This business is so archaic and bizarre financially, I’m flummoxed that it doesn’t just cease to exist.

One of the biggest questions that I have throughout my career, is how the greatest houses and the highest profile jobs in New York actually pay the least amount of money! When you sing at the Met, or with the Philharmonic, or at Carnegie, you will receive far less than you would receive in comparable establishments throughout the US or Europe. Far, far less.

Someone needs to explain to me how singing in the most prestigious and important houses in New York equates to making less money then singing elsewhere. It has yet to be explained to me, and I’ve asked several different sides of the business about it. No one has a satisfactory answer. Most just shrug.

I find it astonishing. A doctor, banker, Wall Streeter, etc., working at or near the top of their field certainly wouldn’t accept less money to work in a prestigious environment. They would go elsewhere.

But since this is “art,” and I use that phrase with a profound sense of irony in NY at least half the time, artists are asked to make less rather than more to sing here. It’s flat out bizarre.

There is a reason why some great singers and performers choose not to come to New York as frequently as they otherwise would, and it’s because of the bizarre fee structure, and how little one is paid. The simple fact of the matter is that one can make much more money elsewhere.

Do Boheme performances sell better because of luxury cast for Ben/Alc? I can see the Met graciously continuing Plishka’s contract so that he can reach some desired point for his retirement and Plishka accepting a low fee for the same reason. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the Met just cast a young basso for the roles.

Similarly, I can’t imagine that RAS would not accept a lower fee for the opportunity to continue singing at the Met.

The trustees go crazy asking for money and then they sanction such expenditures? I’ve never heard of any business working in a such a way.

Reason enough for Fiend to be fired ( we know that Billingsgate has married her job security!(

No. Less.

Yes, there is a reason that older singers who were stars at a time are not re-engaged, and that has a bit to do with having to be paid whatever fee they topped out at.

That for example, is why Paul Plishka was listed one year as the highest independent contractor. Because although his fee may not be the very top, it most certainly is in the upper tier, and that means he makes it no matter what repertoire he sings, and that includes Benoit/Alcindoro, so when the Met is making the decision to hire Plishka in a small role, they are making the decision to pay a very large (well, Met large) fee no matter how many lines he sings. At this point, they’re paying for the name. Plishka in Ben/Alc is luxury casting.

There is a possibility that former stars way be willing to negotiate downward, and I’m not going to say that it hasn’t happened at some point, but I haven’t heard of a case, and I don’t personally know any singers who once made top fee that would accept anything less, no matter what the role.

Yes, that means Ros Plowright makes top fee when she appears, no matter how crap she sounds. She a star of long time standing, and if they are engaging her, she is making bank.

Cassandra’s comment does suggest a reason why certain singers are not being asked back to the Met: their fees are too high. I mean, when Ruth Ann Swenson and Anna Netrebko get the same fee, something is definitely wrong in this business.

At the top fee and combining that with his performances, he would still be making less than what is shown. However, it was pointed out to me, and I had forgotten, that there is a hidden fee which is the weekly “rehearsal fee” that is given to artists and is not negotiated as part of the fee or contract, nor is it per diem (which is negotiated as part of the fee.) Managers do not take a cut of this, but it is still obviously taxed. This increases every year you work with the company, and he would have had at least twenty weeks of rehearsal, if not more, having been involved in four productions.

That would explain the gap between what he would have received fee-wise, and what he actually received.

By the way, the top fee is not nearly as high as everyone thinks it is. The other big houses pay more.

It may also be that Croft received some deferred compensation in 2006 from previous seasons, though I don’t know whether the Met makes that kind of deal with artists.

Reports for previous years have shown the top contractors were people like Paul Plishka, i.e., who stay in New York most of the season and sing or cover a couple times a week that whole time.

About 5 years ago I read some similar statistics. For that season Juan Pons and Ruth Ann Swenson were the largest earners. In neither case did they get the top fee, but they both sang loooooong seasons with multiple roles. It seemed like that were cast in anything even remotely suitable.

This is largely the handiwork of that dynamic duo
in the casting department at the Met. So imaginative!

I wouldn’t mind seeing her Violetta live though, bien sur.

Not true. I imagine Lucia was carried yesterday. At any rate, the encore performances will be offered on Feb. 18 in Harvey and Elmwood. Check yahoo movies for the times.
Judging from the broadcast, bel canto was in short supply. Piotr is a good tenor, but he doesn’t measure up to Bergonzi. And Netrebko should drop the role from her repertory asap.

I also laughed at loud at the phrase “Tony Tommasini think piece”.

I only heard the first two acts. Right now Angela and Roberto are doing Carmen via Radio France. (Orchestre National du Capitole de Toulouse conducted by Plasson). No doubt will result in a lot of comment. Alagna, bubbalah, you’re in deep water!