parterre box

62 comments

• ljc says:

  One more query and I will get out of cyberspace; whatever became of Allan Titus?

  on April 4, 2006 at 8:23 AM
• Obaysch says:

  As to Alan Titus, well, he’s been busy singing Wotan in little theaters such as Bayreuth.
  One curious thing I notice in this discussion is how certain contributors seem to be so Metcentric that having a succesfull career in Europe after not having a big success in New York is tantamount to disappearing. A large number of the artists mentioned were all specialists in the German repertoire, which offers limited opportunities in North America. so it would be logical for these artists to be regulars in Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Cologne, Vienna and so forth, which offer many more performances per season of the Strauss and Wagner operas which their instruments were suited for. This doesn’t produce the attention here needed to keep an international name, but it isn’t the same as a career ending.

  on April 4, 2006 at 1:58 PM
• paddypig says:

  Unfortunately we are met-centric because many of us are in New York along with La Cieca. The question is just about being Met-centric, the question about careers also comes up because many singers are seriously neglected by the MET and new york audiences. The best examples of this today are Ewa Podles and Anna Catarina Attanocci.Unfortunately since the big money is in recordings and Americans buy a major portion of recordings, a MET career is necessary for most singers who want real financial success. Because of the cost of recordings in Europe and the fact that Europeans are basically less consumer oriented than those of us here in the states, Exposure at the MET leads to bigger bucks from recordings. Other singers that are either rarely or never seen in new york include Eva Mei, Hasmik Papian, Jose Cura,and in the past such great artists as Kabaivanska(last Met appearance-1980), Chiara, Zeani, Gencer , Olivero, Panerai, Taddei,Protti,Aragall,all have had little exposure in New York. With lesser known artists who are not successful in New YOrk and continue to have careers in Europe without recording contracts tend to disappear off the American radar screen. Many fine artists who have been successful in europe have not enjoyed success here. It is also a question of taste I think. European (especially Italian) opera fans seem to want singers who understand the text and style and give dramatically intense performances _even if the voice itself is not always beautiful(e.g. Callas,Gencer, Olivero, Kabaivanska, Carteri, ) while the majority of American audiences seem to prefer a pretty sound (FLEMING, Te Kanawa,) without the same dramatic intensity.Even Callas did not have a great career at the MET. I don’t understand why this is, but it has always seemed this way to me. Part of the hype over Sunnegardh is that she is basically a New Yorker (I know she wasn’t born here)and New York has always favored home grown singers -think Beverly Sills, Roberta Peters, Robert Merrill, Richard Tucker, Jan Peerce, Dorothy Kirsten, Eleanor Steber, most of whom had very limited European careers but major MET careers.(and major recording careers to boot)

  on April 4, 2006 at 3:44 PM
• marschallin says:

  Except that the golden age of recordings, especially for complete operas, has ended.

  on April 4, 2006 at 4:07 PM
• Obaysch says:

  The idea that one needs the Met for real financial success is nonsense. There is an emotional component for an American singer to want to sing there, of course, but do you really believe that artists that sing Vienna are suffering financially as a consequence? Many Italian houses have nearly bankrupted themselves paying higher fees than elsewhere, and there are many artists of the top level who have simply not allotted time for the Met because of the infamous fee cap. (Anybody know what it is, nowadays?) As to access to the recording industry, frankly, working exclusively at the Met will reduce your ability to make recordings because NYC hasn’t been a center for operatic recordings in a long time. The best chance to get a recording contract has been until recently to be based in London.

  As to the comparisons of singers you’re making, it’s hard to draw comparisons between singers whose careers began immediately after the 2cd world war and current singers. Callas WAS big here, and Fleming is big in Europe. It’s a generational difference in style too complicated to go into (although I’m sure some of the more eloquent posters among the professionals could explain it well). Many of the Italian artists post war didn’t travel extensively until the late 50′s, and the Met artists mentioned didn’t travel because they held contracts with the Met that covered a great deal of the season. I think a great deal of the negative reaction from professionals against the publicity blast that Ms. Sunnegardh is getting is based on the feeling that there are far more gifted and experienced singers out there who are not getting remotely this kind of opportunity. It may be jealousy, but with a reason.

  on April 4, 2006 at 10:37 PM
• ljc says:

  Do not know whether to blame Beethoven or Ray Hughes or the Met sound system, but the chorus in the big finale sat. of Fidelio was so loud you could not on the radio hear Floristan and Leonora and Jms. Morris at all. And at the start of the whole show, the overture, there was some kind of squeeking going on in the pit or up on stage.

  on April 5, 2006 at 5:41 AM
• ljc says:

  William Dooley in the 60s seems to have had a good career in Europe, but not in the US, despite a write up and photo spread in Life, and Chris Merritt and the Met can’t seem to get together at all.

  on April 5, 2006 at 5:56 AM
• TheInterpolator says:

  PaddyPig,

  I must respectfully take issue with your feeling that singing at the MET is a necessity for a singer’s financial success. (I’m not quoting you exactly, but I think that’s basically what you said.)

  I am lucky enough to sing at the MET often, but I do *not* receive my highest fees from that theatre. I was, indeed, pleased when I was asked to sing there for the first time in repertoire that suited my particular skills; and yes, there is something of an “emotional” component for a singer when making his or her MET debut.

  But certainly you must realize that it is no more important than a French singer who bows at the Bastille or the Garnier for the first time — or the Austrian who strides the boards of the Statsoper Wien, or hte Italian singing at Scala.

  Frankly, truth be known, the Bastille in Paris and most of the Italian theatres *regularly* trump the fees I receive at the MET. Further, even such wonderful theatres as Houston Grand and Chicago Lyric have beaten the MET’s going prices.

  And, I have no shame in saying that when faced with chosing between an offer from the MET for less money and an offer from the Bastille (or the Bayerische Staatsoper, another big fee gig) for more money — I will certainly take the offer from the Bastille or Munich. Why *shouldn’t* I?? I’m not involved in this career to donate my services! Screw that!

  Although I feel blessed — and even a bit lucky — to have the engagements I have, I feel very strongly about commanding the highest fees I possibly can. And frankly, that’s nothing new among singers; I just am not shy about admitting it.

  So, for the record: in looking over all my fees for the past few seasons, I’d have to put a few major theatres in this order of highest-paying to lowest-paying regarding MY fees:

  (1) Bastille/Garnier (Paris)
  (2) Bayerishe Staatsoper (Munich)
  (3) Italian theatres in general
  (4) MET
  (5) SFO/HGO/Lyric basically tied

  Sorry — but that’s the way the paycheck crumbles…

  T.I.

  on April 5, 2006 at 12:55 PM
• paddypig says:

  I did not mean that the MET pays the highest fees, I was talking about the fact that Americans spend much more money on recordings than Europeans do, and traditionally the MET (along with San Francisco and Chicago to a lesser extent) give these artists exposure to American audiences, for artists with major recording contracts this seems to help them sell records (though I think PBS exposure helps even more these days- why else would manufactured stars like Josh Grobin and Andrea Bocelli sell so many recordings?) I know the MET has never had the highest fees,but isn’t it also true that the money made on live fees is almost peanuts compared to a lucrative recording contract? For major recording artists the MET exposure has seemed pretty essential to selling recordings in America. (anecdote- when I was a teenager and new to opera and saw the LIVE FROM THE MET broadcast of LA BOHEME, I ran out the next day and bought the LA BOHEME with Pavarotti and Freni.) without their exposure at the MET and on PBS would Domingo and Pavarotti (probably the wealthiest recording artists of the twentieth century) ever have made as much money on their recordings or sold as many records and CDs?) Why for example does Fleming sell so many more CDs than say Mattila?(-publicity machine here in US both in New York and on PBS?– on stage I am sure they both command similar fees, are in equal demand, and sell as many tickets. It is not the MET fees that make singers really wealthy, it seems to be the recording contracts (DVD deals now) that seem to be the real wealth. I appeared as an extra in AIDA for many years and while I only got paid twenty or thirty dollars (I wasn’t doing it for the money obviously) per performance, for the telecast I received almost $200 to walk across the stage in the triumphal scene. I also realize that the percentage of singers who make the big bucks off recording contracts is relatively small compared to singers who do not do recordings but still have very active international careers. I just meant that the real gold seems to be in those recording contracts, not in the live performances. (sort of like the difference between movies and Broadway?)The bulk of those recording sales is still in the states to the best of my knowledge.

  on April 5, 2006 at 1:41 PM
• Il Tenore di Grazia says:

  The Interpolator, I agree with you. Your singing is an art but it’s also your job. Singers also have relatively short careers, and careers at the risk of ending on very short notice.

  Actually, these are some of the things I wish could be discussed here. I’ve always been curious about the economics of a singer’s life. What happens when you cancel due to illness? How are singers paid for all the rehearsal time? A singer comes to New York for six weeks and five performances… hmmm, not much money left after taxes and expenses at the end of the six weeks, is there?

  On the other hand, Paddypig also makes some good points. Bastille pays you the highest fees, but would you agree to sing year-round exclusively at the Bastille? I would think that being exposed to different publics, colleagues, conductors, repertoire, theater managers, etc., would also enter into the equation.

  It’s a fascinating profession you have, full of mystery. That’s one reason we enjoy your postings so much.

  on April 7, 2006 at 2:18 PM