Comments on: Les feux d’artifice s’approchent

aloki miyeyi commented

aloki miyeyi — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:58:16 +0000

I would much prefer to be quoted than paraphrased – I did not equate Mr Koch with Herr Goebbels. And I was referring not to the propaganda but to the wider role that Goebbels played in the Nazi policy towards the arts. But now that I consider Noel Dalhings comment, I expand my comment to include the Goebbels’ propaganda role, as the Koch organization has thrown so much mud on the wall in regard to the health care discussions. I think that Koch is a very dangerous man, based on his funding of the anti marriage propositions in both California and Maine, and his despicable role in the right wing push against health care reform. I find not a lot of distance between Nazi horror and the right wing agenda in this country. Accusing me of immature, intemperate mentality seems to me to be directed at stifling my opinion, which certainly would not further thoughtful political discussion on this site.

Baltsamic Vinaigrette commented

Baltsamic Vinaigrette — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:56:20 +0000

I think I know what you really meant – it just felt like three hours.

Quanto Painy Fakor commented

Quanto Painy Fakor — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:49:39 +0000

According to the chapter and verse of 42.3 (test of reply-2)

Quanto Painy Fakor commented

Quanto Painy Fakor — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:48:24 +0000

Test of reply function.

Buster commented

Buster — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:02:28 +0000

Straussmonster commented

Straussmonster — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:36:01 +0000

‘Repertory’ starts far, far earlier than that, both in France and Germany.

horiampa commented

horiampa — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:20:48 +0000

My point is that when a wealthy donor makes a $1000 “private” contribution, there is likely a 35 or 40 percent savings on his or her income taxes plus an additional 45 percent saving on potential estate tax if he or she were to leave the remaining money to an individual beneficiary rather than having donated it to a charity. If my analysis is correct, wouldn’t it be the case that of the $1000 in “private” support, something like $650 is essentially government funding,
representing the amount that would otherwise have been paid to the government as higher taxes? I would be interested to read wherein you find this reasoning to be wrong.

Kayla Micreda commented

Kayla Micreda — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:00:17 +0000

A lot depends on what one considers a “substantial contribution.” Government grants make up two-tenths of 1 percent of the Met’s revenues, according to the latest tax documents available on their website.

Noel Dahling commented

Noel Dahling — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:44:29 +0000

Bravo! Goebbels and Koch have two totally different relationships to art. Goebbels CREATED art(propaganda furthering the cause of an evil dictator), Koch is FUNDING art, two totally different things, so there is no comparison anyway.

horiampa commented

horiampa — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:45:41 +0000

Previous posters overlook the fact that in the US government, both federal and in many places state, make a substantial contribution to funding for the arts, as well as many other institutions including educational, religious, social welfare and medical, through the mechanism of income tax deductilibity for charitable contributions. One may agree or disagree as to whether this is an appropriate way for government to affect the allocation of resources, but it is clearly an important component of the total picture of the financing of many areas of our cultural life. The centrality of tax policy to the perceived welfare of our non-profit charitable organizations is repeatedly demonstrated by their leading role in opposition to any fundamental revision of the basic structure of our system of income taxation.

On a different note, alokimiyeyi’s equating of David Koch to Goebbels (No. 36) is despicable. To liken everyone with whom we may profoundly disagree with the perpetrators of the Nazi horror is an insult to all who suffered during that nightmare. It reflects na immature, intemperate mentality that renders thoughtful political discussion impossible, and has no place on this website.

RDaggle commented

RDaggle — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:59:38 +0000

La Cieca posted about this issue here months ago.

As for me, I look forward to parsing out the subliminal messages they will be inserting in productions of Boheme, Tosca, Giovanni, Barbiere, and the rest of the core repertory.

It will help me stay awake.

louannd commented

louannd — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:54:59 +0000

Bravo again.

louannd commented

louannd — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:51:08 +0000

Bravo.

louannd commented

louannd — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:48:18 +0000

I agree that it is typical, but I for one would welcome more funding from the government and thus more risks in production. Tired of stodgy, old-fashioned productions just to keep the privileged rich and few happy.

Sanford commented

Sanford — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:36:04 +0000

He isn’t the first person to write their first opera for the Met, nor will he be the last. And you know very well what my point is… don’t make me come over there and slap you upside the head. Why do we “usually” do it that way? And who says we “usually” do it that way? Why is that way better or worse than any other way? Because we didn’t like the product? That’s ridiculous. And just because “we” didn’t like the product doesn’t mean no one did. It got a terrific review in Opera Now (written by Antonia Couling -http://www.rhinegold.co.uk/magazines/opera_now/live_articles/opera_now_live_reviews.asp) and several of the other reviews were mixed, not horrible. Barber’s first opera was written for the Met, and prior success as an orchestral composer didn’t necessarily mean the opera would be successful. Why is there a different standard for composers than there is for singers? Roberta Peters made her opera debut there, as did Rosa Ponselle, Alma Gluck (I’m pretty sure), Grace Moore, Lucine Amara. And in case anyone checks my facts (and I know someone will, since I know I would), I’m not counting vaudeville (Miss Ponselle), Broadway (Grace Moore), or concerts (Lucine Amara). I’m sure there are more, plus conductors, designers, directors, choreographers, general managers, etc. Since none of us can predict the future, past successes elsewhere are no guarantees of success at the Met, anymore than past failures guarantee failure at the Met.

squirrel commented

squirrel — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:30:38 +0000

why? what did i do?

Maury commented

Maury — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:28:38 +0000

I begin to be most curious who the squirrel is.

CruzSF commented

CruzSF — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:18:21 +0000

Oooops, in my previous post I meant “so the kinks can be worked OUT.”

CruzSF commented

CruzSF — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:17:03 +0000

squirrel, Figaro might the one I mean.

Sanford, your take on the current state of Broadway (I’ve never been — live on the opposite coast) saddens me, but it does make me think that operas could benefit from a system where new works are premiered at smaller houses so the kinks can be worked and then they’d move on to the bigger places. I understand why new works are so difficult to put on, and it’s not only that traditionalists would balk at paying to see them. They are simply too expensive to produce with a high risk of losing money. A preview system could help, like Sanford writes, to tighten up shows, make them more crowd pleasing, and to build word-of-mouth buzz.

Will such a system form in my lifetime? Probably not.

aloki miyeyi commented

aloki miyeyi — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:46:38 +0000

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/about

The cher public is encouraged to use the above link. Mr Koch is a friend of the arts very much in the same way that Joseph Goebbels was a friend of the arts. While such men are too sophisticated to document any quid pro quo for their support, there would of course be a subtle accommodation made to his views without his needing to ask for a thing. His involvement with the theater and the resident companies may become too big too fail, as they would say in the financial industry. At the moment, many people would say that some end justifies the means here, and I am inclined to feel that every dollar spent on decadent art in New York City is one dollar that will not be spent on any of the various anti-gay crusades around the country that are so manipulating our democracy. On the other hand, I don’t think Mr Koch will run out of funds soon, and should the arts be giving him this social legitimacy, which would appear to be motivating his generosity. As for Rufus, may his participation grace every State Theater event, as I think that this might become an embarrassment for Mr Koch. By the way, is it true that his name rhymes with a synonym for rooster? How delicious that would be.