the wails of august
Several of you cher public have been kind enough to forward to me an email from Peter Gelb offering the Met’s apology for the debacle of the first day of subscriber ticket exchanges. Though La Cieca has sneered a bit at the Buoso Donati contingent, she certainly can understand why loyal subscribers might feel that this email is somewhat “too little, too late.” It does seem that so sweeping a change in the exchange system could have been handled more transparently, and, more to the point, more consistently.
La Cieca has heard numerous complaints that subscribers were given conflicting information by Met personnel, especially about trades involving the more in-demand new productions like Thaïs and La rondine. At this point there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that there was a concerted effort by the Met to hold these tickets back for later single sale, but when the policy is not made crystal-clear and observed consistently, there’s always the chance of the perception that something underhanded is going on.
In a way, Gelb reminds La Cieca of New York’s dear Mayor Michael Bloomberg in that both these gentlemen transitioned from the private sector, where leaders can get away with acting in a rather dictatorial fashion, into a more public arena where one has to be careful not to come off like a bully. Of course, the dictatorial style is handy for getting things done quickly and efficiently, but sometimes at the expense of long-term goodwill. Mayor Bloomberg has learned, La Cieca thinks, to moderate his tactics so that his leadership feels more like it’s based on consensus. Mr. Gelb might benefit from emulating the mayor’s newfound management style.
Feldmarschallin you are missing the point. Exchange privileges are extended to subscribers because for many of us who have held the same seats for years we often get repeats of operas we have seen many times over. We exchange because we would rather see something new or rare to the repertory rather than another Tosca or Aida. I have spent the last 15 years working from Dress Circle box seats to good seats on the Side Parterre for my Tuesday night series and most years I am happy with the majority of operas in my series. I When I am not, it is a nice perk to be able to exchange for another opera. I appreciate the policy and don’t abuse it, though I assume others might. I know that the Met appreciates my ongoing support, and I appreciate the privileges subscription brings me. I think the point of this thread is that if the Met is going to alter the exchange policies it should be spelled out clearly to those of us who have come to expect things a certain way, and at the box office we should not be surprised by new policies that have not been announced previously.
Chacowhacko:
The adverb form of different is differently. If you are saying they used it as an adverb then I am correct in that it is a grammatically incorrect phrase. Even in adjective form it is still improper use. The phrase always rubbed me the wrong way for these reasons.
All these points are so important. Thanks for bringing them up. I feel less out of touch. I hope you all will buy my new self-help book that could really assuage the pain in these trying times: How To Love Opera Without Being a Bitch.
Ticket exchange policy! Ticket exchange policy!! To think they made a movie about the life of that deadbeat, Ghandi, when there is a story like THIS that needs to be told.
hey, josephine — this thread was CREATED to discuss the ticket exchange policy … what would you have us discuss here?
besides, gandhi (as the mahatma preferred to spell it himself) is so last april …
I adore Josephine’s comment @ 13!
Dear Mr. Gelb,
Thank you for your e-mailed note (“A Message from
Peter Gelb”) with your apaology for the confusion
surrounding the exchange of subscription tickets
onAugusat 11.
I have been a subscriber for about thirty years,
and have attended the Met for a bit over fifty years. My first standing room tickets cost, as I recall, a dollar, and afforded me the privilege of seeing such extraordinary artists as Tebaldi, Bjorling, Kirsten, Della Casa, Steber, Merrill, Tucker, Sutherland, Price, Nilsson, Caballe, Horne and Corelli at their estimable peaks.
My subscription bill now approaches three thousand
dollars, for two seats in the balcony for Tuesday,
Thursday and Saturday evening. (A total of
thirty-six subscriptions or there abouts.)
I love the Met, and the performances are important
to me.
But the situation August 11 was indeed
inexcusable.
Your “apology” and seemingly half-hearted promise
that things will be better in the future seem to
me to be too little and too late. And your statement in the Times on August 12 wasreally quite insulting.
The only reason I am able to maintain my three
subscriptions is that I know I can exchange the
ones that I do not want. This year, for instance I had Don Giovanni on all three subscriptions, the
secon(and far inferior) cast in Il Trovatore, the one performance of La Damnation de Faust (12/4) NOT
conducted by Levine, but by TBA, and performance
of the very tired productions of Cav/Pag and La
Boheme that in all honesty I would just as soon never see again. And no Thais, Salome, Orfeo, Queen of Spades, Walkuere or Rheingold, among others.
And you have the nerve to say that you want to get
us back to the good old days when everybody just
took what they got and kept their mouths shut. Of
course, when the house opened 40 years ago,
balcony seats were 5 dollars. Neither my income nor most of my other living expenses have increased by a
factor of sixteen in the intervening years. (First run movies, for instance were three dollars in 1968,
and 12 now.)
I wonder if you really have any idea at all of how
deeply insulted your subscribers have been by your
statements and actions.
If this behavior on your part continues, and you
continue to show this sort of disrespect for me
and for other subscribers, I will not renew my
subscriptions, and will rely on single tickets
sales to see those productions I really want to see.
And don’t ever dare mention any suggestion of a
bequest in my will. I am not stupid. I know when
I have been taken for granted and I know when I have
been taken advantage of. Neither is a pleasant
sensation.
Your truly,
(xxxxxxx xxxxxx)
Subscriber Number XXXX184
klingsor- if you are wanting input on this letter I would have to suggest the following….cut the “extraneous and not applicable”. That way your letter will speak to the points (and only the points) and it will be more powerful.
What happened 30 years ago, what things cost, and who the artists were, is irrelevant and only clutters what you are trying to say.
As my old English mentor constantly tells me – “less is more!” It is never more true than when you are trying to make a complaint (in writing) and have an impact.
Klingsor
Your letter to Peter Gelb is on the verge of being in iambic pentameter. There are a few times where the meter goes wrong. Please work on it a little more and with any luck acting students across the country will be using your letter for their audition monologue.
i can think of a couple of times when being taken advantage of resulted in a decidedly pleasant sensation.
Suggested Titles, requested from everyone here, please!
Scene) What looks like an angry wild ‘bread-line’ of people: A cast bigger than The Ring, hungry, irritable, modern dress costuming, suffering rations deprivation, greivances, rampart stories spreading about, alleged machinations by the privliged, falsehoods, fraud, betrayal. Populace wishing to commit acts of operatic supporter revolt and uprising though loss of confidence.
I am waiting for Phillip Glass or Johm Adams to set this Gelb-inspired incident to music, for their next opera.
Particulars:a drama with much angst
Story line construct – Act 1
It is ‘Boris Godounov 2′ folks, outside the Met!
Crowds whinging their fists in the air, at Czar Peter.