Philippe Agid’s scientific contributions

Opera is the most costly of the performing arts, and the one with the most restricted audience. The number of opera houses and companies currently in existence is very large (several hundred), and they are very diverse. We have already reviewed the activities and policies of opera houses; it is now time to attempt to understand their performances, and then to examine some detectable prospects for development. Whether large or small, of international, national or local renown, publicly or privately funded, all opera houses and companies need public subsidies or private contributions to supplement their internally generated “earned income”, which essentially derives from sales of tickets and productions. Their financial autonomy, or earned income as a percentage of the total budget, varies from 6 per cent to 47 per cent; the rest, or “contributed income”, comes from external sources. Public backers justify their contributions in terms of one or more public interest objectives: preserving or developing the artistic heritage, making culture accessible, or reasons of prestige and reputation. In the USA, private donors are asserting their attachment to the art form of opera, and their chief expectation is that their money will enable opera productions that would probably not exist without their involvement. They also expect positive returns in the form of publicity, personal profile-raising and public image. Private donations in Europe are driven by the same motives, despite a lower relative importance than in North America even though their marginal value remains high. In either case, the quality of the opera offering as reflected in the audience response is what justifies the financial support provided. The seat occupancy rate, which in our database ranges from 45 per cent to 98 per cent depending on the opera house, reflects the perceived quality of opera productions and how well they match their environment. This rate can attract long-term commitments from financial partners or lead to withdrawal of their support.

Opera houses are no strangers to the tensions, conflicts and crises that affect or can affect any organization in any field of human activity, in any part of the world and at any period of history. If several general directors of American opera houses use the French term édifice complexe among themselves to qualify the institutions they manage, it is probably because tensions and difficulties of all kinds are their daily lot. Eight opera houses, including one foundation comprising three houses, have faced or are currently facing crises of varying scales and durations, with effects that may be short-lived or longer-lasting: the Opéra National de Paris, Covent Garden, the Grand Théâtre de Genève, La Scala in Milan, the Oper in Berlin foundation, Oper Leipzig, the San Francisco Opera Association and the New York City Opera.

Opera production and performance and the art of assembling a huge number of totally different artistic and technical resources are the core activities of opera houses all over the world. Both the production techniques used in the earliest European opera houses of the 16th and 17th centuries and today’s production modes reveal this capacity for “assemblage” to be an opera producer’s decisive skill. The dimensions and artistic standards may have changed considerably, and modern technologies may have given opera houses resources that would have been unimaginable even just a century ago, but the present and past situations overlay each other.

When Stéphane Lissner decided to stage Franco Alfano’s Cyrano de Bergerac at La Scala in Milan for the 2007–08 season, he chose an Italian opera that had sunk into oblivion since its creation in 1936, but which he helped to revive with the New York Metropolitan Opera and the London Royal Opera House in a co-production directed by Francesca Zambello and starring Placido Domingo in the title role. This decision was in line with the principles clearly declared by La Scala’s Sovrintendente: to programme at least 50 per cent of Italian operas and bring together world-famous artists (conductors, singers, directors) to return today’s La Scala to its past heights of quality. It was a risky decision, but the risk was limited in several ways. This was a co-production with two of the greatest opera houses, Francesca Zambello’s productions are successful all over the world, Patrick Fournillier is one of the most sought-after guest conductors and, essentially, Placido Domingo was in the cast. He may well have been the originator of the idea. He was a triumph in the role, demonstrating acting and singing talents still unequalled by many younger tenors. The press coverage reflected the success of the venture. In the words of a London critic, “The opera stands or falls on the performance of the tenor singing Cyrano, and in this respect Domingo is the production’s greatest asset….It isn’t a great opera, but it was a great performance where it mattered — the title role!” And in Milan one commentator wrote, “Alfano’s Cyrano de Bergerac is an expressive, at times jarringly sad masterpiece, which we can all thank Maestro Domingo for exhuming from obscurity.” The opera was a sellout in all three theatres. The Théâtre du Châtelet staged the same opera in Paris in May 2009, also with Placido Domingo and Patrick Fournillier, but in a production staged by Petrika Ionesco and a partnership with the Spanish Province of Navarre and its Symphonic Orchestra.

In its 2007–08 Annual Review, the London Royal Opera House defines its governance and management major rules: “The direction and control of the Royal Opera house is determined by the board of trustees which meets at least seven times per year. The role of the board is to approve or monitor the strategy of the Royal Opera House and ensure that it is being effectively managed. The trustees are also responsible for the appointment of the chief executive, as well as the most senior positions. The chief executive, with the assistance of the executive team, manages the day-to-day operations of the Royal Opera House.”1

In Paris in January 1875, and in Bayreuth in August 1876, two opera houses opened that were different in every way. The Palais Garnier gave concrete form to an emperor’s dream of glory and magnificence, although he was deposed before he could witness the culmination of his restoration of Paris. It is the crowning achievement of the “Italianate” conception of opera theatres. The auditorium is designed for the audience to see, be seen and meet up. The facades and areas for socializing are sumptuous. The opera glorifies the prince and gathers the elites as much as it contributes to the promotion of operatic art. The Bayreuth Festspielhaus marks a total break from this conception. It was built inexpensively on the outskirts of a small town north east of Nuremberg.1 Wagner had refused the project he was proposed in Munich. Bayreuth was his final choice. He was refused financial assistance from several quarters, and began his own fund-raising campaign before going back to his former protector, Ludwig II of Bayern, who agreed to provide a modest budget for the project. Bayreuth opera house has no ostentatious luxury: with its brick exterior and wood interior, the building is rather “barnlike”. But this “barn” has been designed to present Wagner’s “total art” vision, with nothing to detract the audience’s attention from the music, the singing and the drama.

This chapter is to our book what the overture of an opera often is for its audience. It introduces the dominant themes, constructs the whole and sets things in motion. The overture of an opera, sometimes substantial, sometimes brief and introductory, gives the spectator or listener their first impression of where the opera will take them.

People unfamiliar with opera house economics often ask why these institutions are not profitable. There are two classic answers to this question. First, opera houses are incapable, in both Europe and the USA, of generating sufficient income from the sale of tickets and other products to cover their operating costs. Additional funding is invariably needed. Second, opera houses usually settle for the goal of a balanced budget rather than a profit, and often succeed in achieving that. Are the two answers contradictory?

The audience for opera has always been, and remains, central to the future of both opera as an art form and of the houses that produce the performances. Opera attendance has been relatively stable over the past decade. Some dips occurred during the recession of the past 2 years, but audiences have recently increased thanks to the promising deployment of multimedia in the operatic world. Within the confines of opera houses, audiences traditionally have been maintained through active commercial communication and marketing policies. Today, information technology and social media magnify the impact of such programmes beyond the world of opera houses. A look at the retransmission of operas in movie theatres and on other digital networks may provide significant insights.

Depuis sa creation en 1669, l’Opera de Paris a connu differentes formes de gouvernance. Il fut Royal, imperial, puis national. Il entretint toujours d’etroites relations avec l’Etat mais realisa ses meilleures performances lorsque celles-ci se relâcherent pour laisser plus d’autonomie aux equipes de direction. Mais Baumol et sa loi rendirent a l’Etat sa vigueur d’antan...