The fall guy
Heads are about to roll at New York City Opera, probably including George Steel‘s—though given the troupe’s bizarro history for the past few years, who can say? This is in the wake of a letter leaked to the Wall Street Journal from singers and production staff of the embattled company, which includes this chilling statement: “We are very frustrated that NYCO has now become an opera company that does not do opera.”
Meanwhile, AGMA’s Alan Gordon has emailed AP with a warning that Tthe musicians and stagehands could “strike and drive City Opera out of existence” if working hours and benefits are cut.
A board meeting, “widely expected to determine the fate of the company’s fall season,” is scheduled for today..
The article in the bird-cage-liner worthy WSJ seems to continue that scuzzy excuse for a Newspaper’s vendetta against NYCO…
Its not a vendetta, its not as if they wrote and sent the letter themselves. They’re just reporting on what is happening in the NYCO immolation, and they’re hardly the only ones. It would be disingenous in the extreme for any media outlet to be publishing articles “SUNNY FUTURE AT NYCO” “AFTER THE STORM COMES THE RAIN: NYCO’S DYNAMIC 2011-2012 SEASON” right now.
And whilst the whole NYCO-Zambello-Hoelterhoff angle could suggest some dastardly plot by the latter to take revenge on the former for the middle; Zambello has at least got the reins of a company that isn’t going anywhere, which has surely chilled some of the ill-will by now.
Plus Hoelterhoff hasn’t been at the WSJ for a decade now. Her vendettas now originate at Bloomberg.
Touche.
But in this conspiracy-laden world, her tentacles reach all over the media scene, hell-bent on destroying all those who cross her!
Recently re-reading Cinderella & Company, I am AMAZED she remains on anybody’s Christmas card list.
They’re right to point a finger at their marketing department and, I think, wrong to blame Steel. E.g.: How did City Opera fail to turn the New York premiere of a Leonard Bernstein opera into a hot ticket? It’s a flawed work, but it still should’ve been an Event. There was more excitement around the atonal Monodramas, which were the George Steeliest thing on the season this year.
Well, Steel is the boss so if he failed to notice that his entire marketing department was dropping the ball, that doesn’t reflect that great on him either.
Good point.
Possible to get a bit more of a summary for us non-WSJ subscribers? But I can probably guess the gist of it. The whole season seems to have been a gamble which just didn’t pay off. Zambello must be chortling her socks off.
And Alan Gordon, I’d like to know exactly what a strike at this point is going to achieve, apart from going out with guns firing.
Try this link: [PDF]
WSJ are idiots for putting this piece behind a paywall.
La C:
“IDIOTS” describes the WSJ–VERY NICELY…!
PDF! Yay! Thanks.
The article hits the nail on the head. 3 seasons and no Verdi? Only 1 Puccini? That’s not a season for a major opera company.
The only point I would add is that the company needs someone with vision and experience to dramatically grow, not shrink, their seasons if they are to make use of the resources and overhead that they already have.
Who is on the job market with the experience and vision to do that, however? Companies with dynamic leaders are paying breathtaking salaries and benefits to retain those individuals. Case in point: Kennedy Center’s board willing to pony up $1+ million for Michael Kaiser.
Interesting article in the NYT today about Seattle’s Intiman Theater which parallels to NYCO: just because a company is critically successful doesn’t ensure its longterm viability. Perhaps it’s OK for some places to just close up shop rather than maintaining a pauper’s existence, constantly begging for food.
You mean Sher’s theater is about crumble? Goodie, good for him!
Haven’t a number of companies folded in recent years? Many of those people are still looking for work. Pick one. Any one with more than 3 months of experience running an opera company will be an improvement.
What buried NYCO was choice of repertory. New York is not Berlin. It’s mostly, not all of course, a retrograde audience with little desire to see innovation in the arts as far as either selection or execution.
Ticket sales are bad even for crowd-pleasers these days let alone unknown repertory. Peter Gelb and the MET board are aware of that, if the MET goes for concepts, the opera’s usually a warhorse. And the concepts are never that modern to begin with and always watered down. We have exceptions, House of the Dead and The Nose come to mind, but they make only 5% of the offerings and rarely revived.
I remember Lysistrata and its dreadful, unsingable music at NYCO a few years ago, people left in droves. 20th century opera is an audience killer, especially in the US. A smarter direction for NYCO would’ve been 19th works that the MET never does, rare bel canto, early Verdi, Meyerbeer, Massenet and Italian Verismo. Yes, singers who can do justice to these operas are scarce but NYCO’s effort to find and train them would’ve paid off at the box office.
I’m not sure the recent season really buried NYCO- though it certainly didn’t help. I’d say the year of darkness probably caused far more damage. How many subscribers, in the midst of general belt-tightening, just didn’t come back after a year of absence?
Not sure Meyebeer is quite the box office dynamite you may think it is- and the production costs would be sky-high. But in the easy game of Fantasy NYCO, I’ve always thought its ideal season would be a mix of lesser known works by dead composers (Pearl Fishers, La finta giardinieria, I Lombardi), American works living or dead, works that are too small for the Met (Handel, chamber Brittens, Ravel) and a classic American musical (I can’t believe I’m currently channeling Zambello). Maybe even some Offenbach if they got a witty and clever chap to tighten up the dialogue for a modern audience.
But in the year of absence- the Met seems to have taken over some of potential NYCO turf- ten years ago it would be unthinkable that the Met is doing a Nico Muhly premiere, not NYCO.
ianw2, do you realize that the NYCO repertory mix you suggested was just about Paul Kellogg’s NYCO repertory mix when he started out in the mid-90s?
I had suspected as much, but as I was not an opera-goer (or indeed living in the US) at the time I wasn’t sure. Pretty sure my fantasy-programming isn’t that far off much ‘second company’ programming worldwide. But wasn’t there also bucketload of bel canto, which was a bit ahead of the curve? Except for some rarities or guaranteed house-fillers (you know who they are), I would now leave them to the Met.
A smarter direction for NYCO would’ve been 19th works that the MET never does, rare bel canto, early Verdi, Meyerbeer, Massenet and Italian Verismo.
You mean the Met that is opening its next season with the company premiere of Anna Bolena and promises in the next few years the company premieres of Maria Stuarda, Roberto Devereux and La donna del lago, along with a new production of I puritani?
The company that just did Attila and is next season offering Nabucco and Macbeth?
The company that in the next two seasons will offer new productions of Manon and Werther?
And a revival of Francesca da Rimini?
Furthermore, I am not convinced that Meyerbeer is the box office blockbuster so many ancien regime queens seem to dream he is. Producing Huguenots requires approximately as much effort and expense as producing Meistersinger or Don Carlos and when you’re done, all you’ve got is that same old patchwork of brilliant moments and utter dross that Huguenots is now and always has been.
La Cieca your idea of “rare” bel canto and early Verdi is pedestrian and your knowledge obviously limited. The Donizetti 3 Queens, Puritani, Donna del Lago aren’t rare. NYCO has done them.
I was referring to RARE bel canto, like Parisina, Maria di Rohan, Gemma di Vergy, Poliuto, Belisario, Caterina Cornaro, Il Pirata (the MET will never revive that), Guiglielmo Tell, or even not so rare bel canto which is never staged in NY, Lucrezia Borgia, La favorita and Linda di Chamounix, all way superior to 95% of 20th century opera excepting Strauss and Puccini. They would certainly attract a bigger audience than the 20th century trash NYCO offered in the last 25 years.
Attila was a one-shot deal with Muti which will never be revived at the MET, not the production we saw. And there’s much more to early Verdi than Nabucco and Macbeth, there’s Giovanna d’Arco, I Lombardi, Masnadieri, Corsaro, Due Foscari etc.
No one said Meyerbeer’s a box office blockbuster but he sure has a better chance to sell tickets than Lysistrata. And it’s not that difficult to produce if you use the imagination.
As for your ancien regime queen remark, it’s ironic. And inaccurate. Queens in their 50s, 60s and 70s who I run into are the ones favoring 20th century works. It’s the younger queens in their 20s and 30s that are discovering and falling in love with bel canto, early Verdi and French grand opera.
Being openly insulting to your hostess is a good way to ask for moderation. You’re warned.
They would certainly attract a bigger audience than the 20th century trash NYCO offered in the last 25 years.
Prove it.
I vote for Gounod’s La nonne sanglante (‘The Bloody Nun’)! That will pack the house; but then there’s always Emeline.
Whilst I was tempted to step back and just let this sit…
If any administrator found a tenor who could sing Raoul (let alone the rest of the cast) and put on Huguenots for him, they’re an idiot. Meyerbeer is going to cost, 99% of the time, far more to stage than any opera written in the last fifty years (really, anything since Rosenkavalier would be my guess). So in your long awaited dream production of La prophete, you’re going to have sell far, far more tickets and raise far, far more money from your donors than practically any 20th century piece. So Meyerbeer is well and truly out of NYCO’s grasp- and arguably out of the grasp of all but the very biggest houses like the Met, ROH and Bayerische (none of whom are exactly clamouring to bring Meyerbeer back into fashion).
And as to your assertion that Il pirata (or Meyerbeer, for god’s sake) is superior to, say, Wozzeck, Peter Grimes, Nixon in China, Satyagraha, Rake’s Progress, Dialogue des Carmelites, the two Ravel operas, Jenufa, Bluebeard and The Tempest… well. Now we’re getting truly pedestrian.
Signed,
A young queen who is quite happy to keep Meyerbeer in his place in the historic pantheon.
http://www.lamonnaie.be/fr/opera/58/Les-Huguenots
Booking opened two days ago and seats already nearly all snapped up.
Minkowski and Eric Cutler! Well shut my mouth.
Minkowski, hitherto a specialist in French Baroque with side forays into Mozart and Offenbach;s opera-bouffe, conducting Hugenots!Now that should be interesting. The idea that Meyerbeer could help to revive the fortunes of NYCO is sort of laughable in my opinion. If Meyerbeer is to be done at all, it needs the best singers in the world and scenic grandeur of some sort, that is what the works are built upon. Huegenots and Prophete are tremendous works imo and I would love for them to come back to the world’s leading opera houses.
@manou, just a technicality: booking opened 10 days ago, with seats being released according to some bizarre formula over the hours. Only a single date available at first, then all dates opened up a few hours later. But yes, selling briskly.
Should be an interesting show.
Minkowski is now going where angels fear to tread: I’ve seen him conduct Wagner (Die Feen) and Weber (Berlioz version of Freischutz). At the very least it’s great to hear those 19th century instrumental colors.
I posted ‘my rep’ for my fantasy opera company a week or so ago. It was almost entirely 20th century opera, with new work, and in a smaller theater, a few Baroque operas. I have no idea if it would ‘sell’. But what amazes me about so many of the comments here, starting with Manooze, is how little people know about the mechanics of production.
Henry Holland can anecdotally say such and such SOLD OUT, but has no knowledge of whether it did or didn’t. Manooze can get her facts wrong (mais bien sur) but the implication is the eternal show biz fiction that a full house equals profit, and that no longer works with serious arts.
As for the ineffable Holland, tickets can be and are given away or highly discounted. A crowded theater does not prove anybody there paid face price for their tickets. It certainly doesn’t mean that most or even many of the people there paid face price. Serious arts organizations have all kinds of discount programs available, many hidden, some underwritten but many not, in an effort to at least get bodies in the seats, in the hope (more often baseless than not) that if enough people like what they wouldn’t ordinarily have paid for they will pay for more of the same.
The very idea behind subscription offers (and I’ve been there and I know) is that discounts are offered subscribers and big theaters usually have a range of plans in attempts to attract people (four operas for the price of three, all seats in a given subscription %25 off and so on and so on).
In Manooze’s case, there seems to be no understanding of how subsidy works. All European opera and serious music is subsidized. The amounts may vary, and the idea of subsidy (certainly generous subsidy) is under attack. But it is still there.
My point is that without underwriting NO OPERA is ‘profitable’ based on box office. In America in a union house, box office will account for less than %45 of costs and that assumes that all tickets sold have been sold at face value. Where does one come up with the remaining %55? Or more realistically %65 to account for the discounts and freebies and the unsold empty seats Henry Holland doesn’t see?
I love it when the backward say things like “it was packed, a hit”. But I worked with a theater where we were packed for a black music theater piece for three weeks because a consortium of local black churches brought group discounts — meaning a substantial loss of income for the theater. Yes it was a “hit”, “cutting edge”, and the local dingbat reviewers loved it. We were begging for money to make up the losses for months. And of course NONE of those people who had come with those groups came back to anything else and paid full price, though some called to see about discounts or freebies.
So say, the Met did Le Prophete AGAIN (it didn’t sell the first time with Horne and Scotto), or La Muette di Portici or Fausta. Where is there ANY proof that HOARDS of people would pay Met prices in full for every seat at every performance to see ten or so performances? And even if they did, are there underwriters to make up the %55 shortfall?
What if an alternative company in a house smaller than the Koch, perhaps free of IATSE (the ruinously expensive stage crew union) did a season of new and recent work? Who is to say that tickets couldn’t sell in a city as huge and various as NY? I think they might. But the problem is who would make up the shortfall?
Arts can no longer live on a profit making model, they are not movies (though many of those tank too) or even Broadway musicals. If there is no way that a company can get generous subsidy from a mixture of public and private entities as well as donors, arguments about which rep would sell are masturbations. They reflect the interests or the limits of the arguers not any kind of reality.
Where we are headed is ‘workshop’ opera, where every possible corner is cut in the hopes of avoiding ruin but where the heights are not scaled, whether it is Hansel and Gretal with 8 pieces in the orchestra (especially synth) or the new work by Amos Masood, Et Eggo Ejaculatio on my Waffles, done with piano and kazoo on a bare stage in an 88 seat house. Those such as the idiots at Opera Smell who live in denial of this will be doomed (assuming they don’t kick off tomorrow) to see this come to pass, as opera company after opera company closes, orchestra after orchestra collapses in “Fecund America Today” (Emerson).
And yet another reality is the implied and inevitable censorship of the new, the unusual, the challenging. If only Boheme or clone is ‘safe’ to do than it is crowding something a lot more interesting out. The audience is mostly dozing through what they already know too well, but, anesthetized by the totalitarian mass media in America, that is better than being kept up by the ‘noise’ of an unthinkinkably new opera, so new it was written seventy years ago. It’s not ‘bitter old queens’ (a meaningless locution used by the empyreal Holland and recently by Sterling Kay because some discerning people realized the recent Walkeure was shit) that will kill opera, it is this death cult of only the most familiar, the safest DAST be offered up.
I may get my facts wrong but I can sure spell “hordes”.
Although I am a philistine, I agree with almost everything you’ve said MrsJC. Your point about workshop opera, I fear, is accurate and echos Alan Ayckbourn’s justified complaint that no playwright under 40 seems to know what to do with anything bigger than 90minutes and a cast of five anymore (is this true? I’m not sure, but its certainly believable).
But you’re putting words into HH’s and Manou’s mouths. Manou made no claim as to the financial security- just that according to the website seats are snapped up (and its pretty determined to find an implication that because La Monnaie can do it NYCO should too in her two line comment). And HH made the very point that DOB is apples and oranges compared to anything in the US (or in the UK, or anywhere in the anglophone world really), in addition to refuting the idea that there is no audience for 20th century or new works compared to this supposed hunger for a Meyerbeer revival (neither of which are going to be huge profit centers anyway).
Not all Meyerbeer is huge and spawling. It would be fun (in a Pearl Fishers sort of way) for some small house to do Dinorah (“a dead opera with a live goat” said some wag over a century ago).
Dinorah needs 3 stars. Some supporting singers. A small chorus. They could do the goat as puppet. It’s a cute and charming little work. I would imagine just about any coloratura chirping at the Met would eagerly traipse across the Plaza to sing Dinorah at NYCO.
L’Etoile du Nord would also be a cute little thing. Didn’t Elizabeth Futral have some kind of success singing the lead a few years ago?
Of course, as Mme Claggart points out, any such revival would probably lose a lot of money, but it would attract attention and get people talking…both pro and con. At the other extreme, the Met could do Francoise d’Assise and lose a fortune, but again… people would at least talk.
“19th-century works that the Met never does”—you mean like L’Etoile and L’Elisir? How’d those work out?
The House was more filled for the recent run of “L’Eliser” then I had seen it all season…and was pretty full for “L’Etoile” as well–and both were very crowd -pleasing productions…
If I were superticious , i WOULD blame a lot of it on some recent possible jinx that the former State Theater might be possessed with–and it even was before the Koch invasion– the House never ever seemed to be more then HALF-FILLED for NYCB performances, in the last number of years, either……( and between the two House companies..I am there alot….)
I think NYCB sells well on weekends.
We caught two NYCB performances in October, and another three performances in January, all on weekends, and the house was pretty full.
In fact, two of those performances were sold out, I think.
We experienced more or less the same the previous two NYCB season. On weekends, attendance was pretty good.
I’m told, rightly or wrongly, that NYCB does not do the heavy papering that NYCO has had to do as a last resort. (I’m told that the Met, too, does a lot of papering now.)
NYCB sells out pretty well. Their winter run of Swan Lakes was sold-out. And their recent “Balanchine B&W” was well-attended the weekend I went. Last night I went to a weeknight performance and while not sold out it entirely it was a well-populated house.
perhaps that is true, Drew.(about weekends being more full). for CityBallet’s sake, I really hope so…during the week , the side Rings are empty…(and I remember the days when that wasn’t the case….)…and at least the most recent Saturday matinees-even for the Balanchine Black and White festival 2 weeks ago were not nearly as full as they should have been……
It is true that there is little, if any , papering for the Ballet-that has been a long time policy…
Who are they giving these tickets to? The conservatories? Who do you have to know to benefit?
I can’t reply directly under Mrs. Claggart, but her point about “filled seats” quite probably being papered hasn’t gotten enough attention here. As anyone knows who’s involved with any non-profit organization (performing or fine arts, museums, etc), ticket sales do not cover anything close to operating costs. Properly managed portfolios for endowments should still have yielded sufficient income even during the downturn (only financial stocks materially cut their dividends), but many endowments are structured to distribute a fixed percentage of the entire portfolio on a trailing calculation basis, and that could have been catastrophic for most places, even as income might have been the same.
I would imagine that only the boards of NYCO and the Met know precisely the ticket revenues, and it’s nothing close–even on a “full” night–to what the expenses approach.
In my view, the NYCO has not managed its repertory well. Whatever we may think of the “bread and butter” operas–or how we even may define them–they are popular for a reason, and people need to have them available as the “entry drug” into the art form itself. At the NY City Ballet, I would imagine that the Nutcracker from the 50s still takes in a lot of cash that the company needs to sustain, in whatever ratio, its other operations. I am not aware of cranky people suggesting that that production go away in exchange for something more stimulating. I even recall reading that ticket revenues for the Boston Pops (and its enormous recording fees and income) cracked the nut for the Boston Symphony during the 60s and 70s. In short, there is no getting around the fact that there have to be compromises that the cognoscenti may not love in order to pay the bills and to attract future audiences.
There are many trends colliding all at once here, and I’m not as convinced as others that it’s been caused by 9/11 keeping potential patrons away. The NYCO opera was chartered, in part, and reputed to be “the people’s opera,” and that didn’t always mean the most exotic rep. It was priced accordingly. I believe that it has lost its mission somewhat in the last 20 years. As many posters have acknowledged, a great deal of their focus has been on the artistic adventure of presenting works that just will not build a consistent audience. That costs much more money than the company has or can collect. I think that’s the simplest math there is, like it or not.
The general lack of culture appreciation with each new crop of students is affecting every art form–not just opera. How many movies are made for adults now? How many Bway musicals aren’t written for the tour bus crowd from a pre-digested formula? How many straight plays are there on Bway now? The current generation of college kids doesn’t even lug stereo equipment with them into the dorms–they don’t even share music with one another to listen to; it’s all electronic, plugged-in, solitary. I’m not trying to sound like a reactionary Jacobin (not that I have to, of course), but there are larger trends here that are going to doom “big” arts companies that are relying on huge donations from the prosperous to survive. (Additionally, tax reform may affect the deductibility of donations in the future, and some of the wealthiest donors may wind up “losing” credit for the deductions.)
The preposterous production costs, caused by a variety of problems, is now catching up to the NYCO (and others, I would think) in a terrifying way.
Small correction, ardath_bey: Lysistrata sold in the 70% range, and there was substantial repeat business. (The Carmen that year sold in the low 60% range.) You liked it or you didn’t, but considering the company’s history, and numbers like that, it’s hard to fault new work as a programming choice.
I smell a scapegoat and it smells like Steel.
But what will happen to their new production of Rigoletto?
If they need a rigoletto I bet famous quickly could sing it!
I’m convinced the press would slaughter them if they ditched him now.
As a dyed -in -the -wool “Union-made” supporter.. I find Alan Gorden’s “warning” to be the HEIGHT of meaningless–not to say just utterly creepy and dispicable- at this present time…..
Meaningless indeed. If the company closes up shop, they can strike all they want and it won’t make a bit of difference. They won’t get a dime out of their picketing, ever, and they won’t be working much either.
What are they going to do, sue the company? Sue the board? Try to get a piece of the endowment (whatever is left of that)? Seems likely that would be used to pay standing debts from previous seasons, not pay on a contract for work in the future that was never done because the company closed.
There are not tons of musical organizations in NYC or anywhere in the vicinity looking for lots of choristers, orchestra members, etc. Those companies that are operational in the area already have all of their people in place, and no one is moving around much these days.
It’s a terrible shame that the company is having these problems. I pity the union members too, they are just trying to do their jobs and make a living and be happy. BUT, if there is not going to be further concessions from the unions, then the members of the union who work at NYCO will all probably be on unemployment soon.
As for Alan Gordon’s threat: Fuck him. He’s loudmouthing to the AP so he can say “I did everything I could do” and hopefully get to keep his own job. This is, after all, what union bosses are supposed to do in these situations. They go to bat for their workers and make threats and yell and scream and issue hardline press statements. Unfortunately, one thing that union members almost NEVER do is closely and rigidly scrutinize the actions of their union bosses and evaluate the real (long term) effect on their livelihood. As long as their pay goes up each time the contract is renegotiated, they don’t really pay attention to how those people do things or what the long term ramifications of those contracts are.
I have heard several performances at NYCO, and I always thought the orchestra playing was messy and sloppy, even in tonal warhorses they have played a thousand times like Butterfly, Boheme, Don Giovanni (insert your own title based on your personal experience). So then this begs the question: Are they really worth as much as they are getting? That is to say, is they quality of their playing equal to the amount of money their union contract guarantees them when they can’t play Madame Butterfly without embarassingly bad gaffes from the orchestra? I guess you all can decide this for yourself…..
They aren’t the New York Philharmonic, or the Berlin Philharmonic, or Vienna Philharmonic. But they seemingly expect to be treated (and paid) like they are. That is a problem of perception on their part that only they can fix. The board and managment of the NYCO can’t fix that for them, and the board and management of NYCO don’t have tons of cash to throw at them either, and absolutely won’t have for many years to come (assuming that they stay in business at all).
So get your picketing gear ready and see what it gets you.
I think the role of changing attitudes toward learning music and how to play an instrument can’t be understated in the shrinking of opera audiences. I don’t blame “American Idol” because the expectation that kids would choose instruments, learn to play them, and spend an evening making music with the family disappeared before my generation. Articles and whole books have been written about the increasing passivity re: entertainment, and it’s not just a problem for the US. Sure, we all dressed up as Donna Summer as kids and gave lip-sych concerts with the next-door neighborhood dressed as Streisand, but that’s a long way from knowing how to recognize and follow long melodic lines in one’s head, how to build the stamina and patience for works longer than 3 to 12 minutes, and how to appreciate the skill involved in playing an instrument that’s human-powered because we have struggled to master it ourselves. The audiences have shrunk because the culture has changed. I refuse to believe opera is dead or in the death throes, but I accept that the basic size of the audience has decreased. The current economy has exacerbated the problem right now, but I doubt the situation will last forever.
Cruz, don’t you know when Enough is Enough? I can’t go on.
LOL. Apparently not.
Ditto for me.
Argh. I was agreeing with Brooklynpunk and his pro-union comment. I can never know for sure where in a thread a post will land!
the comment in the article about the photos is so true- i remember the don giovanni ad- while it had a hot preppy guy watching something, it said nothing about the potentially great production that they were working on, and subsequently, it wasn’t on my radar (and probably lots of others…)
NYCO has had some really bad luck and timing. Having a non-season during the renovation was the quickest way to lose its subscriber base. And then having to make a come-back in the aftermath of the ecnonomic downturn was just cruel. Single-ticket sales everywhere have suffered ever since the downturn and companies have had to rely more on their subscriber base.
As for programming, the NYCO’s challenge is to present a complimentary season to the Met’s. The Met has been pogramming a good mix of familiar and unfamiliar repertoire and hasn’t left much for the NYCO.
I think Steel had the right idea in programming off-the-beaten-track rep but some of his choices have been too esoteric, especially in light of the single ticket market.
It’s not just about programming popular rep. It’s also about expensive productions. Boheme and Tosca sell very well and aren’t terribly expensive to produce. But Aida, while always popular, is also expensive to produce. And Meyerbeer is not the solution for NYCO. Meyerbeer used to be popular decades ago but it needs to be reintroduced to audiences. It’s not going to be an instant hit. And it is even more expensive to produce than i>Aida. If any company should be taking the Meyerbeer gamble, it’s the Met.
And certainly, the often bizarre and unattractive marketing campaigns have not helped.
Unfortunately, I don’t have much in way of solutions, just bunch of observations after the fact.
Kashania:
No real need to find solutions, anymore..SINCE–THE END OF THE WORLD is “scheduled” for this coming Saturday…lol–lol–lol!!–maybe, that doesn’t include …Canada…?
I can’t wait for the super sales , on Sunday!
Does anyone remember the NYCO’s production of Die Meistersinger in the late 70′s? Boy, those were different times.
I saw that Meistersinger in L.A. I remember an equisite, almost undetectable day-into-night transition in Act 2, and a cast of thousands (well, dozens) in the riot scene, with a few appentices and townspeople crawling out second-story windows and sliding off roofs during the fray.
It was my first Meistersinger, and since it was being performed in English and I had a good orchestra seat, I made the mistake of not reading the libretto in advance. Big mistake–couldn’t understand a word (and no supertitles in those days). But that’s another subject…
Yes, with a trio of leads of world stature in those roles: Norman Bailey (OK, stifle it, Vicar), John Alexander and Johanna Meier.
Those days are gone forever.
LOMBARDI was actually one of NYCO’s biggest disasters, save perhaps for Justino Diaz. For once Henahan got things right:
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/04/04/arts/city-opera-a-new-production-of-i-lombardi.html
The point about the Puccini productions is that NYCO owns theatrically valid stagings of BOHEME, BUTTERFLY and TOSCA ( maybe less good, but not bad by the standards of the Met mess) that audiences do like and that could attract both less-well-to-do newcomers and tour groups wanting an evening of “popular” opera. It was REALLY stupid not to program one of them this year, with no Handel ( who has its own audience) either.
BTW when did the post-Wagnerian FRANCESCA DA RIMINI (1917) become a 19th century opera?
Oh no. The Rapture is coming north of the border as well. And we all can’t wait! LOL
You are correct, they have indeed had more than their fair share of bad luck in many ways.
But, they also spent too much money in better times on productions that were never going to pay off, racked up a lot of debt, and spent a huge portion of their endowment. None of that had to do with bad luck. Strictly bad planning and management.
For instance, the long time insistence on (many) operas by Handel (and maybe a few other baroque pieces by other composers, I can’t really remember, maybe some Vivaldi and Monteverdi?). It definitely set them apart from the MET, they sort of the led the way in America in a baroque opera revival, but I remember 5-6 years ago they did something, was it Flavio? and I remember thinking to myself that they had gone FAR over the line of what the public wanted to hear/had interest in. NO ONE on the planet, other than a few yahoos on the NYCO staff, was sitting around going, “Oh goodness, no one is doing Flavio anymore? Why not? It’s such a great piece! Someone should really be doing Flavio. It is a huge injustice to art, TO HUMANITY, that no one is doing Flavio. We MUST do Flavio!!!”
And so they produced Flavio. I didn’t see it. I am no fan of baroque opera, as you all are well aware. I do not doubt that it was capably, perhaps even beautifully performed (as such things go). And yet, it was a one off production as far as I am aware (no revivals yet anyway), and even if cheaply done (it should be cheap to produce any baroque opera), they were never going to break even on their investment in the piece. Certainly I support doing the occasional unknown work to keep the crowd that likes that sort of thing interested, and I certainly support performances of (high quality) new works. But for many years they did a lot of works that, although novel to its audiences and therefore interesting for a night, was ultimately a lot of money thrown into a bottomless pit of production costs. You can put on a beautiful looking, beautifully sung Madame Butterfly production, run it on and off for years, and eventually turn a PROFIT. You can’t do that with a production of Flavio (or anything similar).
Actually, they revived FLAVIO, which was rather enjoyable. They have never done Vivaldi; and the Monteverdis they did in the 70s were huge hits, despite the horrid but then-inevitable Leppard editions. Having major artists (Neblett, Titus, von Stade, Stilwell) headline them certainly didn’t hurt.
Even the NYCO’s e-mail newsletters are dreary. It’s not a black-and-white world to an opera lover, so why send out black-and-white communications? Color is free on the Internet, so obviously the lack of color is a statement. That and the font choice practically scream coldness, lack of passion, and an intentional avoidance of grandeur. They also suggest tiny house, small audience, no sets, and the rest.
In my early opera-going years, I was an NYCO subscriber. Sad to see it in such danger now.
Truly upsetting to see such an important arts organization with a rich history in this current position. Problems abound – a General Manager who hates the most popular operas (has been quoted disparaging Verdi, Puccini, Wagner.) They are popular for a reason. Fine to do experimental opera – but in a 2400 seat theatre at Lincoln Center where you can’t fill the seats?
Box office for 2 years has been awful – under 40% average. How can any company survive that? NYCO’s history has been full of new, “modern” operas – but mixed in with standards done freshly with outstanding young singers who can act – and excellent directors. Keane created a 2-week (maybe it was 1-week) “Festival” of new operas – including the wonderful Esther. So there was huge focus on that and great marketing – and they only did 2-3 performances of each of the 3 operas. Beverly and Sergiu Comissiona brought in Moses und Aron (ultimately conducted by Keane after the strike year) and many more “jewels” that actually sold.
Many point to Monodramas as an opera that sold to younger, new audiences. But we hear the houses were mostly comp’d – including opening night where only 500 seats were actually sold. And the wonderfully performed Seance couldn’t even fill the house due to lack of marketing (and before we chastise that department completely – how constrained was their budget??)
But the most devastating blow was closing the house for a year to renovate without securing other venues to perform. That kind of thing needs to be planned years in advance – not pushed through to please a questionably talented/committed European General Director. That practically wiped out the endowment – so let’s not blame the unions here. They gave up a lot 2 years ago to help the new regime get on its feet – unfortunately – that regime lost the NYCO base and couldn’t fill the house with the operas chosen. So performers, many who have spent many years there and have been committed to the success of this great institution, are being told they aren’t affordable anymore. There has to be a better answer to NYCO’s survival other than blaming the unions!
As badly as the company managed to sell through over the last couple of seasons, the rot was already pretty well progressed before that. I remember Susan Baker being constantly being blamed for raiding the endowment at regular intervals, till it was down to chump change – but I never hear any blame spread around to Paul Kellogg, and Robin Thompson – who clearly were running a budget well into the red ink for YEARS – or they wouldn’t have needed the endowment money. Clearly no major new donors were attracted by this crew (a critical part of an administration’s job), or every year wouldn’t have been a massive loss. Can anyone speak to this issue?
Very simple: 9/11. The company was narrowly but consistently in the black for Kellogg’s first seven years: years when NYCO was doing 15 shows a season. Then the bottom fell out: and even when donors came back–and more every year—they didn’t close the gap. And the question then was the one facing the larger U. S. economy now: do you undertake deficit spending hoping to stimulate the market, or do you take austerity measures and risk people staying at home because you’re not putting out the same product? NYCO chose the first alternative: maybe wrongly, but right now the British government is trying the second for its entire economy, and the results are underwhelming. Damned if you do, etc.
OpQueen can you please give any kind of citation for the remarkable quote that you attribute to the General Manager, “disparaging” those composers?