I've been away for some months, yes. Busy with a crazy workload of web development stuff—stuff for the Stranger, a site for New York-based composer Nico Muhly, and currently a heap of projects (SEVEN New York, Feist, and Antony and the Johnsons). I've been mostly out-of-the-loop on opera, but I must say: Bach motets and Baroque opera, in general, are really great for the iPod while I'm on the elliptical trainer.

Last week, the Theater editor for the Stranger asked that a write a short piece on the disinclusion of Jane Eaglen from the Seattle Opera's 2009 Ring casting. Originally, it was to be a cute 300-word thing to fill some space in the section. I was really hesitant to do it all because I felt it would be in extremely bad taste. After our original lead story fell through, through, it was requested that my piece be expanded to its current length ("Why Isn't Jane Eaglen in the Next Ring Cycle?"). The more I sat through discussions and revisions, the more uneasy I became with how the story was taking shape.

The piece seems not to be my style, exactly. The sentences are choppy, and the whole thing seems to veer in this direction of Attacking Jane Eaglen and Pointing Out Jane Eaglen's Weight. That certainly was not what I intended, but I still do stand behind the real story (which I'm not sure is entirely clear)—Jane Eaglen is one of many singers who have become casualties of a changing art (and, more importantly, business). I wanted to indict the various administrations of opera companies more directly because—let's face it—Eaglen and all her colleagues, great and small, are simply trying to do the best within their particular circumstances.

The circumstances are what trouble me. I actually find it distasteful that Seattle Opera would turn its back on its prima donna and then be so vague about its reasons for doing so. It feels like more of that "truthiness" bugaboo that's been creeping into our culture. If the audience and subscribers wanted someone different, then I feel like the house should've been more forthcoming with what differences those same operagoers wanted. It's plain gross to be at the whim of nebulous, unmentionable standards and this retarded demand for "star quality." Jane Eaglen is a star, no doubt. Her students here have told me that they absolutely love working with her. And it seems she is a box office draw (though I don't honestly know if people like her or if they're under the spell of good marketing). From my knowledge and observation of Eaglen, she is terribly fun to work with and possesses a sense of humble self-assurance that is not often to be found on the operatic stage. Whatever the true motivations of Seattle Opera may have been, it seems to have left a bad taste in the mouths of Eaglen and her management, who have only confirmed the casting and not otherwise commented.

At the end of the piece, I make the concession that Jane will be better off without the pressure. Opera is in many places becoming a monstrosity that compromises its own potential with each passing season. It's come under the cultural umbrella that has us overmedicated, wrongly diagnosed, and treating symptoms of problems rather than their causes. The administration is under the impression that it's doing what its audience wants and thereby saving the art. But it may be that the audience doesn't always know how (or to whom) to communicate what it wants. Is it more believable to see a thin figure for the love interest on stage? Maybe. In the end the real test is when the audience closes its eyes and listens to the music. That is where the persuasion should be most powerful. Does the music (with all its attendant parts) inspire and engender a richness of emotion, rather than impose it? Does it ennoble the listener and empower him to analyze those emotions and values in himself? Is the music self-consistent (that is, do the parts of the music play their intended roles)? Is the text sung with the utmost clarity and evenness so that the poetry (and thus the Whole Work) is not obscured? Does even the music cause a reexamination of popular notions of expression?

If any one of those questions (and probably several more) cannot be answered YES, then the administration of opera is doing a disservice to the art and to its audience. So much about opera has been muddied with what I feel are base and basic concerns—namely the Sexiness and Palatability of the visual aspect. I really wonder what would happen if those elements were distilled and attention—real, critical discernment—were given to the music (especially the functional and technical components of singing). It feels that there is some hidden thing still inside opera—some roughened gem to be uncovered and polished—something that we're missing out on. That is the gem I want the world to see and hear. It won't come about by hiring big breasts and pretty smiles and MAC lipsticked bombshells who make appearances on talk shows and really "feel the emotion of the songs, y'all" but have extremely limited talent for synergizing that emotion with impeccable singing. We all know where that leads: