Comments on: Ether or

By: Ercole Farnese

Ercole Farnese — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:32:38 +0000

Provided that I agree with the fact that it’s silly to withhold a broadcast because of the conductor, I beg to disagree with your statement that anyone can conduct early Verdi. It takes a great conductor to make sure that early Verdi results much more than oop-pah-pah. Just compare any Gardelli recording (competent but pedestrian and monotonous ) with Levine’s stirring Giovanna d’Arco.

By: Noel Dahling

Noel Dahling — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:27:27 +0000

Early Verdi isn’t “conductors opera”;thats why I think it is silly to withhold a braodcast of Atilla because of the conductor. Anybody can lead that oop-pah-pah stuff. And after hearing Sutherland cap off Odabella with a high E natural, its gonna sound like a let down with no high note at the end.

By: MontyNostry

MontyNostry — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:29:54 +0000

Muti has always been a bit of a trumped-up bandmaster. One of the chilliest concerts I’ve ever been to was a programme of (I think) Mozart and Schubert in which he conducted the Vienna Phil, and a recent glitzy Chicago Symphony programme wasn’t exactly brimming with soul.

With a comparative rarity like Attila, at least no-one will know where singers are being deprived of interpolated high notes. (I mean, what’s Abigaille’s cabaletta without a huge top C to cap it off?)

By: Byrnham Woode

Byrnham Woode — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:07:29 +0000

If it is true, and I suspect it is, that Muti is roadblocking “live” transmission of ATILLA then I really think he should be replaced for that date now. Armilato is scheduled to lead the final group of performances and should be promoted. The MET should not allow Muti to set a precedent as to what is presented live on radio – let alone HD transmissions.

Karajan broadcast WALKüRE and RHEINGOLD – the latter with a substitute as Fricka. Reiner’s Strauss broadcasts are famous, and so on. It’s true that Carlos Kleiber refused to lead live broadcasts when he was at the MET. So they didn’t schedule any of his performances for Saturday matinees, which at the time were the only broadcasts.

If Muti is told that Armilato will handle the broadcast on 3/6, that’s “trouble” enough. There may be consequences, but the MET management has to be in control of what it schedules and when, and must have a free choice in choosing what it broadcasts.

By: m. p. arazza

m. p. arazza — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:12:27 +0000

They’re not airing a Turandot either? (Jan. 23)
(Not that they should – but normally they would…?)

By: Noel Dahling

Noel Dahling — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:43:35 +0000

Geeze what a prima donna!(in the negative sense). From other things I’ve heard about him I’m not surprised. Sounds like something Karajan would pull. Then again, it does conjure up the Golden Age, when opera was full of Eccentrics.

By: javier

javier — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:34:36 +0000

I think I read on this blog that Riccardo Muti is conducting he will not allow a live radio broadcast or HD transmission. Those seem like very strange demands to me. I think the simplest solution would be a get a different guy to stand in front of the orchestra and make spastic gestures with his hands. They’re all replaceable.

By: Noel Dahling

Noel Dahling — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:08:24 +0000

Anyone know why March 6 is TBA? Atilla is scheduled for that day. Are they afraid to broadcast it?

By: Countess Guess-wit

Countess Guess-wit — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:32:28 +0000

I like the new way. A couple of times already this season, I’ve listened to the beginning of the broadcast driving home from work, then caught up with the comments as I listened to the rest at home.

Though the sub-comment thing and my laziness combined mean I really only get the comments that appear at the bottom of the page after I refresh…

By: Doberdawg

Doberdawg — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:54:47 +0000

Instant chat. Comment-based discussion on a live opera performance is odd and lethargic in response time.

By: bassoprofundo

bassoprofundo — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:02:10 +0000

I vote for the old way. The current way is more of a forum and less of a “chat” in the real definition of the word. Or better yet, why not just post a link to a chat room like there used to be, and those who wish to comment here can do so without entering the room? The real chat way is more fluid, allows for more conversation without having to hit refresh all the time. Let’s go back to it.

By: Sanford

Sanford — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:45:29 +0000

I still miss the days when we got email notifications of all posts. And I miss the live chats. I could barely keep up with all of the comments, they were so fast, but it seemed a lot more spontaneous.

By: rapt

rapt — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:26:50 +0000

I agree with rysanekfreak on both counts–and am, myself, not a fan of the sub-thread responding (or whatever is its true technical name), which makes it more difficult for me to find new comments.

By: Feldmarschallin

Feldmarschallin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:18:59 +0000

I vote for the older version. That was a real chat. This now you have to refresh to see the latest comments and at that point we are already somewhere else in the music.

By: enzo

enzo — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:48:40 +0000

I vote for comments. The other is chaotic and you’re at a disadvantage if you don’t type well.

By: flamingopera

flamingopera — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:40:18 +0000

I vote for the comment-based chat

By: squirrel

squirrel — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:33:45 +0000

Chat method. Cieca bellissimi, can you just advise participants not to do lots of direct reply messages unless they don’t care whether the rest of the group ever sees them, perhaps?

By: Zerbinetta

Zerbinetta — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:14:15 +0000

What’s with the 3/6 TBA? No broadcast for “Attila”?

I like the comments chat method. It’s easier to jump in.

By: Maury

Maury — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:47:07 +0000

“so a late-comer can start at the beginning and see how people are denouncing the entire performance based on the orchestral opening.”–>lulz

By: sfmike

sfmike — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:43:23 +0000

I don’t IM, so here’s another vote for chat, with or without the threads.

By: kashania

kashania — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:25:06 +0000

I prefer the comment version of the chat. The “real-time” chat format has two problems. One is that there is a lot more casual dissing. There are always a few people who dominate the chat by skewering every note that comes out fo the singers’ throats. I don’t mind negative comments but I don’t like it when a few people hijack a chat and trash everything. It’s just unpleasant.

The second problem with the live chat format is that it can’t be kept for prosperity. When I miss a chat, I like to catch up on the comments to get an idea how the performance went.

But I agree with Lindoro that the new threaded comments format doesn’t work as well for the chats. I don’t know if there’s a way to turn it off and on…

By: javier

javier — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:20:29 +0000

2nd. The advantages to comment-based chat outweigh disadvantage of refreshing.

By: rysanekfreak

rysanekfreak — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:19:48 +0000

I prefer the current way, where everything is archived, so a late-comer can start at the beginning and see how people are denouncing the entire performance based on the orchestral opening.

But I agree that the function for replying to a specific comment should be turned off because if there are 200 comments, it is difficult to overlook the ones you’ve already read (during the first intermission) while searching for those inevitable gleams of gold that will be hidden therein.

By: CruzSF

CruzSF — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:10:31 +0000

I prefer the commenting version of “chat.” I think the ability to archive the discussion outweighs the inconvenience of having to refresh the screen.

By: pavel

pavel — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:09:08 +0000

I vote for the comment-based format.

I see they have TBA on March 6, when Attila is playing in the house. Did we ever definitively determine why there are no broadcasts of that particular production this season?

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:08:45 +0000

I say let’s have both. Some people like the instant Messaging, some the comments. The only draw back I see with leaving a comment is the fact that the new comment threats could get extremely confusing. I would suggest that it is turned off for the chats. It is really helpful when you are reading a threat that is on going, but for a chat that happens in real time the task could get pretty impossible if you are still on comment 15.2.1.1 and there are still another 25 comments and we are still on Act 1 scene 1.

Just my thoughts.