heman]

8 hours ago, singalion said:

What I meant is they fly in so called super star piano player A to play a 16.35 mins piece of music with some concert players joining in and then they have a 45 mins concert of something else. Esplanade has been doing this for years now.

Very rarely even in Europe a top class soloist will attempt two concerti in one night. Once locally there was an event where a pianist performed two concerti per nite for three consecutive nights. Claudio Arrau and very few other soloists ever attempt but rarely if i am not wrong.

SSO players are good instrumentalists. If one listens carefully in solo passages especially in works by Berlioz, Bruckner and especially Sibelius, they are at par with the first class orchestra in Europe. 

I been a fan of SSO since the 1980s and the orchestra has matured tremendously. Their interpretation of Sibelius and Bruckner in particular amazed me with their subtle interpretation that a few times i told the then General Manager that they sound at par or even better than some recordings. I still vividly remember how excellent the SSO in Bruckner 4th, 7th and 9th or some early orchestral works of Alban Berg.

Well i recalled  how they managed to combined a back to back the  lengthy Dvorak cello concerto and Tchaikovsky Rococo Variation by the same soloist in one of their concerts back in middle 1990s. 

At times i knew the audiences may not be happy when a star violinist played Berg's violin concerto which is indeed a terrifyingly difficult concerto but lack the usual pyrotechnics of the romantic concerto.

 

 

 

[heman]

My apology ... i think we should go back to the topic on operas and not general classical music. By the way i just listened to a phenomenal opera -  Erwartung  sung by Anja Silja. I just managed to locate this excellent interpretation in my CD library which i purchased many years ago.

Edited December 16, 2020 by heman

[singalion]

my apologies if I extended the topic, but I jumped into the youtube and accoustics discussion.

 

Personally I have "problems" with these extremely high pitch voices in opera. I tend often not to understand words any longer. Don't mind watching an opera live and as many mothers where husbands don't like to join, I ended up joining my mum.

Lately, they are putting more effort into the show and design, but recently some appearances seemed "overloaden" with such inputs. Meaning: it's not just the music and singing any longer.

[Steve5380]

11 hours ago, singalion said:

 

The copyright owners have been fighting with Youtube on the uploading of copyrighted material. Youtube is making the money with ads but the copyright owners suffered clear violations on their art works.

 

 

I side with YouTube and those who think that the benefits of technology should be shared by humanity as a whole.

 

How could profits from royalties be made if there were no recorded music?  Thanks to Edison, we have it, and it should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.  Royalties are not being paid to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, nor are they being paid to the inventors of the Internet. 

 

I don't object to those who make money from technology, the huge industries of recorded video (movies) and music.  But I see little immorality in sharing intangible works of art around the money making machine.

 

When we borrow books from a library and hopefully return them after reading, we have not committed any immorality.

 

When you watch a video from YouTube you don't necessarily violate any claims by the author. Many artists use this platform to promote themselves.  Valentina Litsia has posted so many excellent piano performances, and this helped her to become known.  Other artists also post their performances, even after being famous.   The sources of concerts that were given to a paying public already had received remuneration for their work, so royalties for displaying it online simply adds to their revenue, which I don't mind. 

 

It is easy to download videos from YouTube. There is space for so many of them on a one-terabyte hard drive.  One loses however some information that is not in the video alone, but this is minor.  About the nasty advertisements that cut through the videos on YouTube,  I have installed an ad blocker years ago in my browser, and this takes care of it.

 

But even if YouTube has to become one day a venue with paid subscription, it would not be so bad and its benefits may more than enough compensate for its cost.   The same happens with Netflix and others, if one wants to dedicate a lot of time to watch movies, all these services are a good deal. 

 

So Singalion, the issue of copyrighted materials will not be a big issue that will discourage the use of YouTube  

[Steve5380]

55 minutes ago, singalion said:

my apologies if I extended the topic, but I jumped into the youtube and accoustics discussion.

 

Personally I have "problems" with these extremely high pitch voices in opera. I tend often not to understand words any longer. Don't mind watching an opera live and as many mothers where husbands don't like to join, I ended up joining my mum.

Lately, they are putting more effort into the show and design, but recently some appearances seemed "overloaden" with such inputs. Meaning: it's not just the music and singing any longer.

 

It was never just the singing and music, as @InBangkok describes extensively.  What are your problems with the high pitch voices?  Not understanding the words in the singing is quite common,  unless you are a polyglot.   Maybe one day you will be visiting the opera with your boyfriend? 

[Steve5380]

On 12/14/2020 at 9:15 PM, InBangkok said:

 

What I found most difficult is sitting just watching a screen with my eyes virtually in a fixed position. At an opera performance the stage is obviously much larger with a lot more going on that that focussed solely by the camera. I also like occasionally to sense the reaction of others around me and to watch those in the more expensive box seats. I love the feeling of being in a large theatre. These are just some reasons why I could not get involved in streaming as I do actually at the performance.

 

 

You must be fortunate that your line of work does not include sitting behind a computer screen for hours. But one gets used to it.  Money should not be spared in acquiring a big monitor with as high a resolution as possible.  I have found that having a good office chair, a big monitor and decent speakers makes watching movies, videos, nearly as comfortable as seeing them on a big screen with high quality audio.  And any watching at home has the advantage that one can stop the video and move around, then continue watching at will.

 

But I share the same likeness for the public you mention.  Sometimes having been seated higher on the side I like to watch the public, and seeing the hundreds of people sitting quiet and silent concentrating on an artistic performance gives me the satisfaction to find that we people can be a community of educated, civil, individuals with higher appreciations.

[InBangkok]

8 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

I side with YouTube and those who think that the benefits of technology should be shared by humanity as a whole.

 

How could profits from royalties be made if there were no recorded music?  Thanks to Edison, we have it, and it should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.  Royalties are not being paid to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, nor are they being paid to the inventors of the Internet. 

I think it's great that inventors of new technology can share their inventions for the benefit of humanity. I am grateful to the Wright Brothers as their invention enabled me to travel extensively. I am grateful to Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone. Equally where would we all be without Thomas Crapper who basically invented the toilet!!

 

You forget one thing, though. Each of these and almost all other inventors took out patents to protect their investments and ensure that profits would ensue from their products. And the royalties from those patents lasted for a longish period of years. Nowadays, patents on new inventions last for a specific period of years and the inventor can, if successful, make a fortune. Bill Gates is just one whose Microsoft royalties continue to make him one of the world's richest men.

 

I have no idea who invented the internet, but those who now control a part of it through using it to provide streaming services make many billions a year. In doing so they use copyright materials. You are correct. Composers who have been dead for 70 years lose their right to royalties. The music of those who died less than 70 years ago, though, are still legally entitled to control the reproduction of the works and to royalties from it. So works of composers like Britten, Stravinsky, Vaughan Williams, Ives, Schoenberg, Bloch, Percy Grainger, Kodaly, Villa Lobos and many others remain in copyright. When performed anywhere, significant royalties have to be paid to their estates. These royalties have to be paid every time their music is performed - even in hotel lobbies and lifts like all pop and middle of the road music. I mention the latter two because hotels have to enter into lease agreements with the local Performing Rights Societies by providing lists of what music is played and pay for the its use. These cover all music.

 

But those who create the music available on the internet - the musicians, the orchestras, the conductors etc. - are mostly still alive. It is their performances. These individual performances are also covered by copyright protection unless they have released those rights to a recording or other company. But that company is still entitled to payment for their services.

 

Some indeed use Youtube to promote themselves. But well over 90% of classical music available on youtube has been illegally uploaded. That will change. For those who don't mind paying for streaming services it probably won't matter. But it will happen.

[InBangkok]

11 hours ago, heman said:

My apology ... i think we should go back to the topic on operas and not general classical music. By the way i just listened to a phenomenal opera -  Erwartung  sung by Anja Silja. I just managed to locate this excellent interpretation in my CD library which i purchased many years ago.

I was fortunate to see Anja Silja as Marie in Wozzeck. Wasn't she married to the conductor Christoph von Dohnanyi?

 

Erwartung is often performed in the same programme as Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. Once saw it with Jessye Norman as Judith. Stunning performance.

[Steve5380]

24 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

I think it's great that inventors of new technology can share their inventions for the benefit of humanity. I am grateful to the Wright Brothers as their invention enabled me to travel extensively. I am grateful to Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone. Equally where would we all be without Thomas Crapper who basically invented the toilet!!

 

You forget one thing, though. Each of these and almost all other inventors took out patents to protect their investments and ensure that profits would ensue from their products. And the royalties from those patents lasted for a longish period of years. Nowadays, patents on new inventions last for a specific period of years and the inventor can, if successful, make a fortune. Bill Gates is just one whose Microsoft royalties continue to make him one of the world's richest men.

 

Some indeed use Youtube to promote themselves. But well over 90% of classical music available on youtube has been illegally uploaded. That will change. For those who don't mind paying for streaming services it probably won't matter. But it will happen.

 

I didn't forget the patent law. It is complicated and extensive.  I have some patents on my name that my former employer can execute and receive royalties.  But patents have expiration dates.  New patents are also based on old technology, old science that belongs to humanity. 

 

YouTube must have some fantastic lawyers that manage to keep it out of trouble, if over 90% of classical music they offer was illegally uploaded.  I suspect that most is legal,  but can become illegal if new laws and regulations make it so... in the future.

[InBangkok]

4 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

I suspect that most is legal,  but can become illegal if new laws and regulations make it so... in the future.

Sorry but that is not and cannot be true. If it was uploaded legally there would be a note under each video of the licence arrangement. How many times do you see that? Rarely! Any new laws will reinforce and enhance existing copyright protection laws, not loosen them. That has been the history of copyright protection.

 

I wonder if you have ever thought about the difference between youtube and Apple tunes other similar download sites. I have never downloaded anything but I believe you can download one movement of a symphony for something like 99 cents. These are legally sanctioned downloads and thus are paid for by the end user. Why would any artists/recording company permit a free upload on one platform if it charges for the work on others? It makes no sense.

Edited December 17, 2020 by InBangkok

[Steve5380]

14 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

Sorry but that is not and cannot be true. If it was uploaded legally there would be a note under each video of the licence arrangement. How many times do you see that? Rarely! Any new laws will reinforce and enhance existing copyright protection laws, not loosen them.

 

And why is YouTube not persecuted because of all their illegal material?  Why is it still there?

[InBangkok]

Whilst on the subject of Erwartung and Bluebeard's Castle, I wonder if anyone has seen the video of Oedipus Rex with Jessye Norman, Philip Langridge and Bryn Terfel. It was recorded in Japan in 1992. The orchestra is Seiji Ozawa's Saito Kinen Orchestra which he forms from Japan's finest instrumentalists for his summer festival every year.

 

Julie Taymor, who would later go on to design Disney's Lion King stage musical, creates a magical, riveting production combining western classicism with elements of Noh Theatre. The entire ensemble would be hard to beat anywhere.

[InBangkok]

58 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

 

And why is YouTube not persecuted because of all their illegal material?  Why is it still there?

Oh dear @Steve5380you surely cannot be so naive. You Tube is a company founded in 2005 presently worth about US$170 billion. Its parent company Google is worth about $280 billion. One of the main worldwide recording labels Deutsche Gramophone has a value estimated at well under $1 million.

 

Youtube and Google will have departments of specialised lawyers with unlimited funds whose job is to fight off any legal action taken against them. How much do you think DGG has to fight youtube? The only way the recording companies can ensure the copyright laws are obeyed is for them to combine together and form a class action and still find vast sums of money for the legal fight. Given that in its first 8 or more years youtube uploads were primarily of sports and pop music, the classical music industry paid no attention to it. It is only in recent years that the recording companies and artists have taken note of the extraordinary rise in illegal uploads - hence one reason for the action initiated in the EU.

 

The law is the law and the EU has not been slow to take technology companies to court. Microsoft was fined almost $500 million in 2013. It could have been $7.4 billion. The EU's new Digital Services Act will usher in a new era in Europe. Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple will face penalties of up to 6% and in some cases 10% of global revenues for breach. One of the objectives of the new legislation is "that businesses operating in Europe can freely and fairly compete online just as they do offline.” 

 

It is not law yet - but fighting the mammoth EU is a very different prospect from fighting a consortia of small recording companies.

[heman]

2 hours ago, InBangkok said:

Oedipus Rex with Jessye Norman, Philip Langridge and Bryn Terfel. I

I did see it few years ago. By the way is Oedipus Rex an opera or an extensive oratorio? 

I am not sure if Anja Silja is married to the conductor. From what critics said her performance was a phenomenal performance for Erwartung is concerned. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by heman

[InBangkok]

1 hour ago, heman said:

I did see it few years ago. By the way is Oedipus Rex an opera or an extensive oratorio? 

I am not sure if Anja Silja is married to the conductor. From what critics said her performance was a phenomenal performance for Erwartung is concerned. 

I always thought of it as an opera but I see it is often described as an opera-oratorio!! A number of pure oratorios are now being staged. Glyndebourne had big successes with Handel’s Saul and Rinaldo. This gorgeous lament for Jonathan from Saul is from a much earlier mid 1970s recording. It features one of the earliest and finest English counter tenors James Bowman with Charles Mackerras, Margaret Price, Sheila Armstrong and the English Chamber Orchestra, I can just see it being staged.

 

 

The Berlin Philharmonic and Simon Rattle has also done very successful concert stagings by Peter Sellars of Bach's St. Matthew and St. John Passions.

 

I checked. Anja Silja was Dohnanyi’s second wife - second of three!

Edited December 17, 2020 by InBangkok

[singalion]

20 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

I side with YouTube and those who think that the benefits of technology should be shared by humanity as a whole.

 

How could profits from royalties be made if there were no recorded music?  Thanks to Edison, we have it, and it should be enjoyed by as many people as possible.  Royalties are not being paid to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, nor are they being paid to the inventors of the Internet. 

 

I don't object to those who make money from technology, the huge industries of recorded video (movies) and music.  But I see little immorality in sharing intangible works of art around the money making machine.

 

When we borrow books from a library and hopefully return them after reading, we have not committed any immorality.

 

When you watch a video from YouTube you don't necessarily violate any claims by the author. Many artists use this platform to promote themselves.  Valentina Litsia has posted so many excellent piano performances, and this helped her to become known.  Other artists also post their performances, even after being famous.   The sources of concerts that were given to a paying public already had received remuneration for their work, so royalties for displaying it online simply adds to their revenue, which I don't mind. 

 

It is easy to download videos from YouTube. There is space for so many of them on a one-terabyte hard drive.  One loses however some information that is not in the video alone, but this is minor.  About the nasty advertisements that cut through the videos on YouTube,  I have installed an ad blocker years ago in my browser, and this takes care of it.

 

But even if YouTube has to become one day a venue with paid subscription, it would not be so bad and its benefits may more than enough compensate for its cost.   The same happens with Netflix and others, if one wants to dedicate a lot of time to watch movies, all these services are a good deal. 

 

So Singalion, the issue of copyrighted materials will not be a big issue that will discourage the use of YouTube  

 

Seems you are hanging on some wild west methods... or maybe you didn't understand yet the issues involved.

 

Google/ Youtube has been reaping from creations from third parties and is making money by publishing copyright infringing materials on their platforms and pushing ads to make revenue from those uploaded videos.

 

Same as for google books, youtube did not look who is the copyright owner on the videos other people placed into youtube.

 

There was  a discussion whether closing down youtube would kill some start up musicians (or whatever) who use YouTube at the platform to gain audience, but the issue was more with some "artificial" filters that would eradicate such videos out of the platform. Algorithms, yes. that is an issue if they follow automatic deletion of items posted onto the website.

 

But this is a side issue, the main issue is that there is a copyright owner, who suffers decreased sales of his music, cds, downloads because someone else just published his music (official record) on youtube and defrays millions of people to buy the CD or pay for a download. Youtube destroyed their revenue by not taking down the video.

 

It should be up to the copyright owner to decide if he/she wants his/her artwork to be published on YouTube. But did youtube bother? Did it take prompt action? No , Youtube simply said it is not liable for any content.

 

If some artist wanted to use the platform to spread his/her arts then he she grants permission and waives copyrights. but 98% were never asked but had to suffer their own artwork being exploitatively published on youtube. 

 

If you had created some art you might have understood the issue... You look to simplistic at is as a mere user of youtube.

 

There is always a deadline where copyrights expire or have expired. Don't come with Mozart and Beethoven. It is up to the copyright laws to say how long protection will be granted. But not by an intrusion into their rights by Youtube.

 

your example with the library doesn't count either because the library acquired the book by paying a price for it, which the artist received. But currently with Youtube , the artist doesn't receive anything if Youbute publishes the copyrighted material but even causes an decrease in revenue for the artist.

 

Your point is a bit selfish in your personal interest. Surely you would have watched less videos on youtube (from copyrighted materials) if you had to pay let's say 10$ per video to watch it. Isn't it?

 

We are not talking here about the homecooking mums showing their cooking skills on videos or some wave surfers showing their surfing skill but we are talking about art creations protected by copyright or other IP rights.

 

Wait for the European law to become effective. You will see the difference soon.

 

[singalion]

8 hours ago, InBangkok said:

Oh dear @Steve5380you surely cannot be so naive. You Tube is a company founded in 2005 presently worth about US$170 billion. Its parent company Google is worth about $280 billion. One of the main worldwide recording labels Deutsche Gramophone has a value estimated at well under $1 million.

 

Youtube and Google will have departments of specialised lawyers with unlimited funds whose job is to fight off any legal action taken against them. How much do you think DGG has to fight youtube? The only way the recording companies can ensure the copyright laws are obeyed is for them to combine together and form a class action and still find vast sums of money for the legal fight. Given that in its first 8 or more years youtube uploads were primarily of sports and pop music, the classical music industry paid no attention to it. It is only in recent years that the recording companies and artists have taken note of the extraordinary rise in illegal uploads - hence one reason for the action initiated in the EU.

 

The law is the law and the EU has not been slow to take technology companies to court. Microsoft was fined almost $500 million in 2013. It could have been $7.4 billion. The EU's new Digital Services Act will usher in a new era in Europe. Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple will face penalties of up to 6% and in some cases 10% of global revenues for breach. One of the objectives of the new legislation is "that businesses operating in Europe can freely and fairly compete online just as they do offline.” 

 

It is not law yet - but fighting the mammoth EU is a very different prospect from fighting a consortia of small recording companies.

The issue was that Youtube had excluded any liability for any uploads. And the laws did not have any obligation on the platform provider to secure or avoid copyright infringements and act upon.

 

If person XYZ uploads a Rolling Stones concert in Nigeria or North cyprus, first you need to know who it was. Did Youtube disclose? How long would it take for the Broadband provider in North Cyprus to respond to a request to tell the persons name to the Rolling Stones. Then you need to sue in a court....

 

Youtube on exploiting such situations for their own profit just did not act....

 

90% of the music on Youtube is a copyright infringement. But the law has been slow to respond to the issue.

 

By the way the US did not support the approach of the European Union because ... Where is the headquarters of Youtube??????? What state in what country takes the tax profits from Youtube and benefits from the people working at Youtube?

 

The concerted action against these internet giants is just coming in recently...

 

 

[Steve5380]

11 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

Oh dear @Steve5380you surely cannot be so naive. You Tube is a company founded in 2005 presently worth about US$170 billion. Its parent company Google is worth about $280 billion. One of the main worldwide recording labels Deutsche Gramophone has a value estimated at well under $1 million.

 

 

I am not naive, and you know it perfectly well. 

 

The market value of Google and its affiliates has reached ONE U$S TRILLION DOLLARS.  It joins Amazon, Apple and Microsoft in this exclusive club of wealth. 

 

But I don't consider these companies as EVILS of society.  I feel well served by Amazon.  Microsoft has earned their worth, and Google is welcomed in our lives,  originally with its browsing, searching capabilities and now with YouTube.

 

The possible lack of morality of these monsters comes, in my modest estimation, many orders of magnitude below the evil of the largest for-profit hospital chains in the US.  Big monopolies that try to take as much advantage of sick humanity as possible.  While the participation in the wealth monsters I mentioned earlier is VOLUNTARY,  the one in the hospitals monsters IS NOT.

[Steve5380]

2 hours ago, singalion said:

 

Seems you are hanging on some wild west methods... or maybe you didn't understand yet the issues involved.

 

But this is a side issue, the main issue is that there is a copyright owner, who suffers decreased sales of his music, cds, downloads because someone else just published his music (official record) on youtube and defrays millions of people to buy the CD or pay for a download. Youtube destroyed their revenue by not taking down the video.

 

If you had created some art you might have understood the issue... You look to simplistic at is as a mere user of youtube.

 

Your point is a bit selfish in your personal interest. Surely you would have watched less videos on youtube (from copyrighted materials) if you had to pay let's say 10$ per video to watch it. Isn't it?

 

Wait for the European law to become effective. You will see the difference soon.

 

 

Yes, I must be a very primitive wild-west bandit who doesn't understand the issues involved.

 

While you are an example of morality, completely versed in the complicated issues I don't have the slightest understanding.

 

But let's be realistic.  You embark in a discussion about money,  something out of the topic of Opera. You immerse in the situation of those who suffer from some non compliance of intellectual property laws.  I have my empathy with suffering at a point of near saturation with the families of 300,000 Americans who died of  covid, with the desperate situation of millions who lost their income, can only get food from food banks, and are at risk of losing their homes for lack of payments of rent and mortgages.  Compared to this, reduced royalties have fallen precipitously in importance.

 

Maybe because I am a little more experienced,  I can see the interplay of money and richness in our society.  Everybody tries to increase his money, maybe aspiring for richness.  So they don't mind taking advantage of competition, of any good deals they can take without clearly violating the laws.  

 

I am one of these who take advantages.  The law in the US dictates that television stations must transmit at least one channel over the air. Years ago I cancelled my cable subscription and started receiving all my TV over the air.  There are so many stations in Houston that I cannot watch them all.  Coupled with a TIVO receiver / recorder I now can see all the programs I like without paying for cable.  

 

THE LAW can be something capricious. Why does a copyright lasts for so long?  Beyond the death of the author?  This is completely arbitrary.  Same with patent law.   But... the law is the law!

 

As long as we users of YouTube can watch all their videos we want, we are within the law.  And we will be so until the law, or its enforcement, changes.  I don't care for the European law,  since I live in America.  Have a good day   

[LeGrad]

So on a lighter note, 

Has anyone seen the works done by small local companies in SG (e.g SPOT, Pocket Opera, L'arrietta?)

[InBangkok]

9 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

But let's be realistic.  You embark in a discussion about money,  something out of the topic of Opera.

Yes, let's be reaiistic - something you frequently seem not to be. Opera is ALL about money. Without dollars and cents there can no professional opera - period. In the Musicals thread, not your interest, I know, I listed some of the groups of people who are suffering desperately severe hardship through the closure of Broadway Theatres. Let me repeat here all those institutions and individuals who have to get paid before any opera can get on the stage.

 

Theatres have to be hired, directors and designers (scenery, costumes and lighting) have to be paid fees and royalties, a conductor and assistant conductor have to be paid, cash has to be paid for the making of the scenery and costumes and the hire of any special lighting that is required, soloists have to contracted and paid, a full orchestra has to be paid, choristers have to be paid, all the various technicians have to be paid, marketing and publicists have to be paid along with their marketing programmes, senior front of house staff have to be paid, the administrators putting all this together have to be paid . . . and so it goes on.

 

Those of us who attend live performances contribute through our paid tickets to all these costs. You, sitting alone in your own Valhalla, happily watch video content on your two dimensional screens, much of which has been illegally uploaded. You contribute nothing to the performances you watch - apart perhaps to youtube for an ad blocker - you care nothing about the law and you care nothing about copyright law. Worse, you see no reason why you should contribute anything.

 

I watched four opera streams from the Bayerische Staatsoper in the late Spring, the first streaming I have watched in my life. Had I not done so, I would never have discovered the amazing mezzo soprano of Vesselina Kasarova nor a Parsifal with Jonas Kaufmann and Rene Pape superbly conducted by Kirill Petrenko. These were free streams with a request that those enjoying them consider contributing to the Staatsoper. Three months ago I sent my contribution. It was vastly less than I would have paid for tickets. But it was also more than the one-off cost for the usual regular stream offerings because I also watched a part of each opera quite a few times. I did so merely because I felt an obligation to contribute to the company which had given me pleasure. And I love the House in Munich. I have no doubt that most who watched the streams did not contribute. I have no problem with that. It was a merely a request for contributions and those watching could do as they wished. There was absolutely no breach of any copyright by not contributing.

 

As you say, the law is the law and you and I can do absolutely nothing about it.  Remember what happens to Valhalla?

Edited December 18, 2020 by InBangkok

[Steve5380]

21 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

Yes, let's be reaiistic - something you frequently seem not to be. Opera is ALL about money. Without dollars and cents there can no professional opera - period. In the Musicals thread, not your interest, I know, I listed some of the groups of people who are suffering desperately severe hardship through the closure of Broadway Theatres. Let me repeat here all those institutions and individuals who have to get paid before any opera can get on the stage.

 

Theatres have to be hired, directors and designers (scenery, costumes and lighting) have to be paid fees and royalties, a conductor and assistant conductor have to be paid, cash has to be paid for the making of the scenery and costumes and the hire of any special lighting that is required, soloists have to contracted and paid, a full orchestra has to be paid, choristers have to be paid, all the various technicians have to be paid, marketing and publicists have to be paid along with their marketing programmes, senior front of house staff have to be paid, the administrators putting all this together have to be paid . . . and so it goes on.

 

 

I am very realistic.  You, on the other hand seem to not see the reality ten inches away from your nose stuck in Opera.  What you described above is common in any industry, any business, any commercial undertaking.  Think of all what has to be paid before you can sit down at a fast food store and enjoy a hamburger.  All what has to be paid before you can walk into an airplane and enjoy you nice tourism.  And think about the millions of people who because of the pandemic are unable to do their functions and are not being paid.  Opera is NOTHING different from all this.

 

21 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

 

Those of us who attend live performances contribute through our paid tickets to all these costs. You, sitting alone in your own Valhalla, happily watch video content on your two dimensional screens, much of which has been illegally uploaded. You contribute nothing to the performances you watch - apart perhaps to youtube for an ad blocker - you care nothing about the law and you care nothing about copyright law. Worse, you see no reason why you should contribute anything.

 

 

You yourself have recognized that classical music orchestras, operas are SUBSIDIZED, often by the governments.  So by attending live performances, you BENEFIT from these subsidies,  since the cost of providing you this nice service of a concert, an opera,  is more than what you pay with your ticket.

 

Me, on the other hand, I don't need concert performances, so I don't contribute to their subsidized cost. And yes,  I HAPPILY SIT IN MY HOME ENJOYING VIDEOS on my screen.  "Two dimensional" is just an adjunct to your deprecative statement and you have recognized that 3D doesn't make much of a difference to you.  And... there are only 3 dimensions.  So, two dimensions are perfectly acceptable.

 

I do contribute to the performances I watch on YouTube.  I am a prolific commentator of these videos, and I often get recognition by the posters of the videos.  I am not made aware of illegal uploads, and much of what I watch is material that has been around for decades.   I contribute to society through my taxes and some charity work.  My conscience is perfectly clean, and you cannot change this.    

.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Steve5380

[InBangkok]

2 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

I am very realistic.  You, on the other hand seem to not see the reality ten inches away from your nose stuck in Opera.  What you described above is common in any industry, any business, any commercial undertaking. 

Aha! So, leaving aside the childish criticism, why your earlier comment? 

 

9 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

You embark in a discussion about money,  something out of the topic of Opera.

 

Yet you agree that opera is all about money like other businesses! You state two opposites! Then you say

 

6 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

I do contribute to the performances I watch on YouTube.  I am a prolific commentator of these videos, and I often get recognition by the posters of the videos.

 

So according to you, you contribute for your greater glory. I take it you do not upload videos of criticism. If so you might join the others in this thread who frequently describe the iive performances they attend. Instead I'll take a bet: all you do is make a written comment below the video. You consider that a contribution? Oh dear! One thing you clearly do not do is contribute cash for the royalties that should be being paid on many of the videos.

[Steve5380]

2 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

Aha! So, leaving aside the childish criticism, why your earlier comment? 

 

 

Yet you agree that opera is all about money like other businesses! You state two opposites! Then you say

 

 

So according to you, you contribute for your greater glory. I take it you do not upload videos of criticism. If so you might join the others in this thread who frequently describe the iive performances they attend. Instead I'll take a bet: all you do is make a written comment below the video. You consider that a contribution? Oh dear! One thing you clearly do not do is contribute cash for the royalties that should be being paid on many of the videos.

 

[Steve5380]

11 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

Aha! So, leaving aside the childish criticism, why your earlier comment? 

 

 

Yet you agree that opera is all about money like other businesses! You state two opposites! Then you say

 

 

You seem to interpret my posts "ad libitum".  I never said that opera "is all about money!"  What I said is that opera (its finances) is no different from other activities.

 

 

11 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

 

So according to you, you contribute for your greater glory. I take it you do not upload videos of criticism. If so you might join the others in this thread who frequently describe the iive performances they attend. Instead I'll take a bet: all you do is make a written comment below the video. You consider that a contribution? Oh dear! One thing you clearly do not do is contribute cash for the royalties that should be being paid on many of the videos.

 

 

You make written comments here.  You pay for them? Should you be paid for them?  And...  you think that your posts are a zero contribution?  Be real, and look also at yourself.

 

I don't pay for what I don't need to pay.  But I don't mind when I have to pay.  For example, I bought two DVDs with Bejart's 9th symphony, one for myself and one for my son.  The cost of these was trivial, I didn't mind. If I have to pay for YouTube videos that I want to see, I pay without problems.  But... why should I pay for what is free?  To make you happy?  

.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Steve5380

[InBangkok]

 

9 hours ago, NtuLad15 said:

So on a lighter note, 

Has anyone seen the works done by small local companies in SG (e.g SPOT, Pocket Opera, L'arrietta?)

Back to opera and away from the mundane issue of how it is put together and paid for.

 

I am sorry NtuLad15. I do not live in Singapore and so do not know about those small companies. Have you been to any performances? I;d love to hear about them. I have seen a few performances by Bangkok Opera here in Thailand. I felt I should support a local venture but unfortunately I did not find them very enjoyable. The reason, sadly, is twofold. First they perform in a 1,800 seat theatre whose auditorium and stage are far too large. They could easily reduce the size of the proscenium arch to create a smaller stage. That would have been infinitely preferable for their Magic Flute, for example.

 

Second, no doubt for financial reasons, they do not allow nearly enough rehearsal time. When I saw Don Giovanni, the orchestra had just one 3-hour rehearsal prior to the Dress Rehearsal. The conductor was remarkably good, though, and kept everything together for the most part.

 

The company has done some good work. Its Turn of the Screw was fascinating. But it is just overly ambitious. When you are a part time ensemble importing a few principals and have little cash reserves, taking on Wagner's Ring was sadly stupid. They sort of got through Rheingold and Die Walkure but then had to give up.

[InBangkok]

6 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

I don't pay for what I don't need to pay.  But I don't mind when I have to pay.  For example, I bought two DVDs with Bejart's 9th symphony, one for myself and one for my son.  The cost of these was trivial, I didn't mind. If I have to pay for YouTube videos that I want to see, I pay without problems.  But... why should I pay for what is free?  To make you happy?  

In this case, I am perfectly happy. Who recommended this DVD which you have raved about ever since you bought it? I did!

[Steve5380]

3 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

In this case, I am perfectly happy. Who recommended this DVD which you have raved about ever since you bought it? I did!

 

And I have thanked you for that multiple times.  You recommended that I buy the DVD, or you just made me aware of the videos on...  YouTube?   In any case,  thanks again!   

[InBangkok]

I know there have been excerpts from Gianni Schicchi and Madama Butterfly uploaded on this thread. Has there been anything from another of his popular operas, La Boheme? The set piece in Act 2 outside the Cafe Momus is the temperamental Musetta's Waltz Song. It's always a show stopper. This clip is from a performance by the Genoa Opera during a tour to China in 1986 which was part of Pavarotti's first visit to the country. Just the scene to raise the spirits.

 

 

[InBangkok]

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

And I have thanked you for that multiple times.  You recommended that I buy the DVD, or you just made me aware of the videos on...  YouTube?   In any case,  thanks again!   

And I thank you for your thanks. I am delighted the Israel Philharmonic, Zubin Mehta, the two dance companies, the Bejart Estate and the recording company will at least earn at least something from your purchase.

[Steve5380]

4 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

And I thank you for your thanks. I am delighted the Israel Philharmonic, Zubin Mehta, the two dance companies, the Bejart Estate and the recording company will at least earn at least something from your purchase.

 

I may have spent a total of 50 US dollars on the two DVDs, not enough to go very far for so many people.   

[singalion]

22 hours ago, InBangkok said:

I always thought of it as an opera but I see it is often described as an opera-oratorio!! A number of pure oratorios are now being staged. Glyndebourne had big successes with Handel’s Saul and Rinaldo. This gorgeous lament for Jonathan from Saul is from a much earlier mid 1970s recording. It features one of the earliest and finest English counter tenors James Bowman with Charles Mackerras, Margaret Price, Sheila Armstrong and the English Chamber Orchestra, I can just see it being staged.

 

 

The Berlin Philharmonic and Simon Rattle has also done very successful concert stagings by Peter Sellars of Bach's St. Matthew and St. John Passions.

 

I checked. Anja Silja was Dohnanyi’s second wife - second of three!

 

 ha ha,.... video has been already taken down....

 

copyright issues?

 

ha ha

[singalion]

13 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

 

I am not naive, and you know it perfectly well. 

 

The market value of Google and its affiliates has reached ONE U$S TRILLION DOLLARS.  It joins Amazon, Apple and Microsoft in this exclusive club of wealth. 

 

But I don't consider these companies as EVILS of society.  I feel well served by Amazon.  Microsoft has earned their worth, and Google is welcomed in our lives,  originally with its browsing, searching capabilities and now with YouTube.

 

The possible lack of morality of these monsters comes, in my modest estimation, many orders of magnitude below the evil of the largest for-profit hospital chains in the US.  Big monopolies that try to take as much advantage of sick humanity as possible.  While the participation in the wealth monsters I mentioned earlier is VOLUNTARY,  the one in the hospitals monsters IS NOT.

 

The money is not the point.

If the company had some corporate culture it had never started infringing other people's or artists IP rights.

The problem might be more nowadays that they grew to an octopus and difficult to get them back in complying with laws.

 

For a US company with headquarters in the US it is an insult for not having respected IP rights. What country has been preaching others for years on the requirement to protect IP rights???????

 

And please take a look how companies as Google et altera have used their power to fight off smaller players causing them into court actions (some of them vastly blown up).

 

Google soaked up a lot of smaller ventures by copying their business model and destroying the competition.

 

Let's be fair please.

There is no point you are making.

 

Since when can you say we need to close two eyes only because they are multi million dollar companies?

Such a remark is disappointing.

 

[Steve5380]

9 minutes ago, singalion said:

 

 ha ha,.... video has been already taken down....

 

copyright issues?

 

ha ha

 

 

OOOOhhhhh....

 

You mean that @InBankock had posted here a video that may have copyright issues?  Isn't this an immorality?