Eno's Dr DeeDamon Albarns opera
Posted 27 June 2012 - 11:06 AM
My question is: Can this be called an opera when there was so little singing involved?
It was definintely very interesting visually, so if I see it as an experimental piece of theatre, I have no complaint, but call it an opera?
I have posted this comment here as the opera section seems to have disappeared.
Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:59 PM
Posted 27 June 2012 - 03:47 PM
Posted 27 June 2012 - 04:03 PM
Posted 27 June 2012 - 11:44 PM
Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:17 AM
Broadway has been very good to me. But then, I've been very good to broadway.
Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:03 AM
Posted 28 June 2012 - 12:18 PM
Posted 29 June 2012 - 02:58 PM
Posted 29 June 2012 - 04:21 PM
Ah, that makes me feel slightly better.
My other problems were: the lack of surtitle (they installed it in 2004), and the necessity to read the programme beforehand to understand the concept. A genuinely powerful opera (and ballet) shouldn't need any explanation to be read before the show.
But then, they say it's not an opera, so.. it should be OK?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users