A sign of hope

Is it just

me, or did Peter Gelb, the incoming general director of the Metropolitan Opera,

just announce the most substantial turnaround plan ever seen from a major

classical music institution?

It’s not

just me. Peter did exactly that—or at least he announced the very impressive

first stages of the most substantial turnaround plan I’ve ever seen. And yet

some noticeable portion of the press doesn’t seem to get it. More on the press

later, though. (My colleagues weren’t having their best day, I fear.) First

let’s see what Peter announced, first in stories from the Associated Press and

style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>The New York Times, and then at a press

conference on February 13. (I was very friendly with him when he ran Sony

Classical, but

I want to stress that I haven’t spoken to him since he got the Met job, and had

no advance word about anything I’m writing about here, except for all the usual

rumors dashing around in the underbrush.)

Here are

Peter’s public plans:

• He’s going to bring in major

  conductors, and announced two of them. In future seasons,

  class=SpellE>Muti will conduct Verdi’s Attila, and Salonen will conduct

  class=SpellE>Janacek’s From

  the House of the Dead. For decades we’ve all complained about the lack

  of major conductors at the Met, apart from James Levine. So immediately

  Peter has addressed one of the bigger problems serious opera fans have had

  with the house.

• He’s going to do many more new

  productions, eventually, he says, one each month. That’ll help create

  interest and excitement. (It will also be expensive, which means he must

  think that he can find the money—and, what’s most important, that he knows

  he has to spend money to get the Met where it needs to be, despite the

  current financial troubles.)

• He’s going to reposition ticket

  prices, lowering the cheapest seats from $26 to $15, while raising the

  price of the most expensive ones. This is brilliant. With one stroke, he

  addresses the problem of ticket prices, which everyone knows

  class=GramE>are one of many factors keeping people away. (The mere

  perception, correct or not, that tickets are expensive plays a part here,

  too. Peter’s move—with all the publicity it’ll get—addresses both

  perception and reality.) And he does this, he can hope, without losing

  money, which ticket-price reductions typically do. As he said at the press

  conference, he wants the wealthy patrons to subsidize the poorer ones.

  We’ll have to see how this plays out in practice, especially on the

  balance sheet, but it’s a terrific step to take.

• He’s going to collaborate with the

  Lincoln Center Theater. Apart from some uncomfortable joint efforts some

  years ago by the Lincoln Center Festival and the New York Philharmonic,

  there hasn’t been any collaboration that anyone can remember among

  w:st="on">Lincoln

  w:st="on">Center’s constituents. Not even

  cross-promotion of related events. This is ridiculous. With one stroke,

  Peter shows that collaboration can be possible.

• The collaboration involves development

  of new works, with nine composers. Some of these composers aren’t

  classical, which already has caused some furrowed brows. Doesn’t matter.

  Tony Tommasini, chief critic of the

  style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>Times, wrote a piece wondering if

  the composer choice was truly artistic, but the message I think he mostly

  conveyed was something different: The Met is doing something we have to

  talk about. Besides, nine composers! The house has been justly criticized

  for not doing enough new music. Getting nine composers—not one, not two,

  but nine—to work there can’t be bad.

• He’s going to produce a 90-minute

  version of last season’s Magic Flute

  production, which was a hit with ticket-buyers. Of course this is

  aimed at families who might not otherwise attend. Again a very good idea,

  since the Met—with ticket sales really low—needs to find a new audience.

• He scrapped the plans for next season’s

  opening, which was going to be—as so often in recent years—a gala. Instead

  he’s going to bring in a Butterfly production

  from Britain,

  one that caused a sensation. Very likely this was only possible because

  style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'>Butterfly was already on the

  schedule for next fall, but this change is major news. First, it

  potentially starts next season—Peter’s first in full command—with a bang.

  But even more than that, it shows that Peter is a strong, decisive

  manager. Opera seasons, as everybody knows, are planned years in advance.

  Anyone would have said, “No, you can’t possibly change next year’s

  opening. It’s far too late.” But it wasn’t, and by bucking the inertia of

  conventional wisdom here, Peter shows he’s firmly in charge, and willing

  to go against the grain if he has to, to do what needs to be done.

One thing that

these initiatives accomplish—both separately and (most of all) together—is

class=GramE>create some buzz. And look at who’ll be buzzing. The lower

ticket prices and the 90-minute Magic

Flute speak to the new audience the Met needs to attract. The new

productions and the top conductors all speak to opera fans,

and to people in the music business (who’ll also be impressed by the nine

composers). The change in next year’s opening and the theater collaboration

speak to insiders, and also to the Met’s own staff,

who can see the difference a decisive leader makes. (Not that

everything else won’t send that message, too.)

Add it all

together, and it’s tremendously impressive. A first step,

maybe (or a collection of first steps), but more than I’ve seen any other major

classical music institution do.

In a separate post: the press.