Funny valentine
This just in from the Met press office: “Andrea Bocelli will make his solo recital debut at the Metropolitan Opera House on Sunday, February 13, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. The performance will feature the celebrated Italian tenor singing a program of arias by Handel, and lieder and art songs by Beethoven, Wagner, Liszt, Richard Strauss, Fauré, and Tosti. Bocelli will be accompanied by pianist Vincenzo Scalera.”
Thanks to Nerva Nelli for reminding me to include the complete scheduled program:
Handel
“La speme ti consoli” from Partenope
“Care selve” from Atalanta
“Frondi tenere. . . Ombra mai fu” from Serse
“Let the Bright Seraphim” from Samson
Beethoven
Dimmi, ben mio, che m’ami, Op. 82, No. 1
L’amante impaziente (Arietta buffa), Op. 82, No. 4
Beato quei che fido amor, Op. 88
Ich liebe dich, WoO 123
Wagner: Der Engel (Wesendonk Lieder #1)
Liszt: O, quand je dors
R. Strauss: Zueignung
Fauré
Mai
Chanson d’amour
Après un rêve
La lune blanche
Le secret
Mandoline
Tosti
Serenata
A ‘vucchella
L’ultima canzone
L’alba separa dalla luce l’ombra
I like one comment from opera_l. It said that the audiece will be composed of Bridge and Tunnel fans. lol
Let’s be perfectly clear on this. (1) The Metropolitan Opera has contracted with Bocelli for his “Debut Recital” with important classics on the program. (2) This is not his traditional crossover stuff and it is not a benefit for the opera: i. e. he will be paid first his enormous fee and get the bulk of the receipts. (3) The hall is not being rented by a producer and the performance has the sponsorship and imprimatur of the Metropolitan Opera and (4) the Metropolitan Opera will lose money if the performance does not sell well.
I understand that Sting is currently expecting to continue the series with his take on opera and, before the end of the season, Dolly Parton will do a program, “Arias my Grandmother Sang.”
Hope you are all happy with this total debasement of the art form. He’s singing Purcell, FKS!
Considering that we’re not privy to the actual contract, I don’t think that #2 or #3 above can be verified at this time. I’m sure he is getting a fee, but we have no idea how the receipts are being split. I’m sure he’s gaining benefit by having the Met’s name on this, and that’s worth something financially to him, which may well reduce the funds he takes out of the endeavor.
Meanwhile, if he can sell out Madison Square Garden for several performances, I think the chances of it not filling the Met are slim-and-none…4,000 seats?
Also, let us give credit to the Met management that they’re not stupid enough to pay him so much that his fee exceeds the take on seats…most companies are smart enough to budget “break-even” or profit levels at less than “sold out.” I’m sure we can count on those who do this for a living at one of the major halls to make sure it is not a money-loser going into it. After all, what possesses you to believe you understand how to run a company and make money doing so more than those who are currently doing it for a living at the Met?
As to #1 – if Barbara Cook can do it (and I LOVE her), so can Bocelli. It doesn’t mean I’ll attend (I won’t), but I won’t feel “soiled” by it either.
As to “debasement” and “Purcell,” I can only say that I’ve heard rotten people presented in “fully staged operas” at the Met, also. And it has survived….it will again!
Heavens, but the “purity of the art form” police are out in full-regalia today!
Take a breath, and don’t get your knickers in a twist!
As I was at that Barbara Cook concert. FABULOUS! But then again I am huge fan of hers. The only bad thing about having to deal with a non-Met crowd was when the concert was over it took FOREVER to get out of the Met. Say what you will about the geriatric Met goer; but even with walkers, oxygen tanks and all, the house clears out within 10 to 15 minutes minutes after an opera!
Figaroindy: I agree. If the Met was not going to get any of the money from ticket sales (or relatively little), there is simply no reason for them to do it other than some sort of a vague attempt at audience development. I certainly believe in cultivating new audience members (otherwise the art form will surely die), but programming things like this purely for the sake of development (and not finances) are a shot in the dark at best. Since he is not, and never will or could be, a mainstream operatic artist (even if he is occasionally presented in some lame production here and there tailored for his disability), there isn’t much reason for them to present him in recital or any other format.
So Francis: Why would they bother unless they think they are going to get a substantial financial gain from it? So that their marketing dept. can say that Bocelli sang there? Too much trouble for little gain.
Let’s say they sell all 4000 seats at gala prices ($1000 each). That’s 4 million total. If they gave him a 1 million dollar fee, plus the bulk of the remainder as a percentage of some sort, they would still do well, but it seems unreasonable to spend 2-3 million on the artist to only get 1-1.5 million for the company. Since it is unlikely that they can sell all 4000 tickets at that price (standing room in particular won’t pay that), what gives?
I wonder, however, what his fee really is? One million dollars seems unreasonably high for him. He just doesn’t sing well enough or communicate well enough in any way to make him worth it.
Why do people seem to think that he can’t sell out a 4000 seat house? I used to work as concierge in NYC and his tickets are a HOT commodity. They can easily sell orchestra premium seats for $1000 and up. The man sells out houses (still) all over the world that are 10 or 20 times larger than the Met.
Maybe since I am on the business side of this whole crazy Arts industry I am always focused on the bottom line. It’s not like they are bringing in somebody that has nothing to do with opera or classical music. They are presenting a performer in a serious recital. Is he going to be miked? Will Celine Dionne make a guest appearance? Who knows? BUT it is a great marketing tool and will raise the profile of the Met with people who consider the place too snooty or whatever. Of all of the “popera” performers out there; he is the best. And just when did it become a crime to make a buck or two? I used to work with a guy who has never stepped foot into the Met, but he and his wife LOVE Bocelli and I am sure that he has purchased his ticket already. maybe they will decide to return to see one of the warhorses. It’s all win-win. We can bring out the knives after JJ’s review
Totally agree with you NYCOQ – but I think it IS because we understand the business side of the matter. (go Arts Administration!)
I think it will sell well (probably out) and make money….and I’m sure the Met will get a cut. I doubt their expenses will eat all of that money, so it’s a net gain for them….end of story.
NYCQ
You are DEAD wrong!!!!!
Yes, on the one hand, it’s pretty easy to argue that the MET is just trying to stay afloat during tough economic times. Also, there is much precedent for this type circusy bullshit.
But the truth is we are destroying our values for bucks. We have done that for the last 30 years in this country, rationalizing everything on the altar of Mammon.
And look what it has done to us. The country doesn’t even know up from down anymore. It’s like our entire value system has been destroyed by the relentless materialism (hello, De Tocqueville!) and we don’t even know it (or at least too many don’t)
This think with Bocelli falls into the same category.
This man is not here to sing his popera tunes. He is using his financial clout to make him seem something he is MOST emphatically NOT – an operatic tenor worthy of appearing onstage at the MET. So all you need to be a great tenor is a greedy record company. Guillotines all around.
Sure WE all know better. Sure the world will go on. But the edifice of the country crumbles just a bit more.
I don’t disagree with you, in general, but if you can reference De Tocqueville, then we’ve been “destroying our values for bucks” for much longer than the last 30 years.
Cruz:
True enough but never before have we had an oppressive 24/7 media contributing to that destruction. Nor are any of the traditional counterbalances to the trends identified by the Seer (De Tocqueville) available to us any longer. Religion has been completely coopted. Public education has failed us.
And most importantly (at least for present purposes) we know longer respect the values that normally counterbalance the trend.
What values? How about actual substantive merit! How about “Netrebko is a wonderful singer and a real star, but she is not much better than your average conservatory student in the bel canto roles she has been polluting lately.” [And yes, her singing of Lucia and Elvira have been no better than that of a good Juilliard student.)
Instead, we get “hey she packs the house, you silly canary fancier, what else matters?”
What else indeed!
BTW, sorry for the incoherent ranting. I just can’t stand coherent ranting. So there!
I am still wondering whether or not this is going to be broadcast in cinemas or some other way that raises the financial stakes considerably, particularly for the Met. Does anyone have any insight to offer? La Cieca? Hmmmmm?
It just seems such an obvious thing to do. And then they could REALLY rake in the cash, right NYCOQ?
jatm2063: I sdidn’t even take into account the broadcasts in cinemas. The Met would not be doing this unless there was the potential to make some serious money. Maybe this is the future of opera companies? Bringing in cash cows. And despite all of the hue and cry the other opera companies around the world are just waiting to see if this is a success and Mr. Bocelli may get the “legimate” career he so desires as a recitalist.
Despite being well into 3 decades of opera I have never listended to or attended the BBC Proms. Isn’t that some sort of mish-mash of high and low that they do every year? What I mean is – don’t they present a few artist from different genres in their programs as well?
For those fearing Sarah Brightmon hanging from the rafters on 12-guage wires; I doubt that the Met can afford to go in that direction. I saw a video her waaay back when and a procution of that sort would be cost prohibitive. Those productions are insanely expensive and between her salary and the built-in union salaries at the Met they surely wouldn’t make any money. A “simple” recital with Bocelli and pianist just sounds like fiscal brilliance to me.
The opera going experience changing and evolving. If we want this Art form to survive (in wahatever permutation that may be) we have to be willing to admit that things have to change. Hell I remember never going to ANYTHING without a suit-and-tie growing up an well into my 20s, but I have even popped on a pair of jeans and a blazer wearing no tie to attend performances at the Met. Did the walls of the Met come tumbling down? Ummmm…no. I certainly think that the Met can survive Bocelli on stage.
Wow. There were a lot of typos in that last post. Sorry.
Score: Art – Zero, Mammon, 100! Last month I sat in the audience for a master class on voice. How hard the kids worked on the perfect magic to illuminate the musical voice of the composer. Clearly they are wasting their time if the comments here are any indication of what the audience is thinking.
Sting and Dolly are only a foretaste. The best way for the Met to make millions is to rent their stage for a destruction derby.
You can’t argue with some people….case in point.
Fine, Francis, you can be put out, but don’t expect us all to join you in your grief.
My dear friend figaroindy… If you think I am the lone grouch is this general celebration of the rain of cash, there are others who might have problems with this. Here, for example is someone you might have heard of being interviewed a while ago in the Montreal Gazette:
“Shicoff also declines to name an Italian pop singer widely promoted as an operatic artist and the effect his success has had on public taste. (To fill in the blanks: Andrea Bocelli.)
“That’s a mistake for me,” he says, alluding not only to Bocelli but the wider pseudo-tenor phenomenon. “In the long run, if voices are not really classically trained and don’t really have a sound that is suited to this profession, it’s kind of like a substitute sugar.
“You’ll eventually wind up having microphones in the theatre. Singers won’t learn the art of projection, they won’t be able to use their resonance to move the voice over the orchestra.”
Not that the contemporary tenor scene is all bad. Shicoff mentions Jonas Kaufmann as a young tenor of distinction. “The profession needs singing actors like him, the package.” Piotr Beczala is another winner. “He has very sound technique.” (end quote.)
Just today we learn that Tim Matagan, the critic of the Orange County Register, has been reassigned to cover “popular personalities” rather than cover classical music in Southern California. I suppose you are all comfortable with this too.
Hmmm, so an operatic tenor is jealous of the greater money and popularity accorded to a “popera tenor?” I’m stunned!
Presuming I have identified “Shicoff” correctly – we’re talking about a tenor who suffered vocal troubles early in his career – amusing he should be so adamant about poor training and voices that won’t hold up (not to mention, per Wikipedia, an onstage nervous breakdown during Werther).
It sounds like a lot of sour grapes. And jealousy that there’s no “Shicoff concert” at the Met.
Meanwhile, let me clarify that I in no way disagree that projection is becoming a lost art…but let’s be fair, it’s been several years since Ms. Battle was first miked at the Met! He’s behind the times in that complaint.
I’m not even a Bocelli fan…but it’s hardly the end of art as we know it. It’s certainly a broad enough category to admit all sorts of players.
And, I’m sorry if I’m not properly horrified that the “critic of the Orange County Register” has been reassigned….but I’m not in Southern California. I hesitate to say this, but the “Orange County Register” is not exactly the L.A. Times, or the Chicago Tribune, or the New York Times….etc. I also rarely base my opinions on those of “critics.” So, it doesn’t really break my heart if the paper covers it or not….our paper in Indianapolis has been notoriously thin in arts coverage for years. I still attend what I want to attend and make my own decisions.
Still not able to work up any outrage over this….sorry!
A-freakin-men!!!!!
You have hit the mark squarely, Francis. The poison here is insidious. It’s starts from a relatively benign proposition – singers and musicians gotta eat – and morphs and grows into a catastrophe. Most opera audiences are pretty unsophisticated about the art-form. They may like the music. They may enjoy the stage pictures. But they haven’t invested in any serious study of the art form. If you tell them Bocelli is a great singer, worthy of the MET, then they have no basis for objection.
WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Those of us here who HAVE invested in learning the art form have a responsibility to hold the line. But even we have been seduced by the dark side.
Make no mistake. I am a died-in-the-wool capitalist. But I understand its traps and destructive tendencies. You have to be vigilant with market capitalism or it becomes a very efficient vehicle for bringing out the worst in our primate nature.
I am very sorry to hear that you have expired in a lamb by-product…
touche
thanks for pointing this out, manou….I was already stirring the pot, so I couldn’t.
Guess our lofty goals of rising above our primate nature and not bowing at the altar of Mammon doesn’t extend to grammatical erudition!
I correct myself – it should be “goal,” so that the subject and verb are in agreement.
It took me forever to get that joke, Manou.
As a former English major, I am truly humiliated by that typo.
Forgive me.
Interested in a side gig as my own personal blog proofreader?
Hey, Figaroindy, thanks for the gratuitous personal attack, buddy.
@figaroindy – No, it should be “don’t,” so that the plural subject agrees with the verb.
…assuming that “rising above our primate nature” and “not bowing at the altar of Mammon” are distinct from each other.
luvtennis – please forgive me! I know I am a pain in the neck, and you would hate me as your proofreader. I shall try to rein myself in from now on.
Manou:
I deserved it completely.
Figaroinday can kiss my ass, however.
Your passion about this topic has made me think about it more deeply.
The problem I see is that both of you can be right at the same time. Opera needs more money and new audiences, and opera needs to retain the purity of its art form. Either one has the potential to drive out the other.
I hope the truth that unfolds is not as starkly negative as you warn.
Probably not likely, luv.
I thought it was a fair comment, in that you’ve implied that those who like Bocelli or haven’t studied opera as WE have are idiots and can’t be trusted to have an opinion for themselves. Therefore, you’ve set yourself up as the intelligence meter by which others are measured. Meanwhile, the post implies that you find what the Met produces as utmost importance and that we should share our intelligence with the less fortunate. I thought I’d do the same grammatically.
Miles – I debated using “don’t,” but decided that I was treating both items as a single goal, so chose to eliminate the plural, instead. But, I accept your correction as reasonable, also.
Well, no, not really. What I think I meant so late at night was that this discussion had opened my eyes to the possibility that this art form as we know it now could change in ways we will not like, i.e., miking, the importing of pseudo-opera singers (Why not Michael Bolton? He’s got a fan following, too.), an increasing obsession with singers being “pretty,” and more. The reason it could change in this direction is that often, art follows the money, and there is money in catering to the tastes of a larger and younger and less knowledgeable group than currently attends or otherwise supports opera. Even the current opera world sometimes prefers a pretty face over a well-sung line.
I guess the counterargument is that opera as an art form is stronger than these random sellout temptations, and that in fact the hoi polloi will be converted to our religion of excellence, and not the reverse. Yet Ms. Voigt had the gastric bypass, perhaps for her health, arguably to the detriment of her instrument, but, bizarrely, not necessarily to the detriment of her career. Doesn’t this mean that opera has already changed?
There is a give and take that makes art and culture moving targets. Wouldn’t it be a grand folly to assume that opera can remain unaffected by the motion of popular culture, especially since unlike some other art forms, opera needs people en masse to survive?
I do not know even a tenth of what most of you posting to this blog know about opera and music, nor do I pretend to, but I see from this discussion that Bocelli at the Met is not necessarily a trivial event. As for believing that the Met is the gold standard of all operatic performance, visiting sites like these is, happily, teaching me different.