The Opera Tattler

Reviews of Performances and their Audiences

Recent posts

Opera in The Economist

This week’s The Economist has an article on Peter Gelb‘s simulcasts. San Francisco Opera and the Royal Opera House are also mentioned.


I especially like these two sentences from the article:


Opera purists are not at all happy about Mr Gelb’s foray into cinemas. They argue that opera was made to be seen live in opera houses and they worry that cinemacasts will hasten the demise of an ailing art form.


I believe I know a good many individuals who might like to claim the title “opera purist,” and yet I have not heard this sort of thing from anyone. The Met simulcasts are enjoyable, but I hardly think anyone who would normally go to the opera house would go to one in lieu of a real performance. Opera in movie theaters is a supplement rather than a replacement for opera in real life.


Music for the Masses | The Met Live in HD

Posted in , , , ,

11 responses to “Opera in The Economist”

  1. Sarah Avatar
    Sarah

    There’s no way I could see all of the operas at the Met that I can see in the movie theater. I’ve found that going to the simulcasts have only made me more interested in seeing opera live (especially in closer geographic proximity to me). There really is something about “live” performance. But to see big names, and some of the less standard operas, I’ll take ’em how I can get ’em.

    Like

    Reply
  2. bean Avatar
    bean

    The Economist is full of factual errors. Since when is opera “an ailing art form”?!
    Please mail them a letter and set them straight, o great OperaTattler.

    Like

    Reply
  3. The Opera Tattler Avatar
    The Opera Tattler

    Sarah: I think the Met simulcasts probably did make it so I didn’t go to New York this year for opera, but it also freed up my vacation time to go to the Chicago Lyric instead.
    Bean: I’m confused, I thought The Economist was your publication of choice. I bet you are quite sorry that The Art of Satire (http://www.ybca.org/tickets/calendar/view.aspx?id=5951) did not come to your town.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Niki Avatar
    Niki

    Did you go see the Art of Satire? I wanted to, but Benn came home just 2 days earlier, so I passed.

    Like

    Reply
  5. The Opera Tattler Avatar
    The Opera Tattler

    I was too exhausted by opera to go to the Art of Satire, unfortunately.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Doug Gary Avatar
    Doug Gary

    I would think that there are plenty of us who can’t get to NYC often enough to see this many Met operas. For me, I also find that the Met is doing so much more interesting work than SF Opera. I have to admit that I decided not to get another “Design Your Own” subscription for the new SF season in part due to the splendor and innovative promised at the Met movies relative to the yawn festival that is next season here in town. I hope Mr. Gockley moves toward the more interesting going forward, though I know my tastes are not exactly shared by the majority.

    Like

    Reply
  7. The Opera Tattler Avatar
    The Opera Tattler

    I think they were more worried about people not going to their local opera as opposed to not going to the Met because of the cinemacasts. The Met has a lot more operas since they don’t have to share their venue with the ballet and they have a larger budget. Next season at SF Opera is a bit of a bore, do we really need two Puccini operas each season? Then again, there are only a handful of productions next season at the Met that I really want to see.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Sarah Avatar
    Sarah

    Yes, not going to the Met (I’ve never been yet) does free up time and money to consider the Lyric Opera this fall, especially if I can drive or bus it there instead of flying, and see more than one opera. But my home opera, the Minnesota Opera, went from 4 to 5 operas per season a few years ago, and my hometown opera (Madison Opera) just went from 2 to 3. Plus, there’s Milwaukee, and Chicago Opera Theater, and Des Moines also within driving distance . . . . I’m finding plenty of opportunities for some interesting and innovative and/or less-produced operas. Sure, they throw in Puccini, which isn’t my thing, and Mozart, which can appeal on so many levels, but they can showcase some great new talent instead of worrying about box office appeal and photogenics. Throw in 5 or 6 of the Met telecasts, plus the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, and I find I’m scheduling the next year around my music schedule!

    Like

    Reply
  9. The Opera Tattler Avatar
    The Opera Tattler

    I can completely relate to scheduling everything around music! Regional opera companies can be truly excellent, I’m learning that more and more.

    Like

    Reply
  10. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Living in the relative hinterlands [Denver], the Met cinecasts have been a veritable godsend to those of us somewhat removed from prime opera centers. This past season saw metro-area venues increased from six to nine, with several theaters adding a second screen because of the crowds. Most attendees are your usual middle-age-and-up opera devotees, with walkers far outnumbering Walkmans (do people still use those?). Most everyone I asked admitted to attending all three (this year, four) annual Opera Colorado productions, so the cinecasts may not be drawing many new operagoers. No local theaters have yet picked up the SanFran productions (closest is Co-Springs 60 miles south and Fort Collins, 45 miles north). Closest viewing for La Scala cinecasts was formerly Tucson (!), but rumors abound that one of the chains may give Denver a try.

    Like

    Reply
  11. The Opera Tattler Avatar
    The Opera Tattler

    Paul: How interesting! The crowd is much the same in SF, when I go there I know about half the audience, at least by sight, and always see them at the opera house too. Hopefully they will have the SF Cinemacasts in more theaters soon. I would like to see the La Scala ones too but again, they aren’t being carried by a theater near here either.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to bean Cancel reply