Future of opera or soporific experience?

Just some of the reviews from Sunken Garden, the opera by Michel van der Aa and David Mitchell that had its world premiere in London last Friday.

There are few new operas about which so much had been written beforehand. Quality newspaper The Guardian was media partner and not only posted trailers on their site, but spoke to Van der Aa, Mitchell and conductor André de Ridder beforehand. And the other British newspapers followed suit. Understandably, because not only did Van der Aa win both the prestigious Grawemeyer Award and the Mauricio Kagel Music Prize in a short time, but this opera is also the first with 3D film ánd uses a libretto by Cloud Atlas-author David Mitchell, also widely in the news in recent months due to the mildly divisive Hollywood film adaptation of that book. Even The Daily Mail published an extensive preview - although the day after the premiere it was purely about the Ashton Kutcher in attendance.

That one was not noticed by the premiere audience, at least, they did not tweet about it. About the opera, though. All but a few were very positive, especially about the use of 3D film. Festival directors and programmers also responded enthusiastically. A few complained about the lack of surtitles, which made the text difficult to follow.

The latter ironically highlights how much modern technology has become an integral part of opera: one of English National Opera's aims was once to bring opera into English, so that everyone could understand the act without knowledge of German or Italian.No one had heard of surtitles back then.

Modern technology, however, is much more than a component in the musical theatre works of Michel van der Aa, a composer as well as a director and filmmaker. As in After life and the cello concerto Up-close is in Sunken garden the filmed part inseparable from music and action.

The technical ingenuity of this new opera was also initially unanimously praised in the British press. Opinions differed on the score, with some critics stating that Van der Aa writes exceptionally well for the human voice, while others felt that, on the contrary, much could be improved there. Pity about the cryptic libretto, sums up one. An essentially classic opera libretto, observes the other.

Different opinions, three stars out of five.

Nothing crazy, happens more often.

But remarkably, the discussions that followed became increasingly negative. And fast too. The tone changed as well. Even if the text still spoke positively about some aspects of the opera, the headlines became grimmer. And soon, too, the technical feats were dismissed as easy effect or already obsolete. Andrew Clark in Financial Times was deadliest: "As long as the novelty element 3D film works, all is well, isn't it?"

Against Michel van der Aa, of course. Right?

What stands out in the discussions is that there is more and more talk about the future of opera. And that Sunken garden that is not.

'The Future of Opera', however, comes not from pre-publications but from the very first response, written by Norman Lebrecht.

Alarm bells are ringing.

Norman Lebrecht wrote many books on classical music, in which, among other things, he mercilessly described the big money and inflated egos behind the scenes. Not always based on verifiable facts, which brought him lawsuits and made him one of England's most hated music journalists, as he also named and shamed colleagues.

And it was precisely that first reaction by Lebrecht that English National Opera used in a mailing. That that first reaction was based on a visit to the dress rehearsal did not help either; it is also an unwritten law in England that a journalist merely describes what happens there, not bases an opinion on it, even if it is on his own blog - a genre that Lebrecht has long detested, by the way.

Of course, Lebrecht also read all the increasingly negative reviews, and it can't be helped that he too noticed that they increasingly seemed to be a reaction to his cheering quote as well.

He himself responded with a remarkable new blog post, entitled Criticising the critics: who is right about Sunken garden.

A bizarre piece for many reasons, in which he falsely argues that all other critics agree that Sunken garden is a lot, but not an opera, and that perhaps only he - and former opera director Brian Dickie - got it right.

Bizarre, because he not only failed to read the negative reviews properly, but ignores the indeed positive reviews, such as in 'trade journal' Opera Britanica, for his own argument. He does mention in an update the also highly laudatory review in the New York Times.

Bizarre, because he not only failed to read the negative reviews properly, but ignores the indeed positive reviews, such as in 'trade journal' Opera Britanica, for his own argument. He does mention in an update the also highly laudatory review in the New York Times.

Bizarre because he questions whether reviews in serious newspapers still have anything to say when audiences have a different opinion and vote by buying tickets en masse - the Holland Festival performances are more than sold out, but following Lebrecht's reasoning, we should call Justin Bieber the greatest musical talent ever.

Is a feud between British music journalists being played out here? Between old and new media? It could be. Meanwhile, on twitter and facebook, discussions are flaring up and English National Opera itself created a real storify that includes both positive and negative reactions from press and audience. If that's not opera 2.0...

And Michel van der Aa himself? Who of course responds via twitter:

Interesting to read the broad scope of #ENOgarden reviews, ranging from "this is utter sheit" to "Ground breaking"&"lighting the way ahead"

- Michel van der Aa (@vanderaanet) 16 April 2013

And probably think: a riot, an operarelle! They either don't like it at all or they love it. They are just short of literally flying into each other's hair. I'm doing something right.

I'm going to see it for myself, at the upcoming Holland Festival.