No doubt Gelb and his co-conspirators at the MET deserve a lot of the blame for the problems but opera everywhere is struggling. Only in places where there is substantial government subsidy can it survive. Today's monied class has shown little interest in supporting opera or symphony; they have other causes they finance. Opera companies may like to think that if they perform modern works audiences will flock to them...but that's not the way it works out. And yet they don't want to constantly repeat the venerated Wagner, Verdi, Puccini canon...especially if that means using traditional set design. It's a conundrum that defies a solution so far. There's also the financial consideration for the potential viewer. Yes, seeing opera live, in person, is a more thrilling experience but the cost of tickets to the MET are simply out of reach for many people. I used to go to NYC and the MET but the cost of hotels added to the admission price makes it a no-go for me. Why spend well over a thousand bucks for a weekend opera jaunt when I can stay home and watch a well-produced DVD of the same opera for a small fraction of the cost? I think it's way past time to reign in the exorbitant fees some singers and conductors are paid and maybe the best voices will go elsewhere. Maybe the MET needs to try home streaming like the Berlin Philharmonic does. And maybe get back to opera that touches the soul and stop trying to be so abstract.

 

No doubt Gelb and his co-conspirators at the MET deserve a lot of the blame for the problems but opera everywhere is struggling. Only in places where there is substantial government subsidy can it survive. Today's monied class has shown little interest in supporting opera or symphony; they have other causes they finance. Opera companies may like to think that if they perform modern works audiences will flock to them...but that's not the way it works out. And yet they don't want to constantly repeat the venerated Wagner, Verdi, Puccini canon...especially if that means using traditional set design. It's a conundrum that defies a solution so far. There's also the financial consideration for the potential viewer. Yes, seeing opera live, in person, is a more thrilling experience but the cost of tickets to the MET are simply out of reach for many people. I used to go to NYC and the MET but the cost of hotels added to the admission price makes it a no-go for me. Why spend well over a thousand bucks for a weekend opera jaunt when I can stay home and watch a well-produced DVD of the same opera for a small fraction of the cost? I think it's way past time to reign in the exorbitant fees some singers and conductors are paid and maybe the best voices will go elsewhere. Maybe the MET needs to try home streaming like the Berlin Philharmonic does. And maybe get back to opera that touches the soul and stop trying to be so abstract.

Yes, I'm MD (for well over a decade) of a Gilbert & Sullivan Opera company.

But my reply is in my long history of Musical theatre: They have a similar problem - The audiences want to see "the Classics" or the Golden Age of Musicals: Fiddler on the Roof, The Sound of Music, etc.

The performers, however, want to perform new, cutting edge shows, for which ticket sales are often dismal.

But there's a glitch in that matrix: theatre companies (especially amateur companies) are frothing at the bit when some new and popular shows become available to perform, whether it's Hairspray, Phantom of the Opera, Rent, etc.

As for our little G&S opera company, we're limited to the 14 full length operas and operettas, and less than a handful of one-acts. We lost a major donor last year, and the ticket sales of the less-well-known works are often dismal.

 

"The Death of opera" (it's actually about the Met, not about opera as art form)

It's fascinating to see how much Americans in this forum care about this one single opera company.

Anyway, I would prefer if in the future such a thread gets a title which makes it clear, the thread is about the MET and not about opera generally or the Berlin state opera (a company I actually care about).

 

"The Death of opera" (it's actually about the Met, not about opera as art form)

It's fascinating to see how much Americans in this forum care about this one single opera company.

Anyway, I would prefer if in the future such a thread gets a title which makes it clear, the thread is about the MET and not about opera generally or the Berlin state opera (a company I actually care about).

But there's good reason: for many people it is the only opera company they have ever heard or will ever have a connection with thanks to the long-running Live From the Met broadcasts. That's how I got to know opera, but now even our local classical station has dropped it. Most of the USA has no opera nearby and some smaller opera companies only do three or four shows per season - and they still have money issues. The Met has nightly performances for months on end and eats up vast sums of money. If the Met goes our national connection to opera will be severely cut.

 

The Met is too interested in repeating old warhorses with voices which cannot serve them. They are destined to become irrelevant. But opera will live on through those more innovative, likely smaller companies, who are less hung up on the past and will focus on the work of recent, current, and future years.

 

Opera around the world is dying. It isn't just the MET. Sad but true. The actual technical level of singing has taken a nose drop in the past 20 years. I don't see this in any other classical music performance instrument like I see in happening in the operatic voice. It's egregious.

 

I would have thought one of the main reasons opera's dying is that it's too expensive - at least it is in London for a seat with a good view and good acoustics. I don't mind paying their outrageous ticket prices if the music is going to be magical - but that only happens maybe 10% of the time.

 

What HAS pleased me is Seattle has done some well done recital formats of two operas that would cost too much to put on but which have great music: Les Troyens and Samson et Dalilah. I enjoyed both with no sets better than with modern productions. They also did a nice Tristan with computer screen backdrops that worked well without breaking the bank. We liked our Isolde but Paris didn't like her but our acoustics are good. My opera going days are mostly over but I have great memories of our wonderful performances when Speight Jenkins was here. I am having some of my best opera days ever now by you guys letting me share my daily contests with you and hearing your fun takes.

 

It's not all doom and gloom. Some sources say financial support coming from the rich has been increasing:

Why Bored Billionaires Are Investing in Classical Music (And What They Know That You Don't) | Classical Music

Billionaires are increasingly investing in classical music—acquiring rare instruments, funding orchestras, supporting opera houses. But why?

www.classical-music.com

 

The initial post includes yet another attack on "regietheater" without using the name. "Everybody" seems to hate it yet it persists. How can that be? Well, there are some people who do like it, mainly the critics. At least that's the impression I get from newspaper reviews. Another example: I've been reading the book "The Last Prima Donnas" by Lanfranco Rasponi from 1982. Incidentally I learned about this book on this forum. The dozens of prima donnas interviewed in this book, all of whom began their career in the first part of the 20th century all lament the decline of singing - well, that's another subject. But they also lament the ascendancy of the stage director. This really has been going on for more than a half century. Here's what Rasponi had to say about a performance of Verdi's Macbeth:

"Banquo was killed and put into a plastic bag. Lady Macbeth was made to look like a madam from a brothel, and Duncan was wheeled in by nurses on a bed covered with lilies. At the end a sign was flashed across the screen saying "Lady Macbeth, a fairy tale by Verdi." While the audience roared its disapproval, critics raved. [My italics]"

Then there's a recent book from 2012 called "The History of Opera" by Carolyn Abbate and Roger Parker. I have to say that I highly recommend this book; I don't know of any comparable history. Nonetheless in the last chapter they address regieoper as they call it, with remarks that aren't exactly critical:

"Regieoper can be wild and wonderful, upending expectations of what we thought we knew about plots and music that, through repeated performance, had become thirsty for renewal. A select few such productions have, via mechanical reproduction, recently formed into an alternative canon:" They go on to mention the Patrice Chereau Ring among others.

If the critics won't save us how about audiences? I was happy to read that audiences booed that Macbeth production but did it do any good? I once posted about a 2013 broadcast of a bad modern dress production of "Un Ballo in Maschera." I was pleased to read that the director was booed. But I suspect most audiences have learned to suffer in silence.

 

I’ve been attending opera throughout most of my 77 year life. I’ve traveled around the world and have attended opera every where I’ve gone. I’ve also had subscriptions at the MET and New York City Opera. I’ve owned a large collection of opera recordings. For nearly twenty years I was an opera broadcaster for a small radio station and was broadcast on the internet reaching audiences around the world.
Well enough about me. The last opera I saw was “Dead Man Walking” which moved me considerably. Unfortunately it took many years for the MET to take up this splendid modern work. Meanwhile the company has taken up one worthless pandering opera after another while not performing great operas that have not been performed 80 or more years. Additionally, there are many fine operas from the Baroque to Verismo which have never been presented at the MET. It is no wonder that the company is experiencing dwindling subscriptions and audience desertions.
I lay the blame at the feet of Peter Geld. His cavalier attitude towards the older generations has been infuriating. Yes we need to attract younger folk to the art form. But, creating sets and scenarios that make no sense has alienated the knowledgeable opera goers and has not attracted new audiences. The new Lohengrin is a prime example of glitz with no substance. I went to see it and went away frustrated and angry. Almost as bad as the horrible Wilson production that preceded it.I am still inclined to attend Meistersinger so long as the sets are not changed to modernistic junk and has a cast that can reasonably perform this great work.
I realize that this missive is a scant overview of my feelings, but I would have to write volumes with examples to create the full autopsy of the MET’s decline into oblivion. I’m due there are others who might add more to my thoughts and some who might disagree. I’d love to hear the thoughts of others…. One way or another. Gary Paul Smith.

Peter "Geld "? It's "Gelb", which means the color yellow in German . Tee hee hee ! "Geld " means money in German . Was this a Freudian slip by chance ? Yes, money is one of the Met's most serious problems , just as it is for opera companies all over the US .

 

I think you’re right-modern productions often feel like empty spectacle. The music deserves respect, not flashy distractions.