In today's NY Times there is a column by John Rockwell ostensibly about
the impending ending of the sponsorship of Met broadcasts by Texaco. He
raps the broadcasts on two grounds. Firstly he feels that the broadcasts
have hindered or impeded the development of local opera outside of the
largest metropolitan areas. This seems for some reason to be kind of a
personal vendetta on his part for some reason that I can't fathom. But
the 2nd criticism he has is that radio being essentially (solely) an
aural medium it is perpetuated the idea that opera is primarily an aural
art and fosters neglect of the theatrical--i.e.  visual literary etc.
aspects of the art form of opera.

Personally I strongly disagree with him. I think the aural aspect is
central and can be easily demonstrated by taking opera removing the music
and looking at the residue theatrically and seeing how it stands up. The
answer in my mind is not very well. Sardou"s Tosca  without music is
hammy.  Beaumarchais's Marriage of Figaro is boring. Who reads Walter
Scott's  Lucy of the Lammermoors?  In other words these pieces are of
their time but do not reach out across the centuries as great works of
art without the music.

Any comments?

Elihu Sussman