Divas on Demand!
The Met announced this morning yet another media partnership, this one with iN DEMAND Networks "to offer all eight new performances from the Met's second season of Metropolitan Opera: Live in High Definition to on-demand subscribers in the United States in both standard and high definition formats." The basic idea is that the video from the Met's live movie theater simulcasts will be offered on a pay-per-view basis within a month after the original performance date. The series will kick off with the December 15 performance of Gounod's Roméo et Juliette, broadcast on iN DEMAND on Wednesday, January 16, 2008.Never at a loss for a sound bite, Met General Manager Peter Gelb quipped, "With this agreement, we are creating the opera equivalent of a Hollywood movie roll-out." The Met will join such established iN DEMAND attractions as major Hollywood films in HD, Major League Baseball, World Wrestling League, and original video programming such as America's Next Hot Pornstar: Naked Tryouts.
POSTED at
9:56 AM
26 Comments:
I applaud the Met and Mr.Gelb for their recent efforts to ''popularize'' opera, but perhaps for different reasons than one might think.
Ive often heard before that for opera to survive (Survive? I hardly knew she was sick), the artform must ''get-with-the-times''.
That is hardly a revelation since opera has re-invented itself many times. From its earliest days as an intimate affair to becoming an auditorium-filling event. Even musical styles evolve and change (any person that isnt an opera listener can notice a musical differance between Vivaldi and Strauss.)
Now is that a question of getting with the times, or a way to make the artform accessable?
I believe it's the latter. Opera hardly needs help thriving as centuries of opera-loving people can attest to. What I think the goal is to make opera accessible to people who would never otherwise hear a Puccini aria or a Bellini caballeta so that more ideas and more discussion can be made and contributed as to what this music means to people. Those new people in the audience may be tomorrow's stage designers, costumers, theatre directors and even singers. Without new ideas to bring to the table, will we ever move on from the Zeffirelli ''Turandot'' at the Met? (Not that I have a problem with the production, it's one of my favorites.) Making opera accessible will bring us new points of view and new ways of seeing and hearing the music. And thats not a way of surviving but rather, a way to evolve and making the music and stories relevant to people.
Am I making sense? What are your thoughts?
This post has been removed by the author.
Does this mean the end of the Met on PBS? My public television station showed all of last season's HD presentations quite a while after the movie theater live relays had taken place. And it was FREE.
I confess to ambivalence on this whole topic of "getting with the times." It's one thing to try to make the art form more accessible, which I applaud, but it's another to force it to be more "relevant" (whatever that means) or to have to "bring something new" to it.
If it's a question of using the newer media and distribution channels to reach a wider audience, then I vote Yes.
If it's a question of updating "Boheme" to Darfur or Bangladesh to make it more "relevant" or "new" then I boo and hiss.
I enjoy taking newbies to the opera, and one of my means to gauge the success of a production is by the newbie's reaction. If he comes out having had a reaction to the combination of music and theater and story telling, then to me, the production was a success. If I have to try to explain what the "big black spider" was that dropped down on top of Boris Godunov and smothered him (yes, we saw that once) or what were the "dancing, glowing orb things" during Boris' nightmare and my guest is obviously more perplexed than enlightened, then I judge the production a failure.
Worst of all is when a guest's reaction is "what the heck was going on" and "this is exactly why people who don't like opera, don't like it" and "please don't drag me along to any more of them," which has happened more than once. Rarely is this reaction due to the musical performance, much more often it's because of a director's wrong-headed "concept" or bizarre setting and staging.
I find a general rule of thumb is that we're in trouble when program notes are longer than the plot synopsis, which happens unfortunately too often these days. I saw a Rosenkavalier where the director observed in his notes that one shouldn't have to explain opera plot - while he went on for three pages about his concept of the color schemes. He got his priorities backwards, if you ask me.
I wonder if things might not be changing lately: the LA Don Giovanni with Senor Schrott, which just opened last week, garnered near rave reviews back in 2003 ("it's new!" "it's different" "it's eye-catching" "it makes you think!" and so forth). But three reviews this week have all *trashed* the production this time around, and it wasn't the musical performances that they trashed. Four years later the production is now "conceited," "ego-driven" and "tired cliche effects without substance." Maybe critics are finally getting fed up with it.
My fear , in hearing this is that "on-demand" will cancel out PBS and , ultimately, the Saturday afternoon FREE b'casts.
Not everyone, believe it or not, has a 'puter, or cable...if this is an attempt to reach out to those who might not ordinarily think that Opera is "their thing", this could backfire..
I remain CAUTIOUSLY optimistic over some of these recent developments, as long as there remains a free way, for those who either can not afford, or who are just marginally interested , to have a chance to watch and listen...
Dnitzer - You mean the LA Rosenkavalier, which was horrible at every level, especially musically. I remember all that nonsense about color (every shade of blue evokes a different emotion!!). It was nice to see the kitschy LA DG production finally and deservedly being trashed, but just because the press hasn't trashed it on musical grounds doesn't mean it was worth hearing. I'm sorry, but only the Leporello is musically acceptable.
Very interesting observations, but I like the pic of Bobby showing more and more skin. Maybe the full Monty is coming!!!
Singsformysupper -
Yes, I meant the LA Rosenkavalier. I don't want to trash them too much, they are still a young company and trying different things, which I think is worthwhile, and they have done some shows which I enjoyed immensely (last year's Manon, Romeo from a few years ago). But when they miss the mark, they really seem to miss it. A staged performance of the B Minor Mass? What the f*** was that all about? I haven't heard the DG yet this season; I am going next week, and mainly because I do want to hear Kyle K. And of course it's not just LA doing these things.
As for the Met and the other companies now trying the new media, I think it's great. More, more, more. It will bring people in.
But this is expensive for the audience, so please, just treat the artform well - by which I mean, respect our intelligence, and the composer and the librettist; know how to read music as well as stage directions (and understand for example that when Mozart shifts the harmony and orchestration when a statue speaks, it means something!); understand that the composer is painting a picture with sound - or don't waste our time. To take all of Strauss' orchestral colorings and stage it in shades of monochromatic blue,and then yellow, and then red - whoever that was obviously didn't know how to read a score. Or didn't care.
Okay, I will stop ranting for now; do bring us the opera in the new media but don't sell us out.
julio,
I found your statements contradictory. You don't believe that opera is "sick" but you approve the treatment: "to popularize it." Of course, opera as an art form is not sick but its bottom line is gravely ill. If the average age of the Met's season ticket holder is over sixty, the outlook and the future are grim. Opera cannot survive, like any other business, without revenues, and traditional ticket sales alone won't do it. Opera was created as an elitist art form by elitist intellectuals, subsidized and funded by elitists to entertain the elitists and rich-like kings and royal courts. Opera was not intended for the averahe "joe," but things have changed. All the famous European houses still cover a major past of their budgets by goverment subsides, and not relying entirly on ticket sales. Even with high-pice tickets, the Met could not exist wihout major donors, like last year's $25 million donation by the Honorable Mrs. Bass. Gelb is a wizard turning the syetem upside down by using all tools available to incur additional revenues, and to help the average "joe" to enjoy opera. To convince donors to subsidize expensive tickets for $20 bucks a piece is a tradition that goes back to ancient Greece where the wealthy not only commissioned plays and paid the playwriters but also paid for the tickets of the public.
Gelp is a revolutionary and the first general manager at the Met to understand the "sickness" of opera and to find medicines to cure it.
constantine-
I myself dont believe opera is ''sick'' nor did i state that in my post. i just pointed out that its a point of view i seem to encounter every now and then when the subject of ''popularizing'' opera comes up. To be more exact, there are people out there that think that opera needs to be ''saved''. Rather than being saved, I think opera has done its best to evolve and capture new audiences with new ideas. (although there have been outright faliures like the aforementioned Rosenkavalier.)
However almost everything the Met as accomplished recently has been a success in gaining new listeners and viewers. This Gelb era promises to be a great one, one that will ensure future successes for the company and opera as a whole for years to come.
Opera is hardly sick. In fact, I think it's thriving quite nicely. Don't you?
Julio,
Maybe I did not make my point as clear as I thought. Financially, opera is "sick" and must compete hard for the entertainment dollar. This "sickness" has affected not only opera but also the entire classical music industry, like symphony orchestras, and production and sales of classical music CDs. A new production at the Met may run into the millions. All U.S. opera companies, one time or another, are facing deficits. Gelb's objective is to capture additional revenues to heal the "sickness."
constantine-
point very well taken, accepted and agreed upon. Its going to take general managers like gelb and chicago's william mason's great financial know-hows to heal that ''sickness'' in our opera houses. (I mention mason for his leadership and direction that has made lyric opera of chicago one of the most financially sound opera houses in the country.)
It would be really sad if the PBS telecasts were not to happen this year. The Met may be taking its money grabbing a tad too far. The cineplex live screenings are aready a huge financial success and are being followed by pricey 2-disc DVD sets - so why not reward fans with a free telecast?
il_guarany
Anonymous,
You may have a point but it's a matter of suvival for opera. There're no freebies any more, anywhere. Remember when gas stations provided only full services, washed windshield wimdows and gave away free bottles of coke and toycars? We're lucky to have live opera at the movies. It costs me a bundle to fly from Texas to NYC to see the Met. By the way I ordered the DVD of I Puritani.
I agree it would be really sad if PBS stopped their telecasting from the Met. It seems like public television is so scared of opera. I have friends all over the world and most places have TV broadcasts year round, if not from their local opera then from other cities or countries. I understand opera is a business just like any other; but the PBS telecast are such a pleasure I hate to see them go away so soon.
Not to worry, if you check out PBS's site, they have already announced the 2007-08 season. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/shows/gpatmet/index.html
Well then, there you go. PBS isn't dropping the Met Broadcasts. We can all breathe easier now.
Constantine makes a good point. We really should be glad to have the HD simulcasts since the alternative (flying to NYC) is out of the question for many of us.
DNITZER also makes a good point. If youre gonna do something, do it right or dont do it at all. I'm all for looking at opera pieces through different eyes, but if youre gonna do something weird and out there just for the sake of being weird, I say don't even bother. You will just end up with a production so strange and out there that will turn off alot of people, the veteran opera goers and the newbies.
The composers and librettists must be respected and worked with, not against.
I much prefer the on-demand to the theater simulcasts - I don't have to be irritated by crunching popcorn, slurping sodas and other behaviors considered acceptable at the movies nowadays
I just wish my local PBS station would avoid its habit of showing these broadcasts at 11:00 on Sunday mornings. Get up late, check out the Sunday Times, watch Tristan....
My parents don't live near New York. I convinced them to go to the Barbiere HD broadcast; they loved it and can't wait for the broadcasts this season. They've never been opera fans before, but now we sometimes go to the Met when they visit me. This is what these broadcasts are for--and even more for showing on PBS, where a few channel-surfers might get hooked.
I'm almost too scared to say this- because I'm probably going to be shot- so perhaps I should start by saying my comments come from the fact I do have a small hearing problem.
Forgive me for asking the question guys- but what's the general view about ahem - mick'ing a performance? These days when you go to a movie the sound can nearly blow you out the back door- of course I'm not suggesting quite the same thing in the opera theatre but when I play my DVD's and video's at home I do enjoy having the sound up and getting some really cheap thrills. These days on the opera stage when a voice is small with a full orchestra I have often wondered what it would be like to have an opera miked- they do it for musicals almost every time and it can be excellent- ok I've said enough and am going to lie low- I can feel the bricks coming ;0)
No disrespect meant, daniel, but if you have a hearing problem, get yourself a good hearing aid. I say this as the "survivor" of a parent with really atrocious hearing and who has done NOTHING to mitigate it - to the detriment of the cheerful disposition and mental sanity of those around her.
Miking an opera performance is someitmes done at houses with inadequate acoustics; the NYCO uses amplification and doesn't try to conceal it. Some staging requires it as well, of course. But by and large it's a no-no.
If you would like to enjoy an operatic explosion of decibels, get thee to a Met cinecast. More often than not, the kids operating the equipment crank the volume as if they were screening the latest Star Wars movie.
Cheap thrills are best left to the Phantom of the Opera and Il Divo.
Apologies for underestimating Mr. Gelb (who I am convinced is among the Chi è Chi dell'Opera reading La Cieca surreptitiously).
The "Hollywood movie roll-out" has indeed come to the Met. First, a live/cinecast performance, then an on-demand service followed by the DVD release and open TV broadcast (the order is probably reversed in the last two stages, but who cares).
I guess it would have taken the wind out of the on-demand "sales" if Gelb mentioned that as an alternative to the paid service, viewers could simply wait for the free PBS telecast.
Eduardo (il_guarany)
daniel-
here in chicago, the lyric provides listening devices for people with hearing difficulties. Im not sure if this is also done at the Met and other houses, so you may want to call ahead to make sure.
"Miking" a live opera performance is an abomination that will destroy what opera is all about: the wonder of human voice as a highly personlised musical instrument. All singers will sound alike, and Bocelli- forgive me- will be auditioned by the Met to sing Calaf, and why not Lohengrin!
Big houses, Like the Met, don't favor small voices, but this the price we have to pay to maintain artistic integrity and appreciate the very few superstars.
I know some artists are getting a bit perturbed about all of this releasing of archival recordings and all the live Sirius broadcasts---and they aren't getting a penny out of it. I think that is a real shame. The artists should at least get something. If you are a painter, you receive compensation for the prints made of your painting---the same goes for syndicated television shows and the like. I would guess that the next time a bargaining agreement comes around, the artists are going to have a lot to say about this--as well they should.
Julio and others- I guess I overstated my situation- I can hear ok and don't need mechanical assistance- but as one who loves "turning it up" when "around the house" I can only wonder how thrilling it would be if singers were micked. eg Barbara Striesand, and Shani Wallis always sound brilliant in concert- if they weren't miked you'd never hear them. With today's technology I can't help believing an opera performance could be miked beautifully where a balance could be easily achieved without spoiling the work. For example most stadium performances ARE miked and you never hear criticism of them- in fact they can be spectacularly successful. I saw a stadium Aida that was miked and it was wonderful. I know the purists will want to roast and serve me up for saying this- but sorry- I just can't help feeling it could be a very positive experience. I'm going to hide now before the things start flying :)
Post a Comment
<< Home