A Conversation with William Mason, General Director of Lyric Opera of Chicago

The following article is an interview with William Mason, general director of Lyric Opera of Chicago, conducted by freelance writer and author E. H. Cropsey. Mason, who assumed the directorship of Lyric Opera in 1997, has been affiliated with the company since its inaugural season in 1954, when he performed in the children's chorus and sang the role of the Shepherd-boy in the company's production ofTosca. Mason expresses his informed and sometimes controversial thoughts on a number of issues, based on his vast experience in both the artistic and administrative wings of Lyric Opera and other companies.

EHC: As Lyric Opera of Chicago approaches its fiftieth anniversary, I wanted to take this opportunity to chat with you about your thoughts on various operatic issues. First of all, in your opinion, what has caused opera to become so popular in this country over the past few decades?

WM: We can look back over the past century and clearly see how the seeds were sown in the consciousness of the American people. In the early days, there were opera companies that toured all over the country. Almost everyone who had a Victrola had one or more Caruso records. A big boost came when the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts began in the 1930s, making live performances of complete operas available in virtually every home. Then in the 1950s came television, bringing the visual as well as the musical elements of opera into homes across the country. And by the late 1980s and 1990s, with the advent of English surtitles, people were at last able to go to the opera house and actually understand what was going on with what they were seeing and hearing. At performances of La bohème and Figaro now, for example, compared to ones without titles, people laugh and get the joke, they're affected by the poignancy and the sorrows inherent in the opera. There is more emotional impact. People can now relate more personally to the performance. This all coincided with the coming of a generation that was much more visually oriented and not as likely to just sit and listen to music. There is even spectacle in rock concerts today. And all those things work in opera's favor.

EHC: There have always been differences among opera aficionados as to what opera is, or should be. Some still stalwartly insist that the voice is the only thing that matters. What is your view on this question?

WM: There is no question that, in the opera house at least, opera must encompass every dramatic element of musical theater. The libretto and the music come together to serve the elements of the opera. The voice also serves the drama, as do the visual aspects of the production. If the voice were all that mattered in the presentation of opera, we could save a lot of money on costumes, scenery, and stage direction, and we could perhaps even dispense with the libretto! Opera, of course, is musical theater and, in contrast to a concert, must achieve some balance among all its elements. Every element serves the others. There are always certain problems in effecting this balance, sometimes because of the limitations of the stage facilities and sometimes because of the inappropriate physique of a singer. But we all have our own individual ideas of what each specific opera should be. In a perfect world, we would hire a voluptuous sixteen-year-old who could sing Salome. But we can't. So we make compromises. On the other hand, we are not usually willing to make the same kind of visual sacrifices for a woman singing Susanna as we are for a woman singing Brünnhilde. With Brünnhilde, her music just has to be gorgeously sung, but in The Marriage of Figaro, for example, there needs to be more to the singer...