So the Little Opera House, as it apparently will be called, will provide affordable performances in a setting that promises intimate, vivid experiences for audiences -- audiences who aren't, in Miller's words, all about "luxuriating in displays of their wealth" (Miller, who has made a good living directing in opera houses where rich people are known to congregate, is obviously capable of singing very different tunes).

You can find other, mostly predictable comments in the article from those involved in launching this opera house -- how social barriers will be erased, how young singers will gain valuable experience, that sort of thing. All perfectly reasonable. But if you scroll through the comments posted, you'll find a very lively debate. Seems like some people aren't buying the concept. "It is okay for some areas of entertainment to have a niche appeal," writes one reader. Others are supportive: "To all those refined souls who can't bear the thought of Puccini in a pub I say, go and boil your stupid heads." My favorite comment is the most succinct: "Oh, dear."

I think it's worth asking if opera can ever appeal to the masses? Should it? Why? How much is lost when the original size and scope of an opera is substantially reduced in the name of accessibility, or just plain budget limitations? Given stiff entry fees for so many sports and pop music events, why is it that opera is the one still stuck with the only-for-the-rich tag? 

Here in our fair city, several groups now present opera, staged or in concert form, at reasonable prices in small venues (no pubs, yet, as far as I know). Whether the "masses" check out the action is another story, but at least the opera-tunities are there. We can debate their merits all season long.

PHOTO COURTESY OF KINGSHEADTHEATRE.ORG