parterre box

24 comments

• RudigerVT says:

  Easy: Joe Volpe — clue being the apparent colloquial saying in Italian “ha fatto come la volpe con l’uva, è stata solo invidia da parte sua,” meaning “it was sour grapes on his part.”

  LPR

  on February 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM
• Zerbinetta says:

  “Fair and balanced” is the slogan of Fox “News,” Fox = Volpe.

  on February 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM
• Lalala says:

  I would imagine these will be tough negotiations, indeed! I know that the musicians and singers would finally like to see a decent cut of the proceeds from all the Met’s media distribution over the past few years. They have not received near the renumeration as one might expect.

  on February 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM
  • Alto says:

    “Musicians and singers”? Next thing you know we’ll be talking about “men and tenors.”

    on February 4, 2010 at 11:27 AM
    • Cassandra says:

      Ha!

      on February 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM
    • Noel Dahling says:

      Or “gays and Parterre Box readers.”

      on February 4, 2010 at 12:41 PM
  • kashania says:

    What do you mean by “media distribution”? If you’re talking about the HD broadcasts, I think those just break even and are done primarly as an outreach and PR effort, not to turn a profit. Without concessions from the musicians, the broadcasts would not be doable. I don’t know the economics of the DVD sales but again, I don’t image the Met turning in a hefty profit in that area either.

    on February 4, 2010 at 11:49 AM
    • Harry says:

      Perhaps it is another case of what is usually known as the ‘money churn’ or ‘creative- depreciation accounting’. Where anyone would need a team of lawyers & accountants to find out where all the receipts from HD presentations, DVD sales and broadcasting rights even to overseas cable TV and radio networks have been placed or…’secreted’.

      on February 4, 2010 at 12:26 PM
      • kashania says:

        I think your conspiracy theory musings are way off here. Most arts organizations I know keep pretty straightforward accounting and do a self-imposed audit every year.

        on February 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM
  • Cassandra says:

    Although a look into whatever monies may have come from the HD broadcasts would be interesting to see, no one actually thinks that any money has been made. The broadcasts are not made in a vacuum. An entirely different crew of technical people outside the scope of those working on stage at the Met have to be paid in order to make them happen. There aren’t any artists or musicians who think there are “proceeds” to be distributed. The movies function as a way for a broader audience who live outside of NY to be part of the preeminent opera house in the United States. It functions as PR in hopes to get people to come to the real theater. The real question is not whether money is being made, but if it is a valuable and valid way of reaching out to new audiences. I think the answer to that is very mixed and has yet to be determined. What is experienced in the house is usually not experienced over microphone and camera, and vice versa.

    I’m not sure you quite understand how much money the Met pays out in a year, and how much they actually have available to them. It’s a nonprofit business, and they don’t make any money on ticket sales and haven’t in over fifty years. They barely balance the books, and are generally in the red. It’s a small to medium sized corporation that doesn’t make money, as are most higher art institutions. It functions as a museum.

    on February 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM
• Harry says:

  I appreciate Cassamndra what you are saying.
  At the same time ,granted the ‘model’ of what the MET atually is, there lies the situation for vague-ness to creep in, about such ‘non-proft’ type businesses.

  I.E: Even if they made money out of ‘media distribution’, who really decides whether to ‘share the immediate profits around’ to the particiapants (the various artists and musicians who performed) who made it possible ? OR Who decides….to deprive those logical recipiants…to enable for future ‘seed money’ towrds the ‘greater good & future’ of the MET itelf. Does it also constitute ‘free publicity’ to promote an artist’s operatic career at other venues, at a later time as a result?

  Should artists be expected as part of their contracts to give ‘free promotional work’ to help the MET? Did they. or do they sign contracts with such a possible clear understanding, already in place? If so does that amount to a form of cohestive negotiation in a work place situation? Questions..and more questions that I do not think will be made public. It just looks messy, when those union negotiatons really start?

  One thing is sure to be; The video / sound technicans and recording engineers brought in to record those HD transmissions……I am sure they got paid ‘up front’ to start with.

  on February 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM
  • iltenoredigrazia says:

    There are some real issues here. The Met may be breaking even now with the HD’s but how about long-term royalties? They will most likely be shown in theatres, TV’s and through dvd’s for a long time to come.

    How does one deal with the risk of a singer having an off day to be seen by the entire world and then that affecting future engagements?

    It seems fair to me that everyone involved in the HD’s and Sirius broadcasts should share whatever royalties there are.

    on February 4, 2010 at 1:33 PM
  • Cassandra says:

    I’m generally not one to take sides with corporatism, but I think what you are discussing here is only relevant to an entity that makes much more money. We’re not talking “Avatar” dollars being made here. This would obviously be a serious question if, say, two billion dollars were being made on a couple of productions every few months. The Met hasn’t made this kind of money ever, although it was at one point a profit making enterprise. The actors and creators of something like “Avatar” obviously sign a contract in which they receive monies for use of their images in promotional materials, ads, toys, etc. The Met just doesn’t make that kind of bank. We’re talking about a performing arts company that runs at its very margins, if not over. Promotional materials consist of thirty second ads in local movie theaters where five second clips of each opera are used. DVD sales are in the low thousands, IF they’re lucky. We’re not talking about millions, or even tens of thousands of units moving.

    Singers are well aware of this fact. The current contract addressed this situation fairly clearly at the outset of the HD transmissions, and no one is feeling duped. It was decided at the time that there would be a reevaluation once clearer numbers came in. Now if, of course, it is revealed that millions of DVDs are selling and the profit from the HD transmissions is in the multiple of millions of dollars, artists and AGMA will obviously step in to make claims on those profits, but that’s simply not the case.

    The sticking point for any negotiating coming up at the Met is going to have little or nothing to do with the HD transmissions, radio broadcasts, and DVD recordings, and much more to do with the large amounts of money spent on pensions, retirement, health care, and salary justification. I’m going to take the not so wide logical leap that if the board is bringing in Volpe for union meetings, the books must not be looking good. The Met endowment took just as big a hit as everyone else in the recession, and I doubt minor bumps in basically flat ticket sales, donations, and minimal government funding are helping that much.

    on February 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM
  • quoth the maven says:

    I think the artists sign their contracts with a pretty clear understanding of what they’re in for–HD bcasts, Sirius and terrestrial bcasts, DVDs. To take a negative example, one prominent artist making a Met debut this season refused to sign away these rights, at least without further recompense. As a result, this artist will neither be heard on Sirius nor seen in HD–in fact, it was only at the eleventh hour that an agreement was reached for the radio bcast. (If you look at older schedules for the Saturday afternoon broadcasts, you’ll see that the opera in question isn’t listed.)

    Considering that in this case these rights were a bargaining point, I would assume that they’re contractually spelled out.

    on February 4, 2010 at 2:04 PM
    • CruzSF says:

      Hmm, so our suspicions were correct about the holdup on that opera. But which artist? Do you know? If yes, can you say?

      on February 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM
      • quoth the maven says:

        Cruz–I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots. Shouldn’t be terribly difficult.

        on February 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM
      • CruzSF says:

        Fair enough.

        on February 4, 2010 at 2:27 PM
      • sterlingkay says:

        Maestro Muti??

        on February 4, 2010 at 2:28 PM
    • kashania says:

      I agree. All of the implications of broadcasts and DVDs are spelled out in the contracts. I bet there’s even a clause stipulating profit-sharing should there be a profit above a certain amount.

      on February 4, 2010 at 2:38 PM
      • kashania says:

        It must be Muti.

        on February 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM
      • Cassandra says:

        There is.

        on February 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM
• Harry says:

  kashania : It may very well be, and hope everything works out and ‘is totally above board’.for what is a respected organisation. Some of us may have in the past , been associated – tangled – or worked with some so called ‘non profit Foundations or Trusts etc.’, that helped form and shape opinions we may hold. Having dug a little deeper in some cases….. started to happen to find various situations, that were not ‘ exactly Kosker’ in anyone’s eyes.

  on February 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM
• Harry says:

  Sorry, excuse the tiredness; I should have written Kosher not ‘kosker’

  on February 4, 2010 at 1:15 PM
• Constantine A. Papas says:

  Muti is one-man conglomerate. He doesn’t even have an agent; so they say.

  on February 4, 2010 at 2:46 PM