My response to Andrew Potter’s Viral Article
Everyone has been asking, “Dana, when are you going to say something about this article?”
(It will help if you read it first, HERE):
First, let me say that I am THRILLED this article has gone viral. Why? Because the more we talk about the issues in our industry openly, the more people pay attention. Attention can sometimes lead to change. Bravo to Andrew for speaking out.
I certainly don't want my message to be misconstrued. I am not interested in discrediting Andrew or his good work here. As a gender disparity in opera ‘specialist’, however, I AM interested in examining his points from the perspective of sopranos and mezzos/altos. We have been ringing this bell, shouting ‘fire’ for decades. We belong in this conversation. Come along for the ride!
-----
Yes, it IS extremely frustrating when we spend decades building a voice and things don't work out when the voice is finally where we want it. I feel you, Andrew, and you are not alone. This is, sadly, the familiar story of countless sopranos and mezzos/altos I know personally: colleagues, students and coaching clients in their 30s, 40s and beyond - but for a different reason. Things haven't worked out because they were never given a chance in the first place. Work never fell in their lap. Those auditioning post-2008 were unlikely to even be offered an audition for a paid company. There was no Metropolitan Opera for them. The odds were always brutally against them, with approximately 70% of voice and opera degrees being awarded to sopranos and mezzos/altos. These singers typically pay more for school and sing less than their lower-voiced counterparts while there (learn more here).
Meanwhile, out in the field, the top 50 most-performed operas in the canon boast the inverse: approximately 62% named roles for bass, baritone, tenor and 35% for soprano and mezzo/alto (3% for kids). Examine those stats here.
Next, he's absolutely right. The math has NEVER worked, especially for our treble friends. In their case, they were stuck in the other math (the staggering debt from school, the low # of roles on their resume and the small % of roles available in the field) before they could ever get to the place where they'd have a contract to read over and sign. The idea of a contract, a FEE(?!) is a luxury to so many singers. The few who made it to the point of having contracts to sign? They then had to deal with the Potter's math. Bad math on top of bad math. Your average soprano has six-figure debt and incomprehensible battle scars (fighting tooth and nail for opportunities, constant rejection, body shaming, unwanted advances, harassment and much more) before the idea of a contract even comes into play.
Regarding family: I completely sympathize and agree that any singer that chooses family will suffer their fee. Now just imagine having a baby that relies on your body's milk. Imagine needing to pump because you are away from your baby on a gig and you are not being given adequate break time, risking painful mastitis and soaked shirts. Imagine paying a nanny to be with you for the whole contract because you cannot bear to be away from your child and/or wish to breastfeed them during the contract. Forget cutting into the artist fee - that fee is simply gone. This is the story of so many of my uterus-owning colleagues; they wanted the resume line and the ‘honor’, so they ate the fee. All of it.
Next. As someone who founded and ran a small opera company (MassOpera) for 18 years, I understand (on a small scale) the complex nature of paying for opera. And damn, opera is expensive (see Ana De Archuleta's Someone Has to Pay for This).
At the end of the day, an institution has to decide if they still have a workable model and, if not, what to do about it. I agree with Potter that slashing artist fees is never the solution. Especially taking into account the points he succinctly makes about inflation; we just….haven't gotten a raise. Like….at all. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $50 in the year 2000 is the equivalent of $96.42 now. Let that sink in.
Through the lens of gender disparity now, imagine being a soprano collecting her inflationless fee after a career riddled with debt, sacrifice and struggle. After shipping off a percentage of her fee to her manager, the remaining pennies fall through her hands as she collapses. Now imagine the grit necessary to peel herself off the floor to attend another audition for another inflationless fee. An audition where - should she have the audacity to age, have a body, have brown skin - she will likely be discriminated against in some way. But by all means, let's save our sympathies for a white, male bass who's had enough.
Listen, it's a good article. I'm glad it was written and I'm glad we are sharing it. The opera industry is not sustainable in its current form, period. Before you singers run for the hills, though, consider your options carefully.
Long ago, in an article I wrote for Classical Singer in 2016 (newer version here), I coined the term “Correlating Career” as pertains to artists.
It is more essential now than ever before to have additional income streams to enable you to stay in the singing game. Without strong spousal or familial financial support, over 90% of singers must accept this. The earlier singers plan for this, evaluate their skill sets and other interests, and put a correlating career in place, the better. This is the reality of an opera singer in 2026. Especially for our treble friends.
I sure wish it wasn't.
Please share.
Yours,
Dana Varga
Instagram @theempoweredmusician
https://www.theempoweredmusician.com
See less