22 May 2006

Tough guy

Joseph Volpe's memoir The Toughest Show on Earth (see, La Cieca can get the title right when she wants too) is a book about a working-class kid from Queens who wanted to be Rudolf Bing when he grew up. Or, rather, it's about a stage carpenter who was bright enough and ambitious enough to do catch Bing's eye during the disastrous lead-up to the first Met season at Lincoln Center. I'm not sure how accurate the details are in Volpe's story of how he "fixed" the set of Franco Zeffirelli's Antony and Cleopatra (especially the Zef's meek acceptance of an unknown carpenter's hacking away at his work), but it is a characteristic story. Volpe sees himself and depicts himself as a man who puts his thoughts into action, an autocrat even, like his role model Bing.

Volpe's rise from middle management to top dog (when he finally claimed Bing's old office) hinged on a series of coincidences. First came the death of intendant-to-be Goeran Gentele, leaving a lacuna hastily plugged with the semi-competent Schuyler Chapin, first of several weakish General Managers who allowed Bing's centralized power to dissipate. Meanwhile, Rafael Kubelik deserted the newly-created post of Music Director, sweeping the young James Levine into power. Volpe found himself allied with the volatile new Director of Productions John Dexter, who relied on Volpe to get things done in the notoriously entropic Met bureaucracy.

As Levine's power and influence increased, so, apparently, did his hunger for love and approval from his colleagues; he simply wouldn't say "no," even when he ascended to the rank of Artistic Director. After General Manager Bruce Crawford accomplished a financial turnaround for the company, he resigned, replaced by the innefectual Hugh Southern, who shared Levine's distaste for confrontation. Thus Volpe's role evolved into that of Bad Cop. For for example, he's the one who had to tell Eva Marton that, despite what "she'd been led to believe," the soprano would not get the plum of recording the Ring with the Met orchestra. (Volpe indulges in passive voice to avoid pointing fingers at the culprit who misled Marton, but it's not hard to figure out.)

Upon Southern's ouster, Volpe was promoted -- not to General Manager (the Bing/Gatti-Casazza title) but rather General Director, on equal footing with Levine and development diva Marilyn Shapiro. The disgruntled Volpe enhanced his power by taking on the most onerous task in the house -- saying "no" to Jimmy. Finally, in 1993, 30 years since he entered the Met as a stagehand, Volpe attained his goal, General Manager, which conferred not only the duty but the power to say "no" to anyone and everyone.

Volpe dedicates a chapter of the book to what is generally regarded as the most controversial action he took as GM, the firing of Kathy Battle in the winter of 1994. He builds a convincing case against her, documenting behavior ranging from difficult to impossible ranging back to 1982, and assures us that he at least went though the motions of offering the soprano help after he fired her. He even admits that the brutal language he used in the press release canning Battle was in part motivated by his desire to assert authority in his new role. What he glosses over, though, is why the Battle problem was allowed to escalate to total war. The answer, of course, is that she was Levine's pet. He deliberately ignored her bad behavior, and (perhaps even worse), everyone in the house was afraid to upset the maestro. Unchallenged, Battle grew into a monster.

Now, in an opera you send in a hero to slay a dragon. But this scenario was more Godzilla than Siegfried, and Volpe was the only one at the Met ready to use the Oxygen Destroyer. The press release accompanying Battle's heave-ho was overkill, but it worked. The problem, perhaps, is that it worked too well. Volpe convinced himself that bullying was the only effective management style, and the second half of the book is littered with examples of failures of that policy and the resultant lapses of judgment and taste that have plagued the Met for the past decade.

Volpe's motto doesn't seem to be so much "the buck stops here" as "he told me it was a buck; how was I to know it was counterfeit?" He claims he foresaw the disastrous problems inherent in the various fiascos helmed by Francesca Zambello, Graham Vick, Giancarlo del Monaco, Piero Faggioni and Franco Zeffirelli, and even says he tried to do a little last-minute fixup (a la the clouds in Antony.) But Volpe offers no sense of how such misquided production concepts could have survived even the talking stage. How could he have looked at set and costume renderings for Zambello's Lucia, for example, and said, "Yeah, this will work?"

This lack of vision, combined with a habit of delegating casting and planning decisions, plus a conservative tendency to go with the familiar (even when the familiar is mediocre or worse) -- what it all adds up to is a picture of a man with little faith in his own abilities as an artistic director. This, alas, is why Joseph Volpe is no Rudolf Bing. During his tenure, Mr. Bing made good decisions and bad decisions, but they were informed and confident decisions. Volpe's big ideas tended to be more of the "do it because I say so" variety.

For example, we find out that in 1999 the Alagnas in fact did sign the disputed Traviata contracts, but Volpe held them to the letter of his own arbitrary deadline. He said Thursday, and on Friday morning Herbert Breslin was ready to fax over the contracts. Alagna and Gheorghiu were even willing to work with Zeffirelli, which must have taken a whole lot of persuading on Breslin's part. Volpe had in his hand an opera house's crown jewel: a new Traviata with superstar singers, a celebrated director, and no less than James Levine conducting. But he tossed that all away, saying, "Forget it. The deadline has passed. They're out." Then he blabbed the whole story to the New York Times, making everyone involved look silly and childish. And for what? The Met ended up with a Traviata nobody wanted and nobody liked, and six years later Gheorghiu finally showed up for Violetta -- wearing her own costumes and doing her own staging.

The bit about the Alagnas' signed contracts is one of the few new bits of information in this book; obviously the publishers are thoroughly lawyered up and whatever dirt Volpe might have been ready to divulge has been thorougly expunged. We do learn, though, that when money talks, Uncle Joe listens. He tells with a straight face the story of how Sybil Harrington
hated the flat silver walls that Dexter and the designer, David Reppa came up with [for a production of Don Carlo], but she bided her time until after Dexter left the Met. Once he did, the scenery department, at her insistence, redid the walls with an elaborate pattern more in keeping with King Philip's -- and her -- taste.
Volpe also allowed a more notorious benefactor to dictate that the booking operator at the Met's onsite restaurant answer the phone with, "Good afternoon, Vilar Grand Tier Restaurant," as if seeing the "V" word stenciled all over the walls wasn't enough. Volpe insists that he and Alberto Vilar "had little personal contact," and with crystal clear hindsight, notes that Vilar "always seemed to be harboring secrets . . . . I wondered when all this would go up in smoke." But he didn't let that stop him from allowing Vilar to act as if he ran the place.

That about does it for new and interesting content. There's a nude photo of Karita Mattila illustrating an anecdote about how Volpe strong-armed a photographer who took a nude photo of Karita Mattila. There's yet another rehash of the Lincoln Center redevelopment debacle, a "controversy" that even the New York Times is bored with by now. As expected, the Erica Sunnegardh "breakthrough" is predicted in uncanny detail, with comparisons to Rosa Ponselle and Roberta Peters. And, amusingly, Volpe repeats the urban legend about the first-night reception of Robert Wilson's Lohengrin production ("I had also failed to register a recent development in the history of booing. For months, anti-Wilson forces had been peppering the Internet with appeals for the Met audience to give his Lohengrin the same treatment it had dished out to Zambello's Lucia." If you can't be bothered to use Google, Mr. Volpe, at least delegate that task to a fact checker.)

It's a quick read, with lots of names dropped. The Pavarotti stories are either already famous or else are so characteristic as to sound familiar. Neither Volpe nor his coauthor Charles Michener can be accused of being a stylist; the prose is plain and undistinguished, rather like Volpe's legacy. Volpe's hero Rudolf Bing hired John Gutman to ghostwrite his entertaining, bitchy memoir 5000 Nights at the Opera. But then Mr. Bing always did have style.

The Toughest Show on Earth: My Rise and Reign at the Metropolitan Opera by Joseph Volpe. Knopf, May 2006 $25.95

Labels: , , , , , ,



163 Comments:

Blogger marschallin said...

An interminable bore. The same rehashing of tired old stories such as Battle's. And now the hard to understand hyperhype of a decidedly amateur, pedestrian and indistinctive thing: Sunnegardh. Who gives a damn?

May 22, 2006 2:54 PM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

One word: OY!

for once, I agree with Marschallin.

May 22, 2006 4:28 PM  
Blogger Il Tenore di Grazia said...

Does he say anything about his firing of Studer after she failed to show up for the new production of Simon Boccanegra a few years ago? (Kiri TeKanawa took her place.)

May 22, 2006 4:29 PM  
Blogger JATM2063 said...

Speaking of Sunnegardh, she's singing one of the Valkyrie's this summer with the Met on tour in Japan (it's not Brunnhilde, either).

Caro Cieca, thank you for the synopsis of Volpe's book. I'll wait until it's on sale for $3.99 at Strand to read it.

May 22, 2006 4:42 PM  
Blogger marschallin said...

Volpe did not fire Studer for those Boccanegras. It was Studer herself who bailed out of the production. Think she didn't show up for rehearsals or something. It was then that Volpe cancelled her contract. No biggie, this, nor the first time it's happened at any house anywhere in the world. Yet the press went after her teeth and nails as if a major federal offense.

May 22, 2006 6:08 PM  
Blogger Daniel said...

What a hoot!! Marschy calling someone else "an interminable bore" - talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

May 22, 2006 7:35 PM  
Blogger Simon Blackmouth said...

So, it is true! I knew it! The American soprano was fired from the Met!

May 22, 2006 11:20 PM  
Blogger sfmike said...

Thanks for the insanely entertaining review of what sounds like a dull tome. And I'm glad to hear it was John Gutman who actually wrote "5000 Nights at the Operam" which IS totally entertaining and bitchy. (Bing, Married With Poodle!)

Gutman also wrote one of my favorite composer biographies of all time: "Wagner: The Man, His Mind and His Music" which actually made me never want to listen to another note of that composer's music again, oddly enough.

May 23, 2006 12:49 AM  
Blogger papagenodz said...

Speaking of Kathy Battle, did anyone else watch Oprah's Legends Ball last night? BEAUTIFUL shots of Kathy holding Leontyne as the Young'uns tributed her. In most of the other shots Leontyne either felt removed or was nonplussed (after all, she already owns an awful lot of diamonds), but during this moment, she was really leaning on Battle to get through it. Or maybe she was just chaffed that they called her LeonTINE. Stupid Ashanti.

May 23, 2006 9:07 AM  
Blogger Paul said...

The problem with nearly all of these "as told to..." autobiographies - whether openly ghostwritten or not - is that the author selected by the subject is rarely a good writer. The Breslin tell-all of Pavarotti "with" Anne Midgette is a case-in-point. They go for people who willingly write their version of history rather than someone with top literary skills. I just started working on a book project with a Denver-area radio personality (he's the writer; I'm the editor) which will be an authorized biography of former Met director Nat Merrill. The difference here is the fact that I'm working with someone who knows how to write - and I'm a really good editor. Hah!

May 23, 2006 12:34 PM  
Blogger OperaGuyNY said...

Paul: I sang with Opera Colorado under Nat and Louise. I'd love to hear some of their stories. I thought they were very nice, Louise actually coached me once in preparation for a contest, it was so kind. Unfortunately, she LOVED to smoke...

Their son is a dreamboat (and family...)

May 23, 2006 2:19 PM  
Blogger OperaGuyNY said...

On Kathy Battle:

Here's a link to a pic from the Oprah gala...

http://www2.oprah.com/presents/2006/legends/younguns/younguns_115.jhtml

Not the best angle...

May 23, 2006 5:24 PM  
Blogger il lacerato spirito said...

I hate to be the one to say it, but Ms Battle is not aging gracefully.

May 23, 2006 6:40 PM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

I literaly screamed when I saw that picture.

Dear god, whatever happened to Kathy?

May 24, 2006 12:43 AM  
Blogger la divina due said...

yep. I couldn't agree more. She looks like crap.

May 24, 2006 2:51 AM  
Blogger hab mir's gelobt said...

speaking of volpe ... i just listened to bits of the first half of the 'gala' on the radion last eve. not that impressed. denyce graves butchered can't help loving that man - it was cringeworthy! debbie sounded ok as sieglinde but no more. i have to admit that i really liked renees tacea la notte, as it flowed on luverly tone ... but her ending of the cabaletta was very weird. oh well...

May 24, 2006 6:31 AM  
Blogger John said...

I think that KB looks pretty good for her age, but the earrings are terrible and her hair cries out for professional attention.

May 24, 2006 8:44 AM  
Blogger Kashania said...

Yeah, let's be fair. Kathy Battle is 58 years old this year. So, she doesn't have her baby face anymore. Besides, it's probably not a flattering pose.

May 24, 2006 11:26 AM  
Blogger Yniold said...

I listened to the first half on the Beeb last night. I loved the faded charm of Kiri in the Marietta Lied, but the rest was not exactly Gala standard, and the Denyce Graves was vile. Was she auditioning for Osmin with that final chest note?

I hope the second half is better on Sunday.

May 24, 2006 12:52 PM  
Blogger La Cieca said...

The earrings were given to Battle (and the various other "junior" divas) by Oprah herself. The elder legends got earrings too, but these were big diamond drops.

May 24, 2006 2:10 PM  
Blogger OperaGuyNY said...

I actually don't think she looks bad, the earrings are fine and I'm sure her hair looked gorgeous. We're talking about a BAD photo, she's in a BAD position, with BAD lighting, taken from a BAD angle. If it were a great photo, I'm sure we'd all be saying how fab-u she looks for someone almost 60.

I guess we should be happy that they were included at all considering how 'pop' and mainstream everyone was.

Has anyone heard Kathy sing recently? She still got it? Just curious...

May 24, 2006 4:00 PM  
Blogger il stupendo said...

I love Kathy's 'Lovers' on the relatively recent 'House of Flying Daggers' soundtrack.

She's still got it and more!

May 24, 2006 9:38 PM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

I wonder if she's become less of a witch since her sacking. It might have given her a big dose of reality...

May 25, 2006 12:42 AM  
Blogger leontyneschiava said...

Was Denyce Graves at Oprah's Ball? That oppurtunist would sell her mother into slavery for exposure like that!!!

May 25, 2006 9:51 AM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

That's the first time I've ever heard Ms. Graves described as an Opertunist. Can you back that up, Leontyneschiava?

May 25, 2006 7:09 PM  
Blogger rysanekfreak said...

Perhaps "Opera-tune-ist"???

May 25, 2006 10:01 PM  
Blogger leontyneschiava said...

Having sung with Ms. Graves and watched her and her husbands boorish behavior from a slight distance on other occassions I feel somewhat inclined to label her motives as oppurtunistic rather than artistic.Her recent behavior in New Orleans is case in point. Asked to sing at a gala benefit for hurricane recovery that included Domingo, Gunn, Von Stade and others- Ms. Graves was extremely temperamental and left the concert at intermission due to the fact that she did not have a private dressing room. No one did due to the fact the concert was being held in an arena. No concern for the others involved- especially Mr. Gunn who had to make a solo out of the duet he was supposed to sing with her- only for her agenda of self promotion which is laid out rather neatly in the Opera News cover article on her of a couple years back. While singing Carmen with her not too long ago I was forced to listen to her husband reduce a stage assistant to tears as her cursed her out for putting " fucking lemons" in Denyce's dressing rooms insted of limes as the contract stated. She seems to far more concerned with making appearances on QVC and with Patti LaBelle than cutting out a niche for herself as legitimate artist with a repertory beyond two roles.

May 27, 2006 10:50 AM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

:Sigh: You know, everytime I find out that a singer is a bona-fide diva in the worst sense of the word, it effects my relationship with their performances. They may be gripping on stage but deep down I know that "They're just playing nice."

May 27, 2006 12:45 PM  
Blogger JATM2063 said...

Interesting pic of Kathleen Battle at the link above. I wouldn't call it an unflattering angle. I'd call it an angle that shows the truth about her age.

It's true that the earrings aren't that attractive. When will people (Oprah are you listening?) realize that more often than not "bling" equals tacky and trying too hard to get attention.

May 27, 2006 9:18 PM  
Blogger JATM2063 said...

And when is someone going to answer my question about Marilyn Horne?

May 27, 2006 9:18 PM  
Blogger leontyneschiava said...

I have heard that Marilyn is responding well to treatments- she was at the Met for a performance recently. She is a wonderfully down to earth person and a vocal wonder!! God bless her with long life and renewed health.

May 27, 2006 10:20 PM  
Blogger il stupendo said...

Viva Jackie!

May 27, 2006 11:03 PM  
Blogger Houndentenor said...

It might be easier to accept diva behavior from LaGraves if her singing of late wasn't so god-awful.

I also refuse to pay money to watch Graves or Graham sing since both sang for the Bush inaugural. Anyone who does that deserves to be shunned by decent folk everywhere.

May 29, 2006 5:39 PM  
Blogger TheInterpolator said...

Although I normally don't make politcal commentary here, I must take exception to Houndentenor's remark about shunning Graves and Graham merely because both of them sang for the Bush inaugural.

Of Graves and Graham specifically, I know one of them very well, having sung many times with her. And when she speaks of singing for that ceremony, she speaks of being honored by her country, and singing for its people, and being blessed to receive such an honor...being invited to serve in such a manner. She was not singing so much out of respect for (or even agreement with) specific political platforms, but rather out of her desire to honor her country and the office itself. And GOOD FOR HER for doing so.

Some of you know that I received an invitation (along with two other singer colleagues, both of whom happened to be French) to sing for Jacques Chirac's b-day celebrations late last year. And although I do not "agree" with every political decision made by President Chirac -- which is impossible, given that he is running one of the wealthiest republics in the world, frankly -- I was *extremely* honored to be asked by La République Française to sing for the ceremony.

How could I *possibly* turn down such an invitation?? This had nothing to do with "the right repertoire" or the "perfect colleagues" or an "important orchestra" or anything of that nature!! Likewise, it had nothing to do with politics, either. Instead, it had *everything* to do with the most wonderful aspect of being a singer: Being ASKED -- being HONORED -- to sing for such a noteworthy occasion.

Do I agre with every aspect of President Chirac's administration? No, of course not. He's got one of *THE* hardest jobs on the planet: governing one of the most active, politically important, and richest countries in the world. Still, what was I to do, according to Houndentenor's logic? Say "Non, mais merci quand meme" out of *protest*?? I think not. I accepted, and did so gratefully.

So did Graham, and so did Graves when faced with the same question -- only a more important one! -- here in their own country. They answered a call, as they should have.

May 29, 2006 10:07 PM  
Blogger TheInterpolator said...

By the way, I don't mean for the previous post to sound bitchy. It wasn't meant that way. I just feel it is *quite* short-sighted to think that singers who are lucky enough to be appearing in major opera houses should "refuse" to participate (when directly, personally asked) in major state functions of the country merely because they don't agree with the politics of an office-holder.

As singers, we sing for many reasons, including our love of music, the joy and thrill of executing virtuosic passagework, collaborating with amazingly talented colleagues, for a nice paycheck, to spin such gorgeous melodies into the house ...and yes, occasionally, out of a sense of duty and honor. I cannot *imagine* that anyone would disagree with that.

Singing for a major state occasion is *not* the same thing as giving a stamp of approval to a government. It did not even *occur* to me to base my "yes" or "no" to the Chirac state dinner on whether I agreed with his politics! (Frankly, I was just happy to get to sing "Pour mon ame" without having to sing the REST of La Fille as the penalty...ha ha).

In accepting such an invitation, a singer is giving back a tiny fraction of what we've been given: the freedom to pursue a *fantastic* dream, the liberty to live that dream as we see fit, the honor of helping out when we are needed, and the chance to share the gift of music -- which we have in such reckless abundance! -- with a much wider public than that found at Place de la Bastille or Lincoln Center.

What a joy!

What a gift!

We are also singing to celebrate the fact that, should we not like a specific leader, we are free to elect another one in the coming term. And yet another challenge I would pose: If *anyone* thinks it is inappropriate for a working singer to boycott state-function invitations in such countries as the USA, France, the U.K., Germany, almost ALL of Europe generally, and the rest of the world's great democracies and republics, then I would challenge that person to *go visit* some of the places I have traveled to, especially earlier in my career (when "choice" was not a factor!).

Believe me, when you see how much of the world lives (or barely lives, as the case may be), one becomes *extremely* grateful for ENORMOUS freedoms we enjoy walking the streets of Paris, London, Munich, Houston, Seattle, Honolulu, Vancouver, Sydney, Milan... no matter who is "currently" in charge of the executive branch of those various governments.

We have a LOT to celebrate...and I'll keep singing for it. Clinton? Bush? Chirac? Merkel? Sure I have my preferences! But the *first* order of business, before being distracted by all THAT, is to be grateful for what we DO have.

And I ain't gonna quit singing about that, no matter WHO does the asking.

T.I.

May 29, 2006 10:33 PM  
Blogger Il Tenore di Grazia said...

Art is - or should be - universal. It doesn't have - or shouldn't have - barriers based on nationality, religion, gender, sexual preferences, race, physical characteristics, or politics.

Are we to assume that all Wagnerian singers are anti-semitic?

May 30, 2006 7:58 AM  
Blogger Houndentenor said...

I feel strongly about this and will not apology. Bush ran a blatantly anti-gay campaign and for an opera singer to participate in any way was the same as spitting in the face of every gay operagoer, many of whom buy their CDs and attend their performances.

It was a political moment and anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

May 30, 2006 10:50 AM  
Blogger marschallin said...

Good for you, houndentenor, for not apologizing to the annoyingly prissy (and, as I suspect, potential homo) theinterpolator. You are very right about shunning artists like Graham and Graves who, despite the appalling political/religious/civic state of this country, dare to perform for war criminals, not to mention right-wing types undermining civil liberties.

May 30, 2006 11:45 AM  
Blogger marschallin said...

By the way, I believe Fleming has also participated in this sham.

May 30, 2006 11:47 AM  
Blogger tristanXX said...

funny comments coming from the Marschallin, considering your own constant,disgusting anti-gay (and occassionally anti-semetic) comments on this blog.

May 30, 2006 12:51 PM  
Blogger marschallin said...

The point is, tristanxx, that Marshy cannot stomach homos (or other minorities) who support right-wing Republicans. It is what is known as a contradiction in terms.

May 30, 2006 1:10 PM  
Blogger tristanXX said...

no I tend to think of gay republicans like jews for jesus, it doesn't make sense, but you still need to clean up your own disgusting anti-gay, and anti-semetic vocabulary. enuf said

May 30, 2006 3:21 PM  
Blogger marschallin said...

I see we are on the same page.

May 30, 2006 5:03 PM  
Blogger Il Tenore di Grazia said...

One point: if no gay person is supposed to be Republican, does that mean that all blacks must be Democrats, religious people Republicans, Catholics this, Protestants that, Jews something else? Shouldn't our country deserve a bit broader consideration of the issues when we vote?

Second point: by the same rationale then I gather that gays ought not to be religious or go to church, right? And vice-versa, all straight people will be devout believers.

Third point: are we supposed to listen only to singers with whom we share political views? Ride the bus only if the driver belongs to our own party? Should we check the grocer's affiliation before we do our shopping?

Fourth point: the same line of thinking would tell us that Graves endorses whoring around, right? Anyone who sings Ferrando must be a proponent of wife swapping; those who sing Sieglinde or Siegmund must favor incest, etc..., right?

Sort of ridiculous, isn't it?

May 30, 2006 7:21 PM  
Blogger Winpal said...

I'm with Houndentenor and (gasp) Marshy on this one. I think singers of the professional standing of Graham and Graves NEED to consider the context in which they perform. The inauguration was first, last, and totally a political occasion. Don't kid yourselves -- Graham and Graves were minimally chosen for their artistry and talent. They were chosen primarily for political and symbolic purposes -- Graham as the Texas born and bred All-American Laura Bush clone and Graves as the token black girl who made it big in the white world, just like Condi Rice. Maybe it is enough for TI to answer any and all calls to sing without question and simply be honored to be asked. But to do so blindly without some consideration of the people involved and what they stand for, is short-sighted and unprincipled. The Bush inauguration was a celebration of a man, a party, and a platform that ran a disgusting campaign that gay-bashed its way into office, lied the country into a disastrous and unnecessary war, has consistently attacked civil liberties, and has trashed both the economy and the environment. Even if these trifles are of little concern to Graham or Graves, at a minimum they should have thought twice about lending their support (and with it their tacit affirmation) to a group that if left to their own devices would gladly gut the NEA, public broadcasting, and any other cultural institution that doesn't fit their narrow fundamentalist views of art and morality. Graham and Graves should have recognized and thought through these issues before agreeing to sing. If they didn't, then shame on them. If they did and still chose to participate, then I think it is fair to criticize them on these grounds.

May 30, 2006 7:32 PM  
Blogger Houndentenor said...

Oh tenore senza grazia. How could anyone so miss the point.

People can vote for whoever they want. But if they are going to going to celebrate the election of someone who used homophobia to win the election.

Would you think it was okay if they sang at a Klan rally? Where really does one draw the line? This is not about simple politics. This is about basic human rights and having respect for all people. By endorsing Bush, they endorse gay-bashing in the pursuit of power.

Shame on anyone who would endorse this administration in any way.

I take it you are a Republican and if so, fuck you! Fuck you and your homophobia, racism, sexism and fascism!

May 30, 2006 8:42 PM  
Blogger Daniel said...

Ok Houndtenor and Marschellin and those who agree with you- I take it you are Americans and therefore we who are not Americans shouldn't even be associating with you or entering any discourse with you whatsoever because YOU put Bush into office and we didn't!

Your arguement is crap- if you feel so strongly that you personally could not appear at a public function because of any association with those on the platform, fair enough- its a personal thing- but you cannot crucify others who take a wider view that they are performing for the people -not the regime.

Public speakers (motivational speakers etc) regularly share platforms with groups and associations they have no affiliation with whatsoever- this doesn't mean they endorse or are promoting their ideas- they are speaking their own messages.

Finally, while many of us may share your concerns (even applaud your sentiments)I question your right to use them as a platform here. This is a public forum about opera, performance and singing. Your verbal assault with expletives is over the top, unecessary and is an insult not only to those whom you flame- but to everyone who comes here.

In our colloquial, best advice is to "take a Bex and have a good lie down!" (Bex = asprin)

May 30, 2006 9:22 PM  
Blogger TheInterpolator said...

I simply cannot BELIEVE the commentary sparked by this Graham/Graves inaugural singing thing. The leaps of logic are almost perverse -- at least as expressed here.

Winpal writes, "Maybe it is enough for TI to answer any and all calls to sing without question and simply be honored to be asked." I never said that I answered "all calls to sing without question." In fact, I was quite deliberate and specific about the types of places (and even listed a few countries!) where such occasions were likely to occur. Again, when high-profile singers are asked to participate in an official state function of a major western democracy, it is NOT a "tacit approval" of any particular administration's politics.

I did not vote for Bush in either election, but if asked to sing for the White House as part of a State function, I would accept (schedule allowing). Further question: I do not consider myself a Republican, feeling that the Democratic party is more aligned to my personal beliefs. So...when asked to sing the National Anthem for the opening session of Congress a few years back, should I have declined merely because the Congress was under Republican control? I did not decline; I accepted and had a great time doing so -- and felt honored to be there.

Likewise, when asked to sing abroad by other governments to participate in State functions, I usually accept if (1) schedule allows and (2) I feel a particular connection to the people, institutions, or culture of that country -- as I do in France. In parallel fashion, Graves and Graham are honoring their country and its people by participating in a wonderful process: the installation of a new leader, elected by their countrymen. What great freedom we have! Again, I didn't vote for Bush, but I am still proud to be an American enjoying the many opportunities our country affords us.

I must say that the virulent posts above, filled with much hate-language and bile, do NOT reflect a true understanding of how such invitations are (1) extended, (2) considered, and then (3) accepted or declined. And even *IF* Graham was asked to come because of the West-Texas/Laura-Bush connection, and even *IF* Graves was asked because she is the token black-made-good in a white world, their appearance at the inaugural is NOT a tacit stamp-of-approval for George Bush himself.

I think that many people posting here lose sight of the fact that most singers who are singing on the international stage certainly DO consider ourselves to be very lucky -- even blessed -- with our jobs. It is important to many of us to honor the countries, governmental systems, and support systems that have given us such a wonderful career. These things are MUCH larger than any *one* political leader.

Had I declined the Chirac invitation, that would not have been a slap to Monsieur Jacques so much as it would have been to France itself. Likewise for Graham and Graves. Chirac, too, is right-of-center, but I certainly heard NO ONE telling me not to accept the invitation on those grounds.

Should beautiful sopranos *refuse* to sing at an infamous south-German major opera house merely because the Intendant is constantly is a known misogynist and thinks all beautiful women are sluts? Should all opera singers boycott contracts offered by a major (top 5) American opera house merely because the GMD is a known homophobe who refuses to hire gay men principals if they are "out"?

I sing (and will continue to) in both those houses, though I certainly don't agree with either of those political/personal views. I really don't care about that. When it comes to plying my trade, I just try to do the best job I can in the most interesting and rewarding places I can. And when given the chance to honor great countries such as the USA, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, and a few others who have graciously asked me to sing for State functions, I will do my best to give back to them, as they have each given me SO MUCH.

I note, in closing, that none of my posts contain the alarming hatemongering seen in much of this commentary. I fail to see how one's sense of doing honor to a country and its people, when that country or its people have already done SO MUCH for us as singers, could *ever* be inappropriate. As singers, we don't just do it for big contracts at the Met, the Bastille, or the Deutsche Oper; occasionally, we do it for the fun, the sense of history, the gravitas of the occasions, and merely to say "thanks" to many, many people. And to many, many traditions! Please use some measure of latitude when trying to foist such outside analysis onto a situation you are not likely to have been in.

In the end, we're just singers -- "hired help," as it were. Comments that singing for a Bush inaugural is tantamount to "spitting in the face" of all gay opera goers -- well, that's silly. Again, should we therefore not sing in the house run by a homophobe GMD, or a misogynistic Intendant? How about singing for a conductor who regularly uses the "N" word when describing certain individuals?

Come on. We should all be bigger than that...and we should lead by example. That means lead by being inclusive, gracious, kind, and professional -- and knowing when to tip out hat to the traditions and freedoms that have given us SO much. It wasn't Bush that gave them to us (or Washington, Lincoln, Adams, de Gaulle, Chirac, Schroeder, Blair...) rather, it was these great countries' legacies. In an artform so dependent on the accomplishments and traditions of the past, the history of a people and of a country often weigh heavily on us as singers, particularly when we are guests for lengthy periods in foreign countries. A healthy respect for that -- and an occasional moment to give something back -- should always be welcomed.

May 30, 2006 9:42 PM  
Blogger marschallin said...

TI's true colors are on display. He is an empty opportunist and parasite, exemplary of the pervasive lethargy afflicing the American citizenry. Declining to perform for the-most-embarrassing-president-this-country-has-ever-or-will-ever-have would accomplish two things in one sweep: 1. letting the man know that some his decisions and actions are downright criminal and 2. letting Americans know how stupid they really are for having bypassed the opportunity to dethrone the naked emperor.

May 30, 2006 10:34 PM  
Blogger Daniel said...

Sorry Marschy- forget the bex - in your case there's a limit to what medications can do.

May 31, 2006 1:33 AM  
Blogger Winpal said...

TI, I think you are a bit naive here. Yes, an inauguration in a generic sense represents the democratic process, the freedoms we all cherish, and is an opportunity to honor our country and what it stands for and for what it has given you. But it is not quite this simple. You cannot separate this ceremony from the man and the ideology that it also celebrates. This particular inauguration commemorated America's acceptance (by the slimmest of margins)of four more years of gay-baiting for political purposes, as well as a slew of other reprehensible policies. If all you consider is the mom-and-apple-pie aspects of the occasion, and don't consider the totality of what the individual event represents, that is your choice but you are missing the bigger picture. I guess it comes down to how you view any particular event. Personally, I don't think the Bush inauguration and what it represented politically and ideologically in any way equates with Chirac's birthday, or the opening session of Congress, or a corporate motivational off-site. I agree that you have the choice to participate or not in any event based on your personal feelings. But I think you have to seriously consider the broader ramifications of any such decision. As you note, you are not just a singer, a hired hand. You have opportunites that most of us do not to take a visible and principled stand when you feel it is justified. At the same time, you will be held responsible for these decisions by others, like it or not. It comes with the territory. And to those you don't think we should be discussing this here, I say this goes directly to the question of the role of the arts in society (almost as much as the color of Waltraud's dress).

As to your question, "should we therefore not sing in the house run by a homophobe GMD, or a misogynistic Intendant? How about singing for a conductor who regularly uses the "N" word when describing certain individuals?", I would ask you how you personally feel about those situations? If homophobia, misogyny, and racism are OK with you, then by all means go ahead. But if they aren't, consider whether or not you have an opportunity to make a statement on behalf of those who aren't straight white men. Perhaps if more singers had the balls to call these people on it and withhold their services, these attitudes would be forced to change. Yes, I know full well this is unrealistic and idealistic, but it is only when artists begin to take courageous stands like this that there is any hope of changing these attitudes. Now that would be leading by example.

May 31, 2006 2:18 AM  
Blogger opera80221 said...

TI, please don't give Marschy any more opportunity to be correct in anything, even if it means rethinking your position. Have you ever read "The Last Prima Donnas" by Lanfranco Rasponi? There's a diva by the name of Germaine Lubin, who back in Nazi time thought the same way you did, that she's not political, that artistry somehow even things out. We're talking wartime France, and even if she was correct, by singing Isolde at Bayreuth for Hitler himself, guess what happened? The Prima Donna's back home used that incident, and basically Germaine was ruined from then on. She was banned against singing practically anywhere.......the point is....my artistry would lend communication at the opera house where people of different political thoughts would come and hear ME, NOT me accepting an engagement with them. I'm of the thought that you are who you align yourself with...despite us gay men having implied freedoms by being in this country, the religious right and the president have drawn the battle lines VERY CLEARLY. For once, although I don't agree with Marshallin's VERY CAUSTIC delivery, I have to agree with his stance...and Winpal said it correctly.....Germaine's naivete caused her an unparalleled career up to the point in time of her decision.......I as a gay man will NEVER do anything to align politically to somebody by thinking my artistry will smooth things over....it doesn't happen that way

May 31, 2006 8:05 AM  
Blogger paddypig said...

To tenore di grazie. Yes, a gay man who is a republican is a disgraceful self-hating individual. Could a Jew support the Nazis. The gay bashing and anti gay stance of the Republican party is not in doubt, Gay Republicans are only thinking of their wallets. I have heard the excuse "Being gay is only part of my life and does not effect all my decisions." To the Republicans we are all fags. It is no different than when German Jews saw themselves as Germans and not Jewish, it did not matter to Hitler, they were just as Jewish as the Hassidics in the shetls were. For those of us who are gay, we are all gay, from the closet case to the drag queen. A political party that has constantly used gay bashing and homophobia to get power is not an acceptable choice for a gay man or woman. Don't forget, Bush won the last election in Ohio almost entirely on the gay marriage issue. Mennonites and the Amish who are not suppose to take part in the election process came out and voted, Bush won the Texas governorship by Rove suggesting that Ann Richards was a lesbian. The anti-gay agenda of the Republican party has been aggressive and dangerous. Why have so many gay men thought of going to Canada in the past few years (and many have). And yes I do feel the same way about the Catholic Church and many other Churches. Why would you belong to an organization that tells you you are inherently evil?
Unfortunately, a singers politics can effect their careers, It was very hard for me to like Ruth Welting,(despite the fact that she was one of the best Olympia's I have seen) after I found out she was a born-again Christain and strong supporter of the Republican party.

May 31, 2006 8:22 AM  
Blogger tubsinger said...

Please don't forget that Clinton was about to ban homosexual discrimination from the Armed Forces when he was first inaugurated and was forced out of doing so by Sam Nunn, a Democratic senator. What was eventually worked out was a smarmy "don't ask, don't tell" policy that was somewhat less than half a loaf. Democrats had the White House and Congress for years since Stonewall, at various times, and did nothing truly progressive for gay rights. To paint the GOP as exclusively homophobic is extraordinarily naive and ill-informed. Also recall that Oregon voted down gay marriage in the last election, hardly a bastion of the "Christian" right. Connecticut's Republican governor is the first leader in the country to sign a Civil Union law without first being forced to by a court decision. In my opinion, homophobia is the last "permitted" vicious prejudice and will remain so for quite some time. It is not the domain of one political party as opposed to another. Also, be very careful about mixing the performing arts with politics: remember the McCarthy era. And, as loathsome as many people find the Bush administration, it's certainly rather "operatic" to compare it to the Nazi party. For everyone's safety and integrity I think we should attempt to respect artistic decisions to sing at inaugurals (and the like) and keep politics to its proper forum.

May 31, 2006 8:33 AM  
Blogger paddypig said...

I never would say that the Democrats have a stellar record on gay rights, and many Democratic politicians are just as homophobic, Clintons DOMA was a disgrace. However they are much more a party of inclusion then the Republican party ever has been, and they do not cater to the Christain right wing and hatemongers as the Republican party does. We have many allies in the Democratic party and none in the Republican party. Do you think Barney Frank would win on a Republican line. The only gays who have won on the Republican line have been closet cases like a certain New York mayor or one president, and these people did more harm than many of their straight counterparts. A Certain mayor's silence during the early years of the AIDS crisis was as deafening as Reagan's. AS Larry Kramer said in the NORMAL HEART, the only way he would have noticed any AIDS information was if it was tied to a hustler's private parts.

Unfortunately, while many artists see themselves as above politics and outside politics, it does not always work that way.for example von Karajan's Nazi affiliations will never be forgotten.

May 31, 2006 9:09 AM  
Blogger paddypig said...

as to the comparison to the Nazi party. how are the pictures from Abu Grave (sp?) Prison any different than pictures from concentration camps. soldiers with dogs menacing naked prisoners, When before in the history of this country have people been held in jail for years offshore without being charge, isn't gitmo a concentration camp?The revival of blind patriotism, the unprovoked invasion of another country, please tell me why this comparison is "operatic". If you compare the political scene in Germany in the early 30's to the USA now, the similarities are too frightening. We look back at Germany in retrospect and see the full fruition of the Nazi plan in the 40s. Look back ten years earlier to the begining of their takeover. How is the Patriot Act any different or Homeland from Fatherland? Not operatic, just realistic.

May 31, 2006 9:16 AM  
Blogger paddypig said...

to winpal- bravo. to daniel, not all Americans voted for this regime. He won by a very narrow margin in Ohio based on the gay marriage issue on the ballot on that state that brought out the conservative voters.
And I am sorry but artists do need to take politcal stands and will be judged by their politics. T I , you can defend the decision to perform at the inaugural, but you are wrong. you are not French, when you sang in France it is different, these two singers are Americans, their singing at the event was an endorsement of the event. They are not just hired help. Do you think Barbara Streisand would have accepted an invitation to sing at the inaugural? once someone has a certian level of fame, they cannot pretend that they are apolitical. Jan Peerce would never sing with von Karajan. he deserved great respect for that stand. It is very easy to go for the bucks and the personal acknowledgement, it is harder to live by convictions, and yes sometimes one pays a price for it. But as gay men in America, we are now paying the price everyday with the hostility shown towards us and telling us we are not deserving of the same civil rights as everyone else.

May 31, 2006 10:10 AM  
Blogger marschallin said...

Since many of you appear to know who the spineless tenor is, I would like TI's identity revealed once and for all. I need to know just so I can make an informed decision and avoid any of his performances just as I avoid anything involving Graves and Graham, to name but two.

May 31, 2006 10:57 AM  
Blogger Daniel said...

Paddypig- please be clear I was using that ridiculous analogy only to illustrate a point (obviously failed)- but of course I realise he won by a slim majority and I don't blame all Americans for it- if only it were that simple. (I'm with Gore Vidal).

I am however, surprised at the depth/level of "feeling" about these matters on this blog between Americans and can't help feeling as though I've wandered into the house next door while the neighbours are in the middle of a horrendous argument. I shall therefore withdraw as quickly as possible, leaving only the pleas that a/ you not kill each other b/put your arguements without flaming each other using profanities c/ will eventually all get over it and back onto contributing to what this great blogsite is all about.

It's too good to spoil by disrespecting each other's rights to having their own opinions.

May 31, 2006 11:05 AM  
Blogger Houndentenor said...

I have not "crucified" anyone. I simply refuse to purchase recordings or attend performances by Ms. Graves or Ms. Graham. I don't see that there is any harm to their careers. Too bad there isn't the same onus on the left for this kind of things as their is on the right (see: The Dixie Chicks).

I reserve the right to go or not go to any performance or buy any recording for any reason I see fit. I guess one shouldn't expect more from Graves or Graham since both began their careers with affairs with married men who helped them into the international level (Domingo and Mehta, respectively). I guess it is too much to expect them not to whore themselves out to the Bush administration considering that history.

And for the record I frequently have to explain that while I am an American I did not vote for Bush in either election when speaking to people from/in other countries. I don't think it is too much that one explains his or her actions. And for non-Americans you may not be aware that we have a pending amendment to the constitution that is coming up for a vote yet again that would, in effect, strip gay people of all legal rights in the US. No, the Democrats don't have a perfect record, but they don't bash us to win elections.

Yes, it was the equivalent of spitting in our faces. And yes I would say that to either Graves or Graham in the flesh. Actually I probably wouldn't use such nice words if I were talking to them in person.

May 31, 2006 11:12 AM  
Blogger marschallin said...

Ah yes, houndentenor, thank you for reminding us of the proposed and *unprecedented* effort to amend no less than the US Constitution in the pursuit and image of hatred and exclusion. Nazi Germany, indeed. I never imagined something like this would even stand a chance in this country. But there we have it.

So, who is The Interpolator?

May 31, 2006 11:29 AM  
Blogger tubsinger said...

I don't mean any disrespect, of course: we get enough of that in both sides of the political argument. But I find the views on each "side" frequently irrational and extreme; many times they are woefully uninformed, as well. However: can we get back to bashing me because I found Dessay's Bellini (on the broadcast) terribly sour and thin? And because I vastly prefer the character, 'face'and elan of "old hag" Von Stade's performance? Because I was at the first half of the '83 gala and preferred almost everything I heard then to the very short amount of music I heard on the Volpe broadcast? (I turned it off in boredom.)

May 31, 2006 12:20 PM  
Blogger paddypig said...

tubsinger-thanks for telling us how woefully uninformed we are. go vote republican and don't complain when abortion is illegal,AIDs funding and sex education is tied to faith based abstinence programs only, the gay rights movement is dead and the government is listening to all your phone calls, demanding lists of all books you borrow from the library(that is happening now in many academic libraries!) and reading your emails.Say hello to more "preemptive wars" and by the way that ticket to the opera will be three times as high as there will be no more arts funding.say goodbye to pbs and public radio- country western music and christain rock will rule, but it all won't matter because with global warming the planet will be such a mess, none of this will even matter.

May 31, 2006 12:31 PM  
Blogger marschallin said...

So, who is The (spineless) Interpolator?

May 31, 2006 12:38 PM  
Blogger paddypig said...

see article in NYT today about librarians in Connecticut who were threatened with prosecution if they revealed that the government was requesting reading lists from the library

May 31, 2006 2:08 PM  
Blogger Winpal said...

To Paddypig and Opera80221, thanks for the support. I thought I was going to be alone out on the limb. To Daniel -- the arguments you see on this thread are unfortunately representative of the schism that exists today throughout the US on many levels. It is a difficult and depressing time. My only hope is enough people come out of their comas in 2008 and get someone rational back into the White House. At this point I hope the Dems take a good look at Russ Feingold and don't hitch the wagon to Hillary, as much as I respect her.

I also agree -- let's get back to our regularly programmed gossip and gore. Remember, the PBS broadcast of the gala is tomorrow night!!!

May 31, 2006 2:46 PM  
Blogger rysanekfreak said...

Marschallin,

The early clues The Interpolator dropped about himself were so obvious that even I was able to figure out his identity. Early. I, an insignificant nobody in rural mid-America.

You need to obsess less on one singer and learn about other singers. Then, you too would realize who TI is.

May 31, 2006 11:07 PM  
Blogger marschallin said...

Whatever, rysanekfreak. But I must have missed those clues. And they are?

May 31, 2006 11:36 PM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

:Sigh: Does it really matter who TI is? First of all, he's not being really secrative about it. Second of all, it really doesn't matter.

June 01, 2006 12:57 AM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

And :Sigh: ladies and mainly gentlemen, can we all please calm down and go back to bitching about Opera? I came on this board to get AWAY from Politics.

June 01, 2006 1:06 AM  
Blogger paddypig said...

Sorry Baritenor, but occassionally the reality of politics affects art (including opera believe it or not) And while many try to pretend the two have nothing to do with each other. I think the blog in this thread really shows how much it does. Both the personal feelings I have expressed and the views of a professional singer who defends the artists choice to sing at the inaugural claiming it is not an endorsement of the political regime in power. Opera has always had a lot to do with politics. Un Ballo in Maschera wasn't set in Boston by Verdi's choice. The ties between Wagner, Bayreuth and politics in Germany doesn't require much explaination here. Even opera is political whether we choose to ignore it or not. Is not the appointment of Gelb a form of politics? When Germaine Lubin sang for Hitler (and was also supposedly his mistress) it had reprecussions. When Leontyne Price sang for Jimmy Carter or Maya angelou read at both Clinton inaugurations, it was also a statement. so it is pathetic for singers to say that by singing for Bush's coronation (I mean inauguration) that they were not making a political statement. It simply does not wash. opera and politics again became an issue, and personally I found it refreshing that some so many of my fellow opera queens came up and got into the arguement. Bravo to winpal, opera 80221, and for once the marschaillin wasn't as wacked out as usual(sorry but that is the best compliment I can give you in light of your other posts, but try to keep the anti-gay and anti semetic attacks out of your own blogs and you will be less hated). So baritenor, how do you feel about Graham and Graves singing for Bush?
to the TI- many artists who have stuck to their guns and held to their convictions have paid a price for it. Paul Robeson, Eartha Kitt, Miriam Makeba and Vanessa Redgrave are among many who paid a price for their convictions but they were also greater artists in the process for believing in what they believed in and being true to themselves. Selling out by saying I am just the hired help belittles you and the influence you can have as an artist.

June 01, 2006 8:11 AM  
Blogger rysanekfreak said...

Marschillin,

As that actress said in that movie, "If you don't already know, then you don't deserve to know."

Have you told us what YOUR real name is? You can give us your address and phone number too.

June 01, 2006 8:29 AM  
Blogger paddypig said...

rysanekfreak BRAVO et TOUCHE

June 01, 2006 10:23 AM  
Blogger Winpal said...

RF -- hasn't it been established that Marshy is Cheryl Studer on deep background with the Thessaloniki police?

June 01, 2006 1:15 PM  
Blogger Baritenor said...

Paddypig-

While I am well aware of the politcal significance of many operas and the operatic world, I think that personal politics should be kept off the blogs. Can we please go back to arguing about Cheryl Studer? (Said with a wry smile)

How do I feel about Graham and Graves singing for the Bushman? I don't really care. It's the singer's choice. Though I agree that singing for politicains may have serious repercu