Why are stage performers historically regarded as immoral?

I have often encountered this in my life, and in literature. For example I have just read a story in which a Colonel refuses to meet an actor because 'it would go against his conscience to associate with a stage player'. I was told once by an elderly woman that 'only cheap women appear onstage' - this after telling her I sing Mozart. (does this apply to ballet %26amp; opera too?) The mother of composer Hector Berlioz begged him on her knees not to disgrace the family by becoming a musician - when he did, she never spoke to him again. Can anyone enlighten me?

Why are stage performers historically regarded as immoral?opera score

I studied Drama at University and one of the productions I was in was The Relapse a 17th Centuary comedy. The director chose to create the atmosphere of a 17th Centuary theatre so I had to research the time.

Back then, theatres weren't only for plays they were houses of ill repute, prostitution and alcohol was rife. Many of the actresses and indeed actors were also whores, at the end of a performance admirers would wait at the stage door and the highest bidder would win their prize. The theatre was a place that routed for lust and the theatre would be full of orange sellers, they would sit and eat oranges in a seductive manner and then prostitute themselves to the customers.

Previous to this as you probably know only men were permitted to act, but this was considered an unworthy profession as they were not considered intellectual or physical, and so like women, therefore they were second class citizens. When women began to join the profession it was frowned upon because it was new and women were considered to demure and fragile to depict scenes of lust, intense love or death.

Obviously time has moved on a great deal but even in the 50's and later it was considered a selfish and thrivilous profession as family values were the importance of the era's for a man or women to declare they wanted to perform on stage they were being selfish as work was rarely constant and moral values may have to be abandoned to portray a character or scene.

Well that's what I know, mostly about actors I'm afraid but generally stage performers adhered to the same scruples. I am an actress now and still I get laughed at by the older generation of my peers for being so idiotic, but I'm doing quite well!

Why are stage performers historically regarded as immoral?musicals opera theater

well....you know all those chick singer jokes?

Why do you think there are so many of them?
I think it was early performing arts had nudity, which was taboo in your "better" circles. Hence the influence of a bawdy lifestyle.

And as it is this day, your "better" circles are still watching, but still undercover..........!!!
People had different values. To compare look at todays Bollywood actors. They never kiss, as this would be immoral. Even if they are married on screen a kiss never passes between them. Watch 'Bride and Prejudice' its a great British film
Well, for one thing, everyone in every job used to take on apprentices. Every job except acting. The actors were called "masterless men" because they didn't have a master, who acted kind of like a chaperone. The actors portrayed parts on stage, so they were seen as "liars". Many actors in this period of time changed their last names so they wouldn't disgrace the family.

This ultimately changed around Shakespeare's days. The queen was a big supporter of plays and rich men in the communities would support certain groups of actors... hence "The Admiral's Men" and "Lord Chamberlain's Men". Now, they had masters!! Hooray!!
well, most people in past times had to either walk or ride either horses or in coaches or wagons to get any place far away. Travel was seen as a dangerous business, and people who lived anywhere outside of the county were often suspected of being so different as to be dangerous as well. People who travelled for their living came under this suspicion. Most performers, whether serious or frivolous, felt the need to move on, to carry their work/art to other audiences. They had widened their own perspectives of how people think by actually experiencing different areas, ways of doing things, thinking different thoughts,learning other languages, etc. Highly suspicious, especially learning other languages. I mean, you might learn how other cultures think about things.

Once one had a taste of how things worked in the larger world, it was rarely easy to settle back to the smaller perspective. This led to artistic people often congregating with only other artistic people. And one thing often led to another. It still does, doesn't it? How often do we still hear about Mr. Y or Ms X carrying on with someone else, with that same frisson of "taboo" or"immoral" attached to it?

This lesser perspective ( which doesn't really need a label of good or bad, now does it?) applies to most people in performing arts, also ballet and opera. ( I sing in an opera chorus in Germany, a well-established theater, with a year-round season. I had to convince my father in CA that being a "chorus girl" was completely different than what he thought of the term. I've been working steadily, making a living wage for over 20 years now, and my father has finally accepted my respectability.)

Since the sexual revolution of the late 60's this issue has become less inflammatory than it used to be, but some old prejudices just die harder than others.

Keep your wits and your sense of humor at the ready, and keep on singing.
In addition to several other excellent comments:

I'm sure you've heard the stories about the starving musician or the actor who's day job is waitressing.

Also, actors (musicians, etc) have a history of traveling from place to place seeking audiences. ex. In Medieval France the troubadours would travel from town to town singing their songs of love...Buffalo Bill's troupe of performers traveled through the west providing entertainment...throughout history women 'actresses' would perform purely to be eye candy for the men of the audience. Not to mention gypsies who never had a good reputation to begin with. Another stereotype developed that the leading man would have a different girl in every town he visited.

As for opera; singers have a long-standing reputation of being alcoholics and sex obsessed. The castratos (castrated men who had a greater range than a soprano with the force of male lungs) were considered the perfect affair for ladies of stature because they could not get pregnant.

There is a true story of two drunken men (a composer and tenor, we'll call them Fred and Ed because I can't remember their names) arriving in a town via train. Noticing that there was an opera in town they decided to buy tickets to see the show. When the show was about to start the manager came onstage and informed the audience that there would be no show tonight because their composer Fred, and their lead tenor Ed, were missing. The two surprised men stood up and shouted back: "Here we are! Here we are !". For obvious reasons no one was very happy with them.

Another opera star was perpetually drunk. No matter what the managers did he managed to find a way to get his daily fill of spirits. Finally a manager decided that in the twenty-four hours prior to a show he would lock the tenor in a room to keep him from getting tipsy. The tenor (they always seem to be tenors) was fine with that because he had already figured out a plan. A large fruit basket was sent to him via a fan. Then, that night the singer tied a rope to the basket and lowered it from his window, where a boy from the village was waiting to fill it with wine and other goodies. The next day the manager arrived to find the tenor drunk, as usual!

There are many, many stories like these. Even if the majority of performers are moral, the amoral performers provide much better gossip and so the stereotyping begins.

Besides, have you SEEN Hollywood lately? It seems that everywhere I turn there's another actress charged with drunk driving or drug possession.