FTHOTD was for me, somewhat over-rated, though Peter Mattei was riveting. This season at The Met, Mattei is doing Yeletsky (OK) and Marcello (a waste). Why the hell can’t the The Met schedule Billy Budd with Mattei, instead of that Gunn guy?

That may well be the best-spent $8 ever.

I’m surprised if the rumour is true because I was under the impression that if there was one thing the GelbHaus was doing well was its marketing. But I guess the prettiest posters and buzziest opening nights mean bugger-all if you’re not actually selling any tickets.

Maybe the visible outputs of the department were okay, but all the internal research and strategy was a bomb.

“The bus/subway campaign has made them more visible than any time I can recall; some marketing strategy I couldn’t name has packed the house for off-rep operas (Nose, House of Dead) by pulling in what I think one used to call a downtown crowd.”

That’s not marketing; that’s called “papering”.

BTW, Master McGoo: If Gelb started student discounts, how did I manage to get a same-day fourth row Orchestra seat for $8 for a Gwyneth Jones/Jess Thomas/Judith Blegen/John Macurdy FIDELIO when I was in high school decades ago?

Metropolitan Opera House
November 29, 1964
Benefit for the Welfare and Pension Funds

GALA PERFORMANCE

Der Rosenkavalier: Act I

Octavian…………………Lisa Della Casa
Princess von Werdenberg……Elisabeth Schwarzkopf
Baron Ochs……………….Otto Edelmann
Italian Singer……………Barry Morell

Conductor………………..Thomas Schippers

La Boheme: Act I

Mimi…………………….Renata Tebaldi
Rodolfo………………….Carlo Bergonzi
Marcello…………………Calvin Marsh
Schaunard………………..Clifford Harvuot
Colline………………….Cesare Siepi
Benoit…………………..Fernando Corena

Conductor………………..George Schick

La Traviata: Act I

Violetta…………………Joan Sutherland
Alfredo………………….John Alexander
Flora……………………Marcia Baldwin

http://tinyurl.com/yznppet

Conductor………………..George Schick

I understand that the cash cows are necessary, and I can’t believe how old the Zeff boheme is (I saw it in the first run, and several times thereafter). It may continue to sell primarily because of the production itself–and it’s not the toughest opera in the repertory to cast, either. What I can’t see supporting are the vanity projects that involve huge expense of money for productions that are very hard to cast and that won’t sell many tickets over a ten-year period. The Met is not alone; but if it’s nearly impossible to cast a truly satisfatory Ring, the emphasis for at least a generation now has been to distract the audience with regie tricks and titilations and self-indulgent crap. If it’s true that the LA Ring cost $32 million, how can that be made up? How many productions of Trovatore did the Met produce in the last 30 years? That opera is almost entirely dependent upon great Verdi singing–and that’s a case where I don’t believe (as an example) one has to spend outrageous money on productions to present great singing–IF it’s even available.

Do they really need to mess with Carmen if a decent production can sell because of exciting casting? What gets up my nose is the repellant pretense that our society can only survive as a viable culture if we all support productions that are clearly meant to distract from indifferent singing. I guess I can’t understand why the audience has to accept extreme reaches of imagination and “cleverness” where a truly innovative director might be able to present the fresh, updated interpretation of well-worn characters and situations in a thoughtful way. In my view, I had a much better experience listening to Colin Davis and the NYPO in a concert version of “Beatrice et Benedict” many years ago, and also when he brought the LSO for “Peter Grimes.” If the Grimes himself wasn’t having the greatest afternoon, I found that concert more probing and moving, because of its music-making, than I believe I’d have found the new production. And, no, I didn’t see it–after our Doyenne presented a few pictures of it I decided against it. There are good DVDs out there–and perhaps productions that may be better sung, too.

I was around in the last years of the Met’s hanging on to that dreadful Troyens from the 70s, and the rather shabby FRoSCH. I also understand that the 1958 Butterfly probably had to go when it reached middle age. But, as they say “you pays your money and you takes your choice,” I’m a lot happier with a production that’s a little more adaptable to a several-year run than the noble experiments that just leave a fella scratching his head, and then having to open up the checkbook to replace yet another version.

And, yes, if I were the Met, I’d be on a damned austerity diet by now. Big time. They have compensation and operating expenses they cannot control: they are in a position to control the outlays for a whole slew of new productions they may only have to replace later if they go too far over the edge with ‘creativity.’ I would imagine they’d get some respect, too, from the people from whom they’re actually raising the money…

What do you think this is? 1956?

The marketing department at the MET wouldn’t know a WASP if it stung them.

This is one of the most ridiculous posts on this topic ever.

CALM DOWN,DEAR….

..I ain’t a snob at all…I just found it amusing what the internet “guardians” find worthy of banning…THAT’S ALL….

Look..I was born in Canarsie… and so I surely don’t lord over JNew Joisey…I lived in Jersey City before it was ..”oh -so- chic”..btw…

I don;t get a sense of what the austerity regime you prescribe for the Met would look like. Is it simply a case of more austere productions (cf the John Dexter years)? Less new productions of operas already in the repertoire? Less operas new to the Met repertoire? Less performances altogether? Do tell.

Did you get a visa before you got on the PATH?

OH, and complaining about something you were getting for free, SO Brooklyn-like!!!!!

I do think that an element of publicity and marketing can assist to sell tickets to operas other than boheme and Aida, and the younger generation is the most insular and isolated thus far. In college dorms now, one doesn’t even hear the neighbor’s stereo anymore because it’s all plugged in on iPods. It’s a very specific challenge to expand the Met’s audience from its previous demographic. But it’s worth the struggle to expand the focus of the publicity campaigns. It is, in my opnion, a very foolhardy thing to think that marketing and getting asses in the seat actually builds a sustaining audience that will grow into a generous donor base. (And speaking of which, until the Congress gets off its own asses and determines what the estate tax situation is going to be, and what next year’s tax rates are going to be, the more well-heeled donor base simply can’t do any planning to know what they can and cannot donate relative to tax consequence and simple cash flow calculations.)

That said, I still hold that the wild and narcissistic expenses of the Met which, unlike the Regie Capitals of the World, is not State-subsidized, have to bear some resemblance to the fiscal realities. We cannot sniff about new productions needing to cost millions simply because we believe opera is ‘good for you’ and is so culturally irreplaceable. In my view, the Met continues to indulge its artistic management, as it has for the last generation, and the money simply isn’t there to support it. I understand completely why I’m in the deep minority about this, but I just don’t see where spending the “seed corn” of the endowment (capital/principal, not income) is a gamble that could possibly pay off.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0593431a-9999-11df-a852-00144feab49a.html

anyway – for all those who liked Die Passagierin.

Young Associates is a membership program, sort of a “Patron program apprentice system,” and all membership in arts orgs is considered part of “development,” which is considered fundraising. And Public Relations is not primarily a marketing issue either, especially in an organization as feudalized as the Met is. One of Gelb’s first objectives was ending what he referred to as “feudalization” at the Met, but that objective seems to have been swallowed up by the jealous turf protection of the divisions within the organization. Perhaps the current reorganization in marketing is a new salvo in the anti-feudal effort, perhaps not.

I just got an iTouch and am having lots of fun with some of the apps. Do we have people here with enough experience to develop an app? Wouldn’t that be fun?

I would strongly disagree with this scifisci. I’m 16 years old and what probably got me interested in opera was through how accessible it became. I realized that it cost less for me to go see an opera with things like their student rush than a Broadway show. This past season alone, I saw fourteen operas at the Met, more than I had ever seen before at the Met. For most of the operas, I was able to see them for $30 or less (even a few for free), all through programs Gelb instituted.

While the Young Associates program does seem to be a little pricey, over $300 is tax deductible, not to mention (i believe that I’m correct) that they set up an open bar for each of their events. If you add it all together, the person is getting invitations to two free dress rehearsals, which are almost as good as live performances, and five opportunities at an open bar for $190. It does not seem to be that bad a deal.

As I was killing some time in front of Hoboken(NJ) City Hall…and borrowing their free wi-fi feed….:
—————————–

Access Denied
The website you are trying to access has been blocked by the Barracuda Web Filter because it is in the Tasteless & Offensive category.

If you believe this is an error or need to access this link please contact your administrator.
URL: http://parterre.com
Expired 85 hours ago
Login
Username:
Password:
————————————-

That’s rich…HOBOKEN … calling something “tasteless and offensive…”…lol

Congrats, La C…!!