The
research project focuses on the Royal Opera House (Covent Garden). Such topic is
widely relevant due to Royal Opera House’s significant impact on the culture of
the United Kingdom and its international recognition. Moreover, personal
reasons for the decision of this research are associated with deep passion for the
analysis of the European opera history and desire to be involved in this
venue’s activities. As the theme is vast, having many various aspects suitable
for a research, the research question, who is the fan of the Royal Opera House,
defines more specific area which is changing rapidly regarding economic,
political and social causes. Although the Royal Opera House has been already
deeply analysed throughout hundreds of years, the overall features of the
audience, its response to the repertoire and venue’s social target is not
analysed completely. Therefore, using primary source, survey, and secondary
sources such as books, articles, reviews, web articles this research reveals
the most common features of Covent Garden’s audience.
From
the opening of Covent Garden built by Edward Shepherd in 1732 until,
approximately, the end of the Second World War, this venue was the focal point
of its mixed class audience. The suspended concessions and increased prices
caused violent riots and demonstrations which expressed the high demand for
Covent Garden’s production and accessibility (Gishford, 1972). Moreover, private
fundraising was vital and constant, for instance, even several seasons occurred
due to private funders such as Giuseppe Persiani in 1847 and Signor Lago in
1886 (Gishford, 1972) who encouraged the sponsorship in order to maintain the
internationally great opera house. Furthermore, as British audience was
strongly conservative, some librettos, including G. Meyerbeer’s ‘Les Huguenots’
and D. Auber’s ‘Gustave III’, had to be altered for the United Kingdom (Dent,
1949; Tooley, 1999). Although the Covent Garden was presented as an elite way
of entertainment, supported by private donations, Gishford (1972) claimed that the
audience consisted of the elegant and snobbish upper class and impecunious and rumbustious
lower classes which created a contrasting sense of the period. Reasons why
estates were keen on Covent Garden were associated with their attitude
regarding the social image which was improved by following trends, dictated by
the Royal Family, and, if affordable, having an access to the boxes (Hibberd,
2003; Gishford, 1972). This mixture of large regular audience caused that a
part of it was lacking the knowledge of etiquette while another part was
focused on its social status but both of them were united by deep roots of
conservatism.
Together
with the start of a public support in 1946, the Government and the Royal Opera
House were hoping to broaden the audience and develop its musicological
knowledge (Gilbert, 2003; Lebrecht 2000). Huge debates were occurring regarding
the performances in English, stating that production in original language is
only for snobs and the venue has to be widely accessible (Gilbert, 2003). As a
consequence, middle classes filled the gap in the audience but due to the lack
of experience regarding repertoire, Covent Garden public, differently than in
Germany or Italy, did not respond positively to the innovative operas and
modern surrealism design and preferred internationally recognised R. Wagner, G.
Puccini, G. Verdi and G. Bizet’s ‘Carmen’ (Gilbert, 2003; Tooley, 1999).
However, the audience was unpredictable and after several years its patriotism
alongside traditional repertoire taste decreased, having a demand for international
stars singing in original language and eccentric operas such as A. Shoenberg’s
‘Moses and Aaron’ which caused the sold-out qualitative performances and better
education of the audience. However, financial difficulties required another
attempts to bring mixed audiences. The strategy included activities such as school
workshops, development of Education Department, proms, relays, performances at
the Wembley arena, ‘Travelex’ sponsored transportation, season’s opening for
‘The Sun’ readers and opera and ballet screening at 22 countries’ cinemas
(Brown, 2011; BBC, 2011, 2008; Gilbert, 2003; Tait, 2004). Although economic
issues disabled vast improvements, the audience’s content and preferable
repertoire was expanded (Kennedy, 2002; Thorpe, 2002).
Very
influential feature of the British society and the Government is its antipathy
to the funding of cultural activities and sceptical attitude regarding Covent
Garden (Gove, 2002; Gilbert, 2003; Gishford, 1972). Large disagreements were
noticed not only regarding the amount of public support but also the need for
broadening the Covent Garden’s audience. Royal Opera House was focused on wide
accessibility (Lebrecht, 2000; Tooley, 1999) but, conversely, Hugues Galls claimed
that people are into elitist opera and the attendees should remain special by
venue’s low accessibility (Clark, 1993), which considerably harmed the Covent
Garden’s image (Gilbert, 2003). Moreover, the Government’s and public’s doubts
of the necessity of Covent Garden were criticised by Peter Hall, Colin Davis and
Bryn Appleyard who stated that Britain is full of philistinism, glamorous
events and star singers and it destroys what it creates (Gilbert, 2003).
Furthermore, there were surveyed 31 students aged between 18 and 29 years old
of which 92.6% is not attending Covent Garden. The majority would be tempted to
come if ticket prices were reduced and mostly architecture is a point of
interest. However, 2011/2012 season’s prices varies from £9-£205 of which 50%
is under £55 (BBC, 2011) so the accessibility should be quite high. Therefore,
society’s demands and pride of Covent Garden are still uncertain.
The
audience’s issues are also linked with this creative industries organisation’s
economic, political and social background. Despite the complex funding and
establishment of the governing body Royal Opera House, Covent Garden Ltd,
financial difficulties were occurring constantly and caused an increase in
prices, reduced accessibility and quality (Fay, 1997; Tooley, 1999). Although
the Covent Garden is defined to be a source of VAT payment and a tool of
tourism growth, arts are still a low priority for the Government (Gishford,
1972; Hibberd, 2003). However, this venue is well recognised internationally
due to involvement of great musicians such as M. Callas, H. Berlioz, C. M.
Weber and B. Britten. Creative industries which are providing product or
service with an artistic endeavour (Caves, 2001) are widely related to Covent
Garden because it not only produces opera and ballet performances but also boasts
of architectural heritage and develops activities such as radio, television and
internet broadcasts (M2 Presswire, 1999, 2009) and launch of a video game ‘The
Show Must Go On’ (Brown, 2011). Although the Royal Opera House is the
internationally important cultural venue, having a small regular audience, its
maintenance requires too much than the Government determines and it is unclear
whether such venue’s demand is large enough.
The
research process revealed that the Covent Garden is a complex organisation and
there are many related aspects to be analysed. One of the weaknesses is that
the vast topic makes difficulties regarding the selection of certain
information and it requires thorough collection of opinions before it is
possible to group them in parts and make generalisations. Moreover, the
presented small scale survey cannot reflect the general trends and reveals only
a part of society’s view, therefore, only by having better research abilities it
is possible to achieve large survey numbers and then generalise the information
(Denscombe, 2007). There was also the lack of statistics and information of the
current decade as only some articles are available. Therefore, an interview
with representative of Covent Garden was necessary but yet no response from the
venue was given. Furthermore, the word limit did not allow the full coverage of
research findings and smaller topic might be more suitable for such scale. However,
large variety of historical Covent Garden’s history sources and reviews enabled
to have considerably accurate and reliable research propositions. Further steps
have to be taken in order to compare the Covent Garden audience’s attitude with
other countries’ such as Italy, Austria, United States and France and also with
local English National Opera. Moreover, there should be defined all reasons of
opera and ballet popularity’s decrease since the end of the Second World War
and deeper analysis of sceptical public attitude regarding arts. Therefore,
this aspect of Royal Opera House would be better researched if stated data was
linked with an interview about the current venue’s strategy, large scale
survey, comparisons with local and international opera venues and further
findings of British society behaviour.
To
conclude, the Royal Opera House’s audience transformed, from being deeply
focused to quite ignorant or unable to access. Moreover, it usually consists of
wealthy members of upper and middle classes which need to be broadened. Covent
Garden always had financial and political issues which suspended considerable
improvements in accessibility and national image but its constant developments
caused variety of cultural activities alongside performances. This research
enabled to analyse the audience through collection of reliable data. However,
as research is a never ending process, qualitative primary sources and further
research should be done in order to get a full picture.
