Tall tales
Which Brit of medium height has been added to the short list for a prestigious post that (paradoxically) would represent a homecoming?
And speaking of height, which pocket-sized soprano had a towering cover tenor replaced? Not sure what drove her crazy: his six feet or his five inches!
Harry, the point that you will forever miss is that “great comedy” usually is all about the audience and holding mirror up to them so that they can see the humour of their own lives and situations etc- it is NOT about the person delivering it.
The fact that you don’t see anything funny in much at all is just testament to your own rather sad life- and your constant, angry, vitriolic posts stand as evidence of that.
Just be assured I’m delighted to have a possum suit- it brings me much joy and I wear it with pride. If only you could have one too, makes me think you would be a much happpier individual.
The rest of what you say is just piffle/ravings so I won’t thrust significance on it by commmenting.
Harry, my goodness! I’ve just been reading back over your postings vs. the suave Ruxton, and I don’t know why you get so tangled up in the undershorts department!
In simple terms, why is it any skin off your nose if those denizens of society mis-
behave as you describe IF they in the end deliver the goods to the Opera company, or the Museum or whatever non-profit institution is to benefit? I know all the corruption and waste you are talking about (you are not the only one who has been about a bit), but so what? Universities do it too, and God knows so do political parties. Dare I say it: all of human kind has such frailties. And, Harry, maybe you do too! I’ll just stop at that, but give us some air and give it to Ruxton too. Actually, both you fellows are right, make good points. Ruxton, at least, seems to have his marbles in order.
Now, let’s move on to something that REALLY counts: leadership of the Met, the Chicago Lyric and the SFO — someone who has the balls and the bells and the bucks and the public energy to go out and raise five hundred million dollars and build an 1800-seat opera house for each of those over-sized companies so they can perform Bellini, Donizetti, Mozart, Von Weber, et al the way they should be performed. The Met/Gelb’s big problem is they are huffing and puffing and giving oxygen to a dying whale — ditto Bill Mason in Chicago and David in San Francisco. None of those giant opera barns with hard marble floors and anti-
acoustical rooms was really built for the human voice; all the academic musicians know this and talk about it all the time; orchestra members know it, even some of US know it, but I do not see anyone doing anything about it. Let your humors and tempers and imaginations run wild over this and see what you come up with!
Of all places, Kansas City will next mid-winter open a new opera house of 1800 seats, and a new symphony hall of similar size; in the manner of Kennedy center they will be under one roof and share common public space, and they will be on 12th street pretty near old downtown — and how very inspired they are to do that! I don’t know if it will work; the KC music scene is rather dull and it will have to sharpen up before full advantage of these new venues will be measured and realized — but WHAT a glorious thing for old mid-west “uncultured” KC to do!! And — get this — it is very largely (over 90%) being done with private money, donations from the private sector. And it is happening because of the effort of just a few right-minded people who care about musical culture and want the city to have a fine place to develop and enjoy it. I will now draw the obvious conclusion: If a Missouri city of one million people can do that, how come SFO (five million) and Chicago (about the same) and NYC (eight to ten million) are not doing it? There is no good answer to that question aside from – leadership. Don’t talk to me about the Met board and Gelb and so on being “great benefactors.” They are great embalmers, preserving the ultra-expensive status quo. And that never does anybody any good, esp. in the arts.
And thus endeth the lesson for today.
Dear mrmystser – it was a ripper sermon and I thank you sincerely for your kind words although I have to be honest, I know I haven’t always been entirely innocent. There have been many times when I’ve taken a perverse delight in “prodding the dragon”.
This time however, when he dissed one of my idols I just couldn’t restrain myself – so at least this time I can bask in the excuse of some justification
Ruxton I do not need any standards of what you regard as ‘great comedy’ shown to me. Many a night I have sat and watched live comedians at work with their routines, good bad or just so plainly embarrassingly pathetic; even to witnessing post-performance. Some tragic comics seen, even going so far as apologizing ‘out front of house’ to the departing paying patrons ‘for a bad night’! So if someone is rather detached, by finding the study of audience reaction more interesting: they are deemed miserable, in your book, one must conclude! Analyzing how, why, and by how much the audience was manipulated to laugh(or not laugh!), in the first place.
What a dull world you inhabit. I will let you now get on with your airs and graces of simplistic fluffy -slippered disdain, when you find yourself faced with views, that challenge the art behind the ‘.arts’.
Mrmyster–you’re right about those “giant opera barns”. They’re too big, really, for anything theatrical. So what’s to be done with them–blow them up?
Ruxton: I have noticed you have always shown a propensity for being so quick and knee-jerk off the mark, for sucking up with gussy platitudes to others. Whenever of course, you think / feel/ project you have just found yourself a ‘sugar daddy’ defender to support you.
Now that, I find hilariously funny! As I said previously, ‘audience reaction’ is always more interesting to watch.
Indiana Loiterer: don’t blow up those houses! But maybe re-purpose them by shrinking the number of seats and maybe using the top tier of seats to create a smaller theater (like at the Kennedy Center) for smaller prods. People here complain that the Met is too small for new chamber works and Baroque opera. But wouldn’t a 750 seat theater be perfect for these types of operas (Admittedly, this would be easier to do SF’s War Memorial Opera House than at the Met, judging from photos of the Met’s horseshoe layout). And think of the small-voiced singers you could engage instead of suffering them in the big house!
mrmyster@82: that wasn’t so much a lesson as a polemic. I wish that SFO’s War Memorial Opera House didn’t have 3200 (or so) seats. But it does and is so old now as to be historic. I would hate to see it torn down to make way for a smaller place. Maybe the top tier of seats can be reconfigured into a second, smaller performance space.
The house was sold out or nearly sold out for all the performances I attended last fall, so I don’t know how critical it is to rebuild a new, smaller building, unless, of course, you want to drive up cachet by further restricting availability of seats.
And think of the small-voiced singers you could engage instead of suffering them in the big house!
Oh, hearing small-voiced singers at the Met as is, at least, isn’t the problem; the Met’s acoustics are remarkably kind to small well-focused voices, at least up in Family Circle where I usually sit. It’s seeing what’s on stage that’s the problem with those great opera barns.
IL III: You’re lucky to have such great hearing. There are many commenters here who regularly rail against small-voiced singers at the Met, though.