Accessibility and Live in HD Met Operas [Otis 2019]

In “Uploading to Carnegie Hall,” SE Tan discusses the first YouTube symphony orchestra that took place in April of 2009. The reader is taken through the virtual beginnings of the ensemble to the orchestra’s embodiment in real time and space. SE Tan’s analysis of YouTube’s aspiration to create a utopian musical network and global community. Listener’s ability to vote for artists on YouTube was meant to represent a democratizing culture and highlight the internet as a vehicle for participation, but this ideal is ignorant to some of the digital inequalities that exist today. I argue that attempts to make similar genres that are seen as elite (opera) more accessible (Live in HD Met Broadcasts) are not actually more accessible to larger populations. 
The model of this non-discriminatory practice for the YouTube Symphony Orchestra was based on the internet, viewed as a platform with never-ending reach. While this may allow many interested to participate in the selection of the orchestra’s members, it ignores the many people who do not have access to the internet to begin with, inhibiting their ability to participate in orchestral culture. Tan says that “here was, in theory, an orchestra built by anyone with an Internet connection who cared to participate” (337), but this disregards the individuals, both nationally and globally, who are automatically discounted due to their lack of internet access. These ideas connect to the theme of digital divide discussed earlier in this semester. The issue of digital divide in orchestral settings is a part of a larger class bound genre. SE Tan highlights the unequal playing field of the internet, meaning that an elite group of individuals are still favored within those who have access to internet connection. It is mentioned how a select group still governs the economy of the orchestra and the internet has been manipulated commercially and by capitalist practices.
I believe that these uneven political concerns are evident in other genres considered elite, such as the opera. While we have discussed Live in HD Met Opera showings in movie theatres as possibly being more accessible, I believe that this is a false display of equality and universality in the opera. Although movie theatre broadcasts may eliminate geographical barriers, it is not abolishing the connections to class and SES that have leverage in operatic decision-making. No significant action is taken to destigmatize the class bound genre and associations with a performance for the elite. This leaves me wondering, despite attempts to display the genre as one that transcends class and ethnicity, how opera can become truly open to all audiences and groups of people interested. Whether it be through more inclusive and appropriate storylines or other means, I believe that the solution starts in the opera house itself, not just through where or how it is broadcasted. 

Comments

Maggie said…
I agree with your point that the genre of opera is inherently elitist, however I think that live broadcasts - such as the Met Opera - are a good start to making them more accessible to everyone. Sure, it's not the exact same experience as attending the Met, but I think it's important to recognize the effort extended by the Met. With that being said, much like how simply accessing the internet is still inaccessible to many users, simply attending the AMC theater might also be inaccessible in similar ways. Going to the theater still requires transportation, it requires a relatively able body, it requires an ability to hear. In addition, it might require an individual who has previous knowledge of the opera in order to appreciate it, much like how participating in the YouTube symphony required individuals to have past knowledge in Western classical music.
November 28, 2019 at 1:57 PM
Toni Aguilar Rosenthal said…
What would you consider to be more 'authentic' attempts at universalizing, or at least broadening, the operatic experience? Though I completely agree with you that simply utilizing the internet does not go far enough in creating an inclusive artistic experience, I'm having trouble envisioning what might be a better and more wholistic process. It seems to me that nearly all performance genres are grounded in a sort of exclusivity. Performances, and their elusive draw, are really defined by their exclusivity. The full experience of a live performance is confined to a specific moment, space, and feeling. Is that not why movie theaters, opera houses, and play houses, continue to exist even when almost everything can be more easily consumed from the comfort of one's home? Is there anything we can do (more than internet accessibility) to create more equitable and inclusive spaces when the value of the experience itself seems to be predicated on elitism?
December 1, 2019 at 9:40 PM
Elaine Kim said…
I completely agree with your argument. All forms of classical performance – orchestra, plays, musicals, and operas – are founded in a history of classism and discrimination. The act of going to see a performance for entertainment, as well as the ability to become a performer, was and is still a luxury. While I applaud the efforts of Met Live and the YouTube Symphony Orchestra to make these genres of performance more accessible because the initiatives are still fairly new the audiences, they attract are not much more diverse than the audiences in-person opera and orchestra performances attract. Those who have a taste for opera and classical, those who are buying tickets to Met Live or watching the YouTube Symphony Orchestra live Stream, are from privileged backgrounds. In order to diversify audiences and make these genres of performance more accessible, institutions like Met Opera have to make sure that their Met Live broadcasts are individuals who have not and would not be exposed to opera in any other form or venue. I can imagine this taking the form of some program in which the Met Opera pays for tickets for students in underprivileged communities to go see a Met Live broadcast.
December 4, 2019 at 6:20 AM
Eileen Cho said…
I completely agree with you that just streaming the opera that is happening in a physical space somewhere is not enough in making opera, or any type of art, more accessible. However, like Toni, I find myself stumped in terms of how institutions can solve this problem of accessibility. These performances are more or less a part of the experience economy, and digitizing them not only literally flattens the experiences into 2-dimensional ones, but also reduces them to a part of the service or industrial economy. But, as we've talked about in class, participating in the experience economy is inherently more expensive and if it were cheaper, there would be no experience because of the degraded quality. Reality is that these performances are part of an economy, meaning money has to be involved in order to have anything at all.
December 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM
Josh Miller said…
In response to the critique of the YouTube symphony as being inaccessible to those without internet access, I would argue that while the fact of inaccessibility is true, I am unsure of the degree of it. This is because there is already a certain level of privilege inherent in being trained, classically or otherwise, in the instruments played in the YouTube symphony. To be good enough an individual would have to have the resources for a good quality instrument, and need the free time to develop their skills. I think that the privilege of being skilled in playing an instrument would more often overlap with the privilege of internet accessibility. However this does not fix the problems brought up about opera accessibility, and I liked your idea for the solution starting with the opera house itself.
December 7, 2019 at 9:47 AM
Post a Comment