Dumbing it down

What could you possibly mean by "bringing the company into the real world?"

In the past few years I've attended opera performances in New York (MET, NYCO), Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Chicago, Seattle, Santa Fe, San Francisco, and London. So although I am not a professional music critic or even a professional musician, I have a basis to compare opera companies and productions.

The MET is simply the best there is in the real world of opera. The orchestra and chorus are always first rate, and even with a cast of relative unknowns the MET is still outstanding.

Well, gosh. A lot of people don't go to the Met. The company had a serious problem over the last few years because they didn't sell enough tickets. Now they're selling more, but they still have a way to go.

You're obviously a hardcore fan. Classical music in general has failed to attract smart and educated people who follow other art forms. This wasn't true in the past. In order to appeal to these people, it needs to function in the same cultural world as other things do -- things ranging from visual art to books to pop music. For that to happen, the Met needs to be talked about intelligently in the press, not fawningly.

I'm glad you like the performances you hear. You'd get an argument from many people. I myself would challenge you about the orchestra. To my ear, they play well for some conductors, and notably badly for others. Or even, sometimes, for the same conductor on different occasions. They wouldn't be alone in that. Many orchestras do the same thing, and if you ask the musicians about it -- in private, of course -- they'll often enough say that many conductors aren't so great, and that it's the conductor's fault if they don't play well.

As long as you're happy with what you see and hear at the Met, none of this has to matter to you. But you should be willing to admit that not everyone sees the Met as you do.

Greg
It would be interesting if you would expand on your view of the issues facing the Met.

Well, very briefly:

The financial issues aren't easy. The Met accumulated quite a large deficit before Peter came in. I've heard, though I don't have figures, that the deficits have continued. I don't think this is disastrous. It costs money to change course, and develop new programs. The live streams to movie theaters have been especially expensive, and the Met itself has said it uses endowment funds to pay some part of the cost. So the question now would be -- where does the Met find a financial model for solvency in the new era? The policy innovations are fabulous, but we don't know yet how the institution will stay afloat financially.

Artistic issues: There's a shortage internationally of really top singers, and the casting -- not only at the Met, but everywhere -- isn't always plausible. What does the Met do about that? And how much will it cost?

And then there's the emphasis on theater. How well willl that work out? The Lucia and Macbeth productions raised questions for some people. See for instance my blog on Lucia, or, much better, the New York Review piece. Will the new theatricality be enough to bring in -- and keep -- a new audience? That's probably one of the biggest questions the Met faces. They're selling more tickets, but will the performances really engage, longterm, a new audience? Peter himself has said that opera is an "aging art form." Can he rejuvenate it?

>>The MET is simply the best there is in the real world of opera.

um...yeah, no.

So if the Met isn't the best there is in the world of opera, what company is?

Seven performances a week, for thirty or more weeks a season, the Met delivers. Of course no institution is perfect.

But compared to the quality of opera in other cities, the Met is in a league of its own.

My ranking:
Met A
Chicago B
San Francisco B-
Baltimore B-
Washington C

Houston and NYCO don't count since they amplify the singers.

If you're going to say the Met is the best in the world, you'd better add grades for Seattle, St. Louis, LA, Dallas, Santa Fe, London (both companies), La Scala, Vienna, Munich, Glyndebourne, Paris (both companies), Berlin, Bayreuth, and so many more.

Besides, it would be much more productive -- and more artistic -- to compare the Met to acknowledged peaks of opera production in the past. I'm thinking, for instance, of the New York City Opera just after the move to Lincoln Center (all those productions with, variously, Rudel, Sills, Treigle, and Frank Corsaro); the Met itself in the '70s (the John Dexter productions); the Opera Theater of St. Louis in the '80s, La Scala in the '50s (at least the new productions for Callas), and Bayreuth under Wieland Wagner. I don't really care whether the Met is the best in the world. I'd rather talk about the best that opera can be, and how the Met (or any other company) stacks up to that.

And doesn't anybody want to comment on what I actually said in my post?