Throughout the entire history of opera, from its beginning in the Francophile 18th century to the American 21st, there have been numerous moments which stand out as having been controversial of their time and controversial even today due to the contentious nature of the events. If one looks to contemporary issues like Anna Netrebko’s alleged blackface while participating in Verdi’s “Aida” at the Arena Di Verona, Jonas Kaufmann’s historical legacy of cancelling concerts, Angela Gheorghiu’s inter-performance outbursts, or even further back in time like the Berlin Deutsche Oper cancelling their 2006 production of Mozart’s “Idomeneo,” the premiere of John Adam’s “Death of Klinghoffer“’ or the recent ordeal with the Korean Broadcasting System’s choice to air Puccini’s “Madame Butterfly” on the Korean “Day of Liberation,” there is enough activity to fill a lifetime and then some. 

However, certain events stand out as having had far-reaching impacts on the trajectory of opera than others, with some being more controversial than others, more adventurous than disquieting, or even more progressive than traditional. In fact, the legacy of concerts where fights and other audience quarrels broke out is something of a historical constant, from the 18th to the 21st century, from Berlioz to Stravinsky to Steve Reich! Not only that, from having an all-female cast of Mozart’s ‘The Magic Flute,’ to Tobias Kratzer’s “Tannhäuser” in 2019 at the Bayreuth Festival, artistic choices sometimes do not have the impact as once thought, nor are they exceptional in design.

Safe to say, there many good choices but there are as many bad choices which end up turning off audiences from opera. Of course, dramatic budget cuts to opera funding throughout England, Bayreuth’s recent reduction in their paid opera choir size, and the Metropolitan Opera’s endowment reduction, all speak to an exceptionally precarious future for opera, one where funding is becoming an increasingly difficult topic of discussion but one which must be talked about regardless. Despite the many controversies plaguing the artform, opera has generated great change throughout the world, and without your support, the future of opera cannot be so easily guaranteed. In this article, we’ll take a look at three notable controversies in opera history, beginning with one of the biggest from the Francophile 18th century to one of the (many) biggest of our time in the American 21st century.

The ‘Querelle des Bouffons’ (Paris, 1750s)

What opera looks like today could have been much different had the fight between the Italian “opera buffa,” or the more everyday humorous type, and the Francophile “tragédie lyrique,” or the more serious variety, and the implications of the choice to let Italian ‘comic opera’ gain a Francophile presence. Dubbed the “Querelle des Bouffons,” or “War of The Comic Actors,” this debate between those preferring the opera descending from the “opera seria” versus those who were for opera of the lighter, more entertainment, and working-class oriented variety, was contributed to by many of the great French philosophers of the day, each with their own position. 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, author of the famous 1753 “Letter on French Music” (“Lettre sur la musique française”), supported Italian opera, “I confess that French musicians are in a state of feeling beauty, and I would willingly say of [Giovanni Baptista] Pergolesi…that he has already made a lot of artistic progress,” referring to the opera, “La serva padrona.” By the 1750s, the debate was largely over as Italian ‘opera buffa’ was successfully integrated into the Francophile operatic context, and with the rise of composer Jean-Philippe Rameau and his usage of comic opera as early as the 1740s in his opera, “Platée,” those who didn’t like the style were forced to back down on the matter. 

During the 20th century, however, the quarrel’s legacy could be felt in the French operas produced which took from Italian lyricism and French harmonic richness, Pauline Viardot’s “Cendrillion” (1904), Ravel’s “L’heure espagnole” (1911) and Poulenc’s “Dialogues of the Carmelites” (1956) two examples. Contemporary French operas like Kaija Saariaho’s “L’Amour de loin” (2000) carried the debate through, however conceiving of the lyricism-harmony debate in greatly developed ways thanks to the sheer amount of possibilities now available.

‘The Children of Rosenthal’ (Russia, 2005)

With a libretto written by famed Russian writer Vladimir Sorokin and music by Ukrainian composer Leonid Desyatnikov, a great controversy emerged around this opera whose central story is that of an attempt to revive the existence of many great composers like Wagner, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, and Verdi. However, the controversial part of the story was its premiere in 2005 at the Bolshoi Opera House in Moscow, Russia. On its face, the opera is considered to be of the ‘postmodern’ quality given its numerous meta-level allusions to itself as an opera and the construction of its form, a series of operatic vignettes featuring different composers. Given that the Bolshoi is a place of exceptional art, having an opera like this performed at the house was not a small venture nor an inconsequential one either. As one 2005 CNN article put it, “Russia’s Bolshoi Theater has sparked outrage by putting on an opera that some lawmakers and a pro-Kremlin youth group say is pornographic.” 

Whether the opera actually was or was not lewd in its content is not the point as most of the controversy was around the defamation of character of music history’s great names, or at least that is what Russian Duma member Sergei Neverov would have us believe. At the time, Desyatnikov and Sorokin’s opera was the first new opera to be premiered by the house since the performance of Handel’s “Giulio Cesare” in 1979. However, most of the animosity towards the opera can be seen in the satirical, borderline absurdist, view of Stalin’s Russia by the composers, with Mozart wedding a prostitute being the cherry on top which led to the opera’s castigation among the elites.

Sorokin’s comment, “All this in parliament is simply a manifestation of savagery and ignorance,” in the decades after the performance have unfortunately become reality. As Valery Gergiev has announced, the Bolshoi has no plans on performing anything new for a very long time. It’s a shame, as there is so much from the late-Soviet and early post-Soviet period to perform and no one to listen to it. Maybe one day, this will change but the odds are slim to none.

Netrebko v. Metropolitan Opera (USA, 2023)

An unfortunate incident that resulted in the severing of ties between one of the world’s greatest dramatic sopranos and one of the world’s most important opera houses, in 2023 Russian soprano Anna Netrebko sued the Metropolitan Opera House and Peter Gelb, its current General Manager, for wrongful termination. It cannot be forgotten that after February 2022, Russian culture was seen in a vastly new way. As a result, Russian repertoire and performers of every kind were transformed, with the latter required to make political public statements.

The defendant (Gelb and the Met) argued that Netrebko was closely associated with Vladimir Putin, whereas the plaintiff (Netrebko) argued that this was not at all the case stating she is “not a political or ideological supporter of Putin, is not a huge Putin supporter.” This case had a serious impact upon Netrebko’s standings with American audiences, opera houses, and colleagues alike, and whether one likes or dislikes her, Netrebko’s career was temporarily harmed as a result of her termination. In August 2024, her discrimination case, arguing that male Russian singers were more political than her yet remain in working relations at the Metropolitan, was advanced. 

It’s rich, however, as Netrebko has spoken out against the actions of Putin many times yet these have seemingly been forgotten in the torrent of news after February 2022. Nevertheless, as the many countries of the world continue their disagreements, condemnations, and defense of Netrebko’s performance career, it should be remembered that this case represents more than Netrebko but the borderline criminal treatment of singers by institutional heavyweights. In no small way, Netrebko’s censorship represents the contemporary state of the Metropolitan Opera House in all of its glory. It remains to be seen whether that lost glory will return.

The post 3 Controversial Moments From Opera History appeared first on OperaWire.

This @deutsche_oper production: painful to even think about. “Nixon in China” is so often mistreated or misunderstood. In 35 years I’ve only seen 2 productions that got it right. This one? Clearly a disgrace. But we composers can only babysit our creations for so long.

What do we need myths for? To find and learn the great truth in the great adventures of the bravest heroes. To be deeply impressed, so we would never forget or betray the values our idols stood for. To make the world better, after all.

And what makes a story a myth? A plot that never happened before, a danger that is hard to compare, unreal circumstances, and certainly a hero, that hopefully solves everything in the most unpredictable way or sacrifices themself for a great purpose.

Do we have many such stories in our modern history? There are only a few, probably because it takes decades if not centuries to turn into one. 

The 1972 visit by the American President to China had been turning into a myth while it was happening.

Historic Mission

The Cold War, Vietnam, weak or failed attempts at nuclear disarmament. Spies and suspicions everywhere. All this built a perfect staging for a new myth to be born.

Mutual threats with the Red countries and anti-communist politics in the US were not giving any results. Living in constant fear weakened the nation. The need for an unconventional approach was clear. Establishing peaceful relations with communist powers in Asia seemed to be a double win. And this is how a new purpose was found and Nixon in his own words made it a reality.

Before leaving for China, the US President stated that although the US and China have had great differences for decades, what was extremely important at the moment was to manage these differences to prevent war. This farewell statement almost from the board of his plane, self-proclaimed Richard Nixon a new hero.

Everything that was happening and being seen in China by the Western world was just a fairytale itself. It was a land of another culture and from another time, but like an ancient dragon from Chinese legends it inspired fear with its might and wisdom of the centuries behind it.

So, all the ingredients of the myth were ready and mixed into the story with the widest media coverage in the world.

What would happen if the visit failed and was there a real possibility for that? Historians must have asked such questions for sure, but there’s not much written on that. The legendary status along with a round-the-clock media coverage of the event everywhere in the world, made it evident and enigmatic simultaneously. The only thing that was made clear to people was that the world became safer.

“The Week That Changed the World,” Nixon concluded his trip.

Turning Into an Opera

The recent President’s visit was a defiance of fate for the art form that mostly dealt with the affairs of the past. A complete modern myth with everything said and done, carefully documented was waiting for artistic reflection.

Could other art forms have done that? Sure, there were many creative attempts on this matter. Theatre tended to use too much irony if not satire, especially taking the main characters Mao or Nixon into account… Books turned into documentaries or became too romantic, losing the main line. The visual arts proposed both ironic and documentary reflections of the event, concentrating on particular parts.

None of it gave the complexity that opera could propose and became the flagship to bring the story decades later.

The story was exhaustive. And the plot was not a question. The creators’ team now needed to make their piece special and embellish the story with their own shades of colors, words, and certainly sounds. With how they saw it, because, and it was the most exciting part, all creators have actually witnessed it in real time!

“I was attracted to this idea because it was a part of my life. I was a college student when Richard Nixon was president and he tried to send me to Vietnam. So I had very strong feelings about him,” John Adams said in the interview.

And he composed it this way, modern and minimalist and way beyond. Rhythmic patterns are repetitive but complex, they develop as a plot evolves, and keep us grounded in the plot no matter how unpredictable the visit to China turns. The dissonances are built as a strong response to the evocative lines of Alice Goodman and shake the emotional setting, it liberates us from following the plot directly, insisting that the emotional level was another, no less important, part of this trip.

Alice Goodman laid the ground for never taking this story for fun. She obviously felt a responsibility to faithfully communicate the values and ideals that the event stood for. And she made it through her characters that eventually got emotional arcs such as you can see in a full-fledged novel.

“We couldn’t make it as a satire, we had to have each of our people however monstrous, speaking as eloquent as they possibly could,” Goodman commented.

The lyrics in “Nixon in China” are supernatural. Be it the political ambitions, tiny personal secrets or memories, social imbalance, or enthusiastic observations, it gives a very certain feeling of personality and their role in the story. You can never mix up the characters even if you see just plain text.

And though the text, and certainly the music, are not sympathetic to the disgraced American leader, it leaves us with some kind of human and even heroic sense of Nixon.

“A story of normal people changing the face of history,” Thomas Hampson, who played Nixon in the approved by Adams production at Opera de Paris, commented on the characters.

And they were ordinary people, after all, put in the surreal theatrical space, watched by millions of people around the world. Protecting peace for this world or maybe just playing this legend to teach us the importance of peace for all of us.

Modern [Mis]Understanding

“Nixon in China” explores the key moment in history, that laid the ground for the profound changes in international relations between many countries and regimes out of the initial US-China case.

It contains many things to reflect on today when the relations between the US and China are quite tough and suspicious again, not to mention the obvious problems with Russia.

The original director and ideator of the opera Peter Sellars called his creation an “opera that has the shape of a dream space, of big-time diplomacy.” This is how it was made. And how it would be greatly appreciated today by many people concerned with the situation in the world.

Probably, it’s another reason why there’s no place for satire in it. In the world we live in today, laughing loudly in the face of our fears looks less like a morale-lifting exercise and more like doomed hysteria.

And this is what happened recently in Berlin. Young directors Franziska Kronfoth and Julia Lwowski paid neither attention nor respect for the (now) old myth, its heroes, and its very substance. Another thing that’s gone missing is a strong connection between the story and music. While the work of Goodman/Adams certainly can be percept without a visual part at all, the performance after losing the connection turned rather painful.

The directors duo promoted their style, bright and aggressive, and needed to turn it against the enemy. But “Nixon in China” is a modern and wise myth where the enemy cannot be pointed on that simple. We are left to watch and learn, to value every word coming from each side, to evaluate their ambiguity, and to comprehend how to turn it all for the better.

Unable to find the obvious victim of their rage, directors looked into the real world and found propaganda, our modern eternal enemy. They made it the evil power of their performance and made much fun of that. But they couldn’t get that propaganda did not correlate with the significance of this event, and the diverse media coverage and learning about the possibility of peace in the bipolar world made much more for the myth-making in the story. Yes, it boosted the popularity of the President, as it was supposed to do. But, when talking about our times, wouldn’t it be great, if politics would try to prevent the war for their popularity instead of starting it as they are getting used to now?

Kronfoth and Lwowski, who made John Adams angry, left me very sad, hoping that they will not again show their lack of understanding of the topic with other important operas. They missed a great opportunity to make a fantastic production and to tell a great American myth in Germany, and also, to learn themselves what must be learned by us, those who were born after the premiere of “Nixon…”

There have been many arguments about modern and unconventional productions in the last decades. I believe that it doesn’t matter if it’s classic or not if it respects the source and through the artistic lens provides good moral values. But I’m afraid now, we are experiencing a new wave of this crisis.

In a world of overconsumption, where everything seems to be already seen, the directors pay too much attention to refining and promoting their recognizable style. But only a few can at the same time achieve depth in understanding the piece of which Bob Wilson is a good example. Others fall into their own trap and bring nothing worthwhile into the world, using great music like a random soundtrack for their Instagram stories.

And, just as I teach my daughter about such poor content, I can conclude this article about the disgraceful staging, “Nobody actually cares much about it since there’s no real value.” And that was exactly what the massive exodus of the audience from Deutsche Oper revealed about the performance of “Nixon in China” in Berlin. I hope it was noticed by Kronfoth and Lwowski, as well as the theatre administration, and at least this lesson will be learned.

The post Editorial: Myth-Making in ‘Nixon in China’ and Why Modern Directors Don’t Get It appeared first on OperaWire.

One of my last memories from Russia, before I left it about ten years ago after Russia started the Annexation of Crimea, is how following the EU and US sanctions, Philadelphia and Mozzarella cheese disappeared from the shelves at the supermarket.

Almost instantly, famous Import Substitution was declared and all Russians were strongly advised to be very happy and proud of the results of local producers.

Why am I talking about cheese? To note a few important social and economic consequences appearing shortly after.

Very soon I reported from my homeland that the Italian products had returned to the shops. The Russian market was too important, and also, there is a strong historical bond between the two nations (imperialist past?) that always allowed them to understand each other.

Meanwhile, Russian producers have never achieved comparable results to import quality of manufactured goods, and later, in the absence of competition, quality has dropped even more.

The US-owned brands, produced mostly in Poland, have never returned (at least legally and at large), while the Russian-inspired brands produced in Poland and Baltic Countries were dismissed.

Making a Choice

When the war in Ukraine had just begun, amidst the common shock, opera artists still hoped that their art would not be affected that much. The condemnation of war seemed logical and right for many musicians, but suddenly two groups could not allow themselves that “easy” and fair gesture. The first group consisted of people of high status and therefore bonded to the government, which was slowly taking over control of absolutely every aspect of culture, education, or business since the early 2000s. Another silent minority was elder people from the Soviet past, who still remembered the time when having an opinion or talking about rights was a crime.

The silence of these people made others wary and unable to speak out too much unless there was strong backing in the West. This preoccupation paid off very quickly as soon as the condemnation of military action was declared an administrative and, shortly after, a criminal offense. The pressure was high.

We all remember the cancellation of Russian opera singers and conductors everywhere around the globe. Opera companies seemed to decide on people’s careers. There were numerous arguments and battles, claims, and big headlines. After two years, I’m sure, they meant nothing for their main characters as they actually made their life choices. One shouldn’t have decided in a hurry, none of the counterparts was known for flexibility and or forgiveness. There would be no way back.

Import Substitution

Before writing this article, I asked 11 singers and two musicians in Moscow and St. Petersburg to talk to me on the record, about the opera industry questions only. All declined. Three out of 13 agreed to confirm or disapprove some of my thesis off the record, while ten didn’t feel safe to say anything at all.

Ensemble singers, freelancers, young and older professionals do not feel safe talking about their work. Or just don’t feel safe.

They are now the [survived] working force of the Import Substitution. And the first thing they learned is that they can be substituted just as easily.

The first target to silence were obviously the young singers with active political positions. Many lost their mentorships and were dismissed from their internships in the first six months of the war. Do you remember the young Italian singers coming back to their hometowns to repair shoes as their ancestors did for a living? Hundreds of young Russian singers returned home carrying their broken dreams, unfortunately, they had no traditions to back them up, since such practices were fully destroyed during the Soviet time.

The second group to control was the liberal teachers and mentors (there were not many). They were warned, and in case of disobedience, sent to early retirement. Just as many professors at Russian Universities, not to mention that a dozen professors ended up in prison. Fortunately, if I can still use this word in the article, no musicians were reported to be convicted.

When theatres finally turned calm, silent, and a kind of empty without the world opera stars, international interns, and local interns condemning the war, it’s time to fill them with… someone.

The second cast singers took place in the first cast (sometimes more than deserved place, otherwise not at all). The vacant spots were soon filled with friends of friends, brothers and sisters, etc. Nepotism and favoritism were always a problem in major (not only Russian) theatres but now bloom in Russia like never before.

One [assumably] positive effect of the theatre refill was attracting way more young performers from the regions (but also, not only talented but loyal to Putin’s government).

Not to drop the level [too much] the progressive artist with the star status, bass Ildar Abdrazakov, received special support from the government for his foundation, which now is concentrated on searching for new talented singers and presenting fabulous operatic shows across the country.

The Ildar Abdrazakov Foundation’s withdrawal under Putin’s wing was, in fact, a real loss for the international and Russian opera community, since during the first years, the foundation indeed served an idea of cultural exchange and ties between East and West.

Now, the Foundation has a new mission, to present opera with a bang, glorify the art with bright performances of whoever he chooses throughout the country, and in general, fill the entire niche of opera stars with himself alone.

The main result of Import Substitution is the common inconsistency in the main stages and festivals across the country. Russian stars are now often surrounded by their friends on stage, but an opera performance is not a friendly jam session. The young singers are getting the promotions sometimes way too fast. Burnout has become commonplace in theaters.

A better situation can be seen in the regions, where they were not that dependent on Moscow. Perm and Ekaterinburg State Opera Theatres were always flagman-ships of progressive post-modern presentation and relied most of all on local musicians. The problems that affected them were the cut of the repertory due to unspoken censorship and the blotting out of unwanted authors and perspectives.

Better Leaving [Than Blotting Out]

The iron curtain has not yet fallen this time like a wall. All dissenters were “generously” advised to leave since the beginning of the Crimean campaign. Many did, sick and tired from the pointlessness of a decade-long resistance.

Opera artists were not a target at that moment as the international stage was not affected by sanctions. But when Russia invaded Ukraine, it became clear that nobody would escape the consequences, and they then had to understand and adapt to the new conditions.

Those, who had good international management or foreign residence mostly left.

Soon, Dmitry Peskov, the voice of Putin, came to call on those who left traitors to the homeland and told them never to return, but then, he changed to say that the state is only proud of its talented artists, so highly appreciated in the West.

In Russia, those “highly appreciated” or “liberal” artists were destined for a different fate. The Russian term “вымарывание” is not exactly a “blotting out.” The word has a particular flavor of covering something with dirt. And it wasn’t a coincidence when Russian journalists chose exactly this word to describe the disappearances of the artists and creators in the announcements. Numerous theater and operatic performances now have no directors or playwrights, and many singers (even Anna Netrebko once or twice) were removed from the concerts’ announcements on the Culture channel. And when it comes to asking about nameless artists, the explanation of their absence consists mostly of that very dirt…

When popular Russian writer, essayist, and playwright, Boris Akunin said that his name had been removed from the playbills of plays based on his works, Russian presidential spokesman Peskov said that there is no trend in the country to “erase” authors who are inconvenient for the authorities, and “specific cases should be dealt with separately.”

The special cultural censor institution was set up in the last two years, it is called “Laundry” and has no official status, but works directly with theatre management, giving them hints about which artists fall under the scope of the Presidential Decree No. 322 of 27.05.2022 “On Temporary Suspension of Obligations to Certain Rights Holders.”

Yes, there is a Presidential Decree in Russia, that deprives artists of their basic rights.

Russian News Portal RTVI asked the president of the Intellectual Property Federation, S. Matveev to comment on these precedents.

“In this case, we are talking about the right to a name. This is one of the parts of copyright, is part of personal non-property, respectively, inalienable rights. Removal of information about the author, as well as the name of the work, is a violation of copyright — it is directly stated in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.”

Roman Feodori is not a director of his “Linda di Chamounix” at the Bolshoi. Alexei Ratmansky is no longer listed in the playbills for performances of “Cinderella,” “Anna Karenina,” and “The Humpbacked Horse” at the Mariinsky Theatre. Alexander Molochnikov was typed as “director — DIRECTOR” in the program at MHAT, while his two productions at the Bolshoi were canceled and now the theater denies that his previous officially announced productions existed at all.

The educational part of the theater culture has disappeared. The opinions and artistic positions were erased together with the names of their authors. The main aim of the theater, so recently raised to a new stage of development in Russia, had become the usual public entertainment.

Moscow and St. Petersburg just recently discovered a chest of British opera treasures, once again immersed in the familiar dramatic sound of native Russian operas and the sweet sounds of Italy, with occasional but regular additions of Wagner.

And this, I’d say, is how the Russian opera so accurately reflected the country surrounding it — with a huge step back from what was achieved in the last two decades, and covered with dirt in the last two years.

Russian Opera In Exile

And what about those, to whose words and decisions were all the opera world’s eyes drawn when everything went to hell?

Anna Netrebko left to perform in Europe, and Hibla Gerzmava stayed to sing in Russia. Aida Garifullina left, and Ildar Abdrazakov stayed but he is always welcomed in Italy. The bass was recently dropped by his international management. Elena Stikhina seems to continue her ensemble position at the Mariinsky Theatre performing there since 2022 while also performing in the EU and US. Albina Shagimuratova stayed in Russia but doesn’t perform frequently, and that’s a pity.

Almost none of the exiled singers perform Russian operas now, it’s a difficult period, they say. The problem is that this new and not at all cold war [period?] doesn’t seem to be ending any time soon.

Russian operas are still strictly forbidden in Lithuania and Poland. In the rest of the world, their number has now reduced. The new season announcements promise us “Onegin” in Düsseldorf, nothing so far in Berlin, one ballet in Paris, “Onegin” and “Cinderella” in London, and “Onegin” again in Madrid.

High-tier singers and musicians are trying to support each other abroad, if you want to see the friend circle of Anna Netrebko, just check out the program of this year’s Arena di Verona festival or dates around the Diva’s performances at La Scala or State Opera Berlin. Though you cannot blame or complain about them, they are all indeed great artists.

What we can see now, is that opera in Russia is highly suppressed, and Russian opera abroad is extremely fragmented and limited to a few pieces. Suddenly, it seems that even the old performing art fell victim to Putin’s great plan of dumbing down the entire nation. With even greater sadness, I see that instead of saving Russian opera, putting it in the red book of endangered species and protecting it, studying it, and passing on knowledge, albeit beyond the borders of Russia, we just gave up on it. We melted together the face of a real tyrant, Putin, and Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 10 and Onegin’s eternal concerns, we added “Nutcracker” and “War and Peace” and threw it all back to Russia.

Don’t we need it anymore? Why did we just give it all to Putin, when we all know that he is a person most opposite of enlightenment, inspiration, and joy that art gives to people? Putin can do nothing to the score by Tchaikovsky, one may say. But if Tchaikovsky will only be heard to celebrate Putin’s victories, won’t it poison this music for us forever?

What if we take it back, play it, and give it new peaceful and enlightening meanings, then the Russian president’s absurd attempts to own the Great Russian Culture will fail. Because it’s not his, it’s ours. And you don’t need to be Russian to say it and to feel it.

Just play it again.

The post Editorial: Russian Opera Through the Iron Curtain appeared first on OperaWire.

While the Metropolitan Opera is finishing its season with 72 percent of tickets sold, increasing consistently and showing a growth of six percent compared to the 2022-23 season, a lot of questions remain as Met’s General Manager Peter Gelb and the company head into the off-season.

When Peter Gelb and Yannick Nezet-Seguin were answering questions for the New York Times in April 2023, the difference in their perspectives was obvious. But the truth is born in arguments, isn’t it? And back then, audience members and critics, inspired by the success of the first modern premieres at the Met, might not have much reason to worry about how these two people, so different in every conceivable way, led the same ship (a ship that many saw sinking during the pandemic).

It was evident that Gelb (with his presumed understanding of the Met’s audience) had some doubts about the priority of modern operas in the repertory. In the interview, he noted: “They may have been works of great artistic merit, but by composers who were appealing more to the intellect than hearts of listeners. To find the right balance, we have to experiment. It’s safe to say that by the end of this five-year period, we will know the answer.”

Nezet-Seguin had a greater and more ambitious plan — to achieve high performance for modern operas in the short term of two to three seasons and “to keep the Met as the mother ship of great opera in the world, and therefore great new opera.”

Gelb sounded cautious. Nézet-Séguin sounded not only optimistic but assertive that it was a fait accompli – the Met was and continues to be the standard bearer of all opera, modern opera included.

The title for The New York Times article, “The Met Is Planning a Big Bet on Contemporary Opera,” seemed to be splitting the middle.

That management agreed to play this card so openly was the result of the strategy working to perfection during the first two seasons following the pandemic (this article coincided with the new production of “Champion” months after the success of “The Hours” which sold 86 percent of its tickets during that initial run with an average ticket buy age of 44). New scores and new plots led to sold-out performances, new (younger!) audience, high press coverage, great reviews, and the opening of new social horizons for opera criticism, too.

A new facet of the Met’s identity was revealed. But was it a living creature or a mask? This last season disclosed the weak aspects of this big bet.

A Flawed Plan

When an opera house prepares a production, no matter if it is a new opera or a revival of an old masterwork, it plans the particular financial coverage of costs and profit over a few seasons. The Met never had enough experience with modern operas to create the right formula of income from the revivals of those.

The 2023-24 season showed that the income from the revivals was apparently way lower already in the second season (“The Hours” sold just 61 percent of its tickets, down from 86 percent ticket sales during its initial run, and “Fire Shut Up in My Bones” had 65 percent audience), while (let’s sadly but rightfully note) old masterpieces like “Turandot” (selling 82 percent of its tickets), “The Magic Flute (87 percent), and “Carmen” (81 percent, albeit in contemporary guise), keep up their side of the bargain.

The reason is not that difficult to explain. Modern stories and plots are the subjects of our current concerns and struggles, they are connected to our lives very directly, and the viewer becomes a part of a dialogue. Therefore, modern operas cannot be perceived, even rarely, for their musical beauty only. The premiere performances brought much attention to open the conversation on the topic and to provoke certain thinking, but would you, as an opera attendant, allow the opera house to decide when (what season, what time of the year) you will be subjected to this mental dialogue again?

People love to catch related topics in the arts. Books, movies, TV shows, music. Some topics and some pieces become favorites, but it is us, who decide when we will take this emotional journey again — to listen to the song again tomorrow or re-watch the film the next year. Opera performances deprive us of this opportunity, and the proposed time can hardly match the current emotional or mental state of a person who has already seen the performance.

Thus, it is problematic to foretell who will attend the revivals of modern operas. New York visitors? Somebody who missed it the first season? The opera house cannot rely on that. This simple fact is that modern operas are not an optimal financial base for the house repertory the size of the Met Opera. The first season rarely pays off the full new production (and even less the brand-new commission).

I believe this is exactly what Gelb wanted to find out in a five-year period and then decide how he would move forward from there. It didn’t take long for the results to become evident. Of the six contemporary operas showcased in 2023-24, only one topped the 72 percent average ticket sales for the season (“X: The Life and Times of Malcolm X”) and the ensemble of modern works averaged just 65 percent audience attendance.

The income of the theater grew, but not fast enough, and for the donors, a strong strategy of development is one of the most important aspects. Surely, Gelb would not pivot right away? Well, he already did, taking out a massive bit of the endowment when the season wasn’t even half-way finished. In a corresponding New York Times article, Gelb revealed some major changes to the upcoming seasons including cutting down the contemporary operas from six per season to four next year as well as other cutbacks to ensure financial sustenance for the Met.  

Question Marks at the Podium?

And speaking of The New York Times, arguably the most important newspaper on the planet and the one that is always the first to report breaking news from the Met and Gelb himself almost exclusively, added an interesting wrinkle to the dialogue over the Met’s upcoming direction.

The context: a series of performances at Carnegie Hall for the Met Orchestra under Nézet-Séguin. Recently, the star conductor, overloaded with his responsibilities at his numerous major positions in Montréal and Philadelphia, gave many reasons to doubt that “his signature style” and “original reading” actually serve the orchestra or enrich its musical identity. His concerts at Carnegie Hall were described by NY Times’s assistant classical music and dance editor Joshua Barone  as “difficult to assess.” Barone’s NY Times review wasn’t the only one critical of the conductor (OperaWire’s own noted that the reading was “extremely hard to follow as the dynamics didn’t quite have a pronounced range … and, coupled with lethargic tempi, the piece lacked a sense of ebb and flow“), but it is notable. 

When Nézet-Séguin took over as the General Director at the Met, the NY Times was always loud and proud in its praise of the conductor. Throughout his tenure, the publication not only declared Nézet-Séguin to be “New York’s Conductor Now” following the pandemic, but did numerous interviews with the maestro on his attire and the importance of his being gay. Few other classical musicians get that kind of media attention, which is often reserved for cultural icons.

But this latest article was not so much a common critique but featured a full-blown assessment of Nézet-Séguin’s tenure to date. Everything was put on trial – from his commitment to the orchestra, his involvement (or lack thereof) in the labor dispute, how many musicians he has hired. There was even a jab at the conductor’s  Twitter account description of himself as the “father” of several organizations he leads. Here is the relevant excerpt:

“This group’s specialties can seem indistinct; its quality, inconsistent. And, in general, it has been difficult to assess these players under Nézet-Séguin, who took over in 2018. A music director needs to be present to shape the sound of an ensemble, and he has been chronically overscheduled, juggling the Met with the Philadelphia Orchestra and Orchestre Métropolitain in Montreal, not to mention his post as the head of conducting at the Curtis Institute of Music.

“On a practical level, a music director also needs to build an orchestra, and the Met’s is still regrouping from a wave of retirements during the pandemic. For reasons perhaps beyond his control, though, Nézet-Séguin has hired a mere 13 instrumentalists since he started.

“He has exuded contemporary cool, proudly displaying his painted fingernails on Met posters; yet he has also, in a reinforcement of maestro mythology, referred to himself as the ‘father’ of the company. In 2021, he broke convention by speaking out in favor of the orchestra’s musicians during a labor dispute, but only when it mattered least: nearly a year after they had been furloughed during the pandemic, and after they had already reached a deal for partial pay.

This is the first time that any writer at the New York Times picks at the conductor in that manner. Even on the occasions when he has been critiqued for his performances, the NY Times has never questioned his role. This passage undeniably brings up the question of – should Nézet-Séguin, who, per the Wall Street Journal signed a four-year contract that started in 2020-21 and thus should be up for renewal soon, continue at the helm (that said, Nézet-Séguin is already set for some projects with the Met up to 2028)?

Meanwhile, Nézet-Séguin just joined the Rolex family and has garnered critical acclaim for his performances at Carnegie Hall with the Philadelphia Orchestra. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the orchestra has agreed to its leader’s contract extension at least through the 2029-30 season. The maestro is also a “lifelong” artistic director and principal conductor of the Orchestre Métropolitain in Montréal.

The recent criticism, along with mixed results of modern opera revivals, the lack of improvements to the orchestra, and no mention of a contract extension, might point out that Gelb wants to think hard about whether he should take control entirely into his own hands. His moves are likely to be more conservative, but this year’s data suggests that the Met is not yet (or ever) ready to become the “mother ship” of new opera as seen by its star conductor.

There’s undoubtedly still a lot to do at the Met in this direction in the next few years. Maybe it doesn’t become a “mother ship,” but instead reveals something else about what it means to be The Met Opera. 

The post Editorial: Is Peter Gelb Ready to Run the Met Opera Renewal All on His Own? appeared first on OperaWire.

Ten thousand people in the antique amphitheater, 164 musicians and 314 chorus members on stage, and 70 dancers along with some 1,000 staff members backstage in the very heart of Verona. Everyone falls silent as a presenter begins their speech, expressing tons of excitement about the night and high-minded, albeit well-deserved, praises for the one and only Maestro Riccardo Muti.

The great conductor appears on the stage in his usual simple black jacket, bows to the audience, and immediately starts communicating with the orchestra. He seems not to care about the monarchist tradition of saluting the President of the Republic, who arrives when all is ready and set — Muti knows perfectly well that his, so loudly celebrated, time on stage was strictly dependent on the arrival time of the Mattarella’s car and his endless walk down the red carpet. A short warm welcome to the government and without waiting for the crowd’s cheering to cease, the Maestro begins with the Italian National Anthem.

Viva l’Italia!

Inno di Mameli (the Italian Anthem) is a song of unity over centuries of struggles for love and prosperity for millions of hearts and souls, known and sung by every Italian. But in this country, it could be (and even this night, they talk about it) replaced with any other sincere and passionate song once a choir of Italians would sing it from their hearts. Italian voices are what make the song an anthem.

Louder and stronger, more loving and united in every heartbeat, every human voice that is no weaker than the choir, every conductor’s movement, and the warm wave of applause. This is their anthem. At this moment, you understand what a huge responsibility rests on the conductor’s shoulders this evening. To celebrate an Italian Opera with the Italian nation means to play the music in a way so that every next piece would become an extension of the anthem and Italian unity.

That night in Verona, Maestro Muti, along with his orchestra and chorus, achieved tremendous success in this. In less than ten pieces by Verdi, Bellini, Rossini, Boito, and Puccini, the Italian conductor pictured the struggles of modern Italy. Although, not so modern they are.

Eternal attraction to complete freedom and the need for authority and a strong rule. Self-sufficiency and dependence on traditions and family. The search for the ideal, not to conquer it but to sacrifice oneself for it. Guglielmo Tell (so luminous!), Norma (rising from the bottoms, developing and flying so high), and then, Macbeth — to come back to the sacred motherland…

Verdi’s “Patria oppressa” with the chorus that forged an Italian identity long before the unification of the state. And it’s mind-blowing and powerful in Arena. A storm of applause.

A little Symphony from “Nabucco” to catch the breath, Maestro Muti wants his listeners to go deeper, not farther… Everyone knows what’s coming.

And here it goes, “Va’, pensiero” from “Nabucco.” The single line of its chorus “O mia patria, si bella e perduta” (O my country, so beautiful, and lost) is thought to be the most resonating with many Italians in the middle of 19th century, searching for changes, unity and empowerment for their country, and almost two centuries later, it resonates again.

On 27 January 1981, the journalist Giorgio Soavi proposed replacing the national anthem with “Va’, pensiero.” The idea was viral for some time and then forgotten until 2009, when Senator Umberto Bossi took it up again, but to no effect. This year, this powerful piece appeared in an amazing biographic movie “Cabrini” in a scene invoking images of exile and lost homeland for Italian people in America.

And now, these feelings of inconsolable longing and love fill the amphitheater like a warm wave. The sincerity of the singing of more than 300 choristers is divine, and not inferior to the sincere singing of children in the movie about an Italian missionary in America. Maestro Muti, Chorus Master Roberto Gabbiani, and all the choir members did a great job! They brought a pure miracle to the Arena.

This time not only the thunder of applause should be noticed in the crowd. There’s another, more important sound — a short quiet weep, from the very deep inside of the Italian heart. A little tear that one would hide and cherish if they were alone in a room, but under the endless dark sky of Verona, Italians open their eyes wide up to the sky and let their inner fire fly over their beautiful and lost homeland.

Conclusion

Every sung word, every played note. They are divine, bigger than anyone in the audience, than the President of the Republic, than the 2000-year-old Arena. But it is not a fairytale, it is Italy in the centuries and today, told to us by Maestro Muti through the music of Italian composers of the past.

Muti concludes his music performance with a detailed Intermezzo from “Manon Lescaut” and a massive Preludio e coro from Boito’s “Mefistofile.” He points to the conflict between a human and higher powers and gives us time to digest it until the music lasts.

The stories tell us about human weakness, sins, and failures, but the music so often throws shade on established standards and endings, calling us to notice and savor the entire pallet of facts and emotions behind them. The world is not so simple, it cannot be expressed directly in words. It’s not (or not only) what we are daily told it is.

When the music is over, Maestro Muti takes a microphone, and what he says, will be widely quoted the next days in parts. One single phrase will make a headline, but I believe that nothing should be missed from everything he says.

First, the conductor addresses to his orchestra. An enormous group of amazing artists that have been living and sounding like a single super organism tonight, and to an incredibly talented choir led by maestro Roberto Gabbiani. His appreciation of the musicians is endless. The greetings to the President and ministers are courteous but brief, and the priorities are clear.

Next, Maestro speaks about Italian Opera. He says it’s a national treasure that provoked the development of this art in the whole world, but what bothers the conductor is that perception of this art is way too often narrowed to operatic singing. More attention must be paid to music and its deeper understanding and research.

Maestro Muti, who is considered the leading conductor of Verdi’s music, not only practices but, first and foremost, studies the music of Verdi and other composers endlessly, and he is convinced that it is an infinite source of inspiration and mastership but also joy and amusement.

At last, Riccardo Muti addresses “men and women in the government” to remind them that the orchestra is a perfect model of society and that all its parts are different but important and must be treated with equal respect. There’s no “boss” instrument in the orchestra.

He finalizes with the phrase that the next morning will headline every second newspaper in Italy: “The first enemy of music is the conductor.” Muti replies shortly: “No references to Meloni.”

No, it’s not a challenge to the government of Giorgia Meloni, and it’s true, Riccardo Muti said it before. These are the words of a wise man who knows who paid for his triumphal evening in Arena and how much the opera in Italy depends on the state. It’s indeed a reminder, made to the right person at the right time, with a hope to be heard and resolved.

The Second(-Rate) Part

As if following Maestro’s words about opera being more than just popular singers, the second part of the Gala was not even close to the true greatness and sincerity of the first part. The great acoustics disappeared after some adjustments, made during the break. One might wonder why they started with Kaufmann’s flagman aria “E lucevan le stelle” but soon one might forget about any questions since the change of sound is so apparent and disappointing.

The rest of the program was stereotypic and inconsistent, too. It rather reminded a circus where artists replace each other on stage in the endless colorful queue of their own little performances. Juan Diego Flórez was the mainstay of this evening, Aigul Akhmetshina shone out with her velvet tone and undeniable stage presence. Francesco Ivan Ciampa was an excellent conductor and did his best in given circumstances. But even the best attempts of the most talented artists dissolved into an endless tele-marathon-style program.

The most popular arias, performed by top stars. So beautiful and bright but empty. A sad touristic side of Italian culture, a neon-colored David statuette. “I saw the best opera stars in Italy, around the opera world in 1.5 hours, what a deal!”

The parterre and the boxes were rapidly emptying out. President Mattarella left when the orchestra started the very first aria. His official YouTube channel shows this moment as if Puccini’s music was played to accompany the head of the State while he was leaving. He casually talked to other people on his balcony and turned his back to the stage when Jonas Kaufmann started singing. Giorgia Meloni left after a few arias too.

At the end of the concert, it is easy to notice that the number of viewers dropped at least by a third. The noise of the clapping hands has gotten noticeably quieter too as if it tried to adapt to the low acoustics of the second part.

Lesson Learned?

What was it, a failure? Bad acoustics? (in an Arena, oh, no way!) Someone’s mistake? Or maybe it was a lesson in Italian Opera?

Because, in fact, if we forget about this major shift in perception, if we stop (automatically) comparing the second part to the divine performance of the orchestra and choir, if we simply watch the single performances of this evening on YouTube, we may easily find that it was good, even very good!

And we may understand a simple message, so clear and henceforth, undeniable. Opera is not about singing first. If we remove the arias, we still have an amazing art, a massive force, exciting, overpowering, pinning us to our chairs. And we will still sing alone and feel like we are a part of something bigger.

And vocalists are surely important, but like fireworks, you cannot watch them endlessly, they are too loud and bright. Like in the orchestra, in an opera performance, every part has its function, and nothing is more important. That is why, usually, aria concerts contain overtures and intermezzo, without them a concert of a most talented singer turns into torture. Everyone noticed it at the concert at Arena di Verona.

The Great Maestro gave us a perfect lesson. A new perspective for us to practice and enjoy. And we learned it and it feels good, right? Let’s savor this feeling for just a moment, and now, as good students, I think we must ask our questions.

That night, Maestro Muti and every artist presented to the world and celebrated the Great Italian Opera, and there were no (or almost no) forgotten heroes. I believe it was so moving and substantial for musicians to feel their importance, to be in the very first row. And yet, it was just one beautiful night and the clock struck midnight. Then the fairytale was over.

In the ancient galleries of Arena di Verona, the stars, ministers, and managers will continue shaking hands, drinking wine, and signing new contracts for $15,000 for 15 minutes of stage presence, ’til late.

Meanwhile, the musicians, choristers, and stage workers, who made that night in Arena pure magic will pack and go home, tired but happy and satisfied at least with this night. The next day they will return to their work with low fees, unpaid rehearsals, unsolved worker union agreements with their foundations, and no proper state laws to protect their basic workers’ rights. They may receive certificates of gratitude from the Ministry of Culture, though.

I do really appreciate the attempt of Maestro Muti and his brilliant metaphor, and yet, if the Italian orchestras are the models of society, then we assumably should talk about society from “Nabucco.”

The post Editorial: Riccardo Muti Claims That Opera is Beyond the Singing appeared first on OperaWire.

While the top-tier operatic and classical music from the UK consistently achieves great international success, the well-being of the average and especially emerging artists always seemed quite unstable and problematic. 

According to the research of the Musicians’ Union (MU) in the U.K. before the war in Ukraine started, classical musicians—including those holding full-time jobs as ensemble musicians—on average earn under $30,000. According to another MU study, more than 40 percent of musicians in the earliest years of their career (five years or less of professional experience) have taken unpaid work; 17 percent of those with 11 to 20 years of experience have also worked for free. 

In such economic circumstances, having suffered substantial losses as a result of the pandemic and Brexit, musicians face a new—national—cost of living crisis.

The cost of living increased sharply across the UK during 2021 and 2022. The annual rate of inflation reached 11.1% in October 2022, a 41-year high, before finally easing to 10.1% in January 2023. 

Although freelance musicians could never be called socially and economically protected groups, the global crisis over the last three years critically increased their vulnerability to any instability.

“A recent survey of 301 musicians revealed that 26% of professional musicians have skipped a meal due to the cost of living crisis. This is almost double the national average figure of 14% skipping meals reported by a recent TUC survey, suggesting musicians are struggling with rising food costs more than most,” the Encore survey stated.

“The Encore study also revealed that 51% of musicians have taken a second job to supplement their income as a result of the cost of living crisis.”

The travel limitations caused by Brexit literally locked most young musicians inside the country, but now, with the significant increase in fuel prices, Encore’s survey data shows that 79% of musicians reported they would be reducing how far they travel for work this year.

It really narrows the industry down, without easy international access and not being able to travel over their own country, the UK opera industry will presumably be kind and gracious only to those who could get it to the ensemble of the theatre. But we all know that at certain career stages, freelance gives the best opportunity for artistic development, and for the young artists to nest at a lovely company is simply impossible.

The new Budget presented this Wednesday by Jeremy Hunt confirmed the extension of the higher tax relief for the theatres by two years.

The Royal Opera House immediately reacted on Twitter, stating, “We are hugely grateful for the vital support announced by the Government in today’s Budget, maintaining the higher rate of Theatre.

“Tax Relief until 2025. These measures recognize that investment in culture equals an investment in economic growth and job creation, helping to present a confident UK to the world: a UK to visit, invest in, and which has immense cultural influence around the world.” 

It’s true—the extension allows ROH, among many other cultural institutions, to accumulate more funds to maintain and revive lost ground especially on the international level and with international performers. 

Unfortunately, the cultural investments of the current budget does little to affect young performers and freelancers in general. For them, we should consider analyzing the common part of the budget dedicated to tax and benefits.

There is a rather sad statistic we can see if we read Miles Brignal’s analysis on how Hunt’s measures on tax and benefits will affect different social groups. In short, at the moment, you’d better be single and have a high income to benefit from the new budget. 

The only problem is that most opera singers will not fit into this status. I also cannot say that this classification gives much freedom to choose and to decide on (especially young people’s) lives. 

But, after being deprived of gaining international careers, many young professionals started to consider a family as another important step in their personal development along with their careers. In reply, like the rise in the cost of living is not enough, the new budget and its benefits clearly suggest that young people stay single and concentrate on work.

What should those who still hope and try more than actually receive any serious promotions do with their lives? Along with talent and hard work, the operatic career requires a lot of hope, dreams, and self-belief. It helps when you skip your meal, you know? 

Arianna Firth, an operatic soprano from London, shared her concern:

“I will have to leave the industry. Ten years of training, a passion that is burning in me to perform and communicate. I need to get a job that pays well, so I’m able to keep a roof over my head. I want children, and at the moment, it is just not possible. If so many of us with so much passion and talent leave the industry, where will the world get their music, entertainment, and theatre from?”

Unfortunately, the UK of today seems to become a place where ambitions are not that important, and creativity should grow out of your practical abilities (including your personal budget and how far you can drive) rather than from your hopes and dreams. A place where you rather go and work, if you’re lucky enough to get a place at the company. If not, you go and work more. And so they do. 

The post Criticism on Fridays: British Musicians Suffer from the Cost of Living Crisis appeared first on OperaWire.

Time heals, it is often said. But I cannot imagine how much time the Ukrainian people, as well as many Russians, will need to heal the wounds inflicted by the vile, criminal actions and decisions of one regime. 

But time is also sobering. And after this year, it still hurts a lot, but I’m not afraid to speak anymore. 

My sober head puts more questions on the table once I observe that which was done by bad people and by good people, too. Time paints it all grey. And it often questions: how long can one be as white as an angel’s feather while they mark it all black around them? 

On this sad and mournful day, marking one year since the beginning of this terrible war, I want to commemorate all the victims and celebrate the strength and will of people fighting for their freedom, their lives, and their country today. And I’m sure these feelings will remain with us and in our prayers for a long time, even when the war ends. 

But now, it’s time not only to feel but to think and act based on humanity and common sense, not emotions.

And the first thing we should do is to stop the war between us because Putin’s regime highly benefits from this.

The bipolar world serves Putin.
The anti-Russian culture talks and bans serve Putin.
The Ukrainian people against the Russian people serve Putin.
“Choose your side” serves Putin because the existence of two sides serves Putin.
The hatred and fears of ordinary people serve Putin. 

And while Putin continues to encroach on independence of the neighboring country, he is actually way more successful in re-subjugating and suppressing the Russian people, depriving the country of freedom, information, and education while at the same time showing how terrible and hateful the western world is. “You think life in Russia is bad? Well, go to Europe and see how they’ll treat you if they ban even Tchaikovsky and Pushkin.” 

There’s a lot of rhetoric about that. But after a year, I could not stand it anymore. How could the Ukrainian Minister of Culture, Oleksandr Tkachenko, be hooked on such terrible nonsense that the Russian regime threw at him? Manipulating him to declare a knowingly losing war against the culture will only create more arguments and never make him any friends.

“…let’s pause performances of Kremlin-favoured works?”

How much power does Tkachenko give Putin if one word of the criminal Russian president is enough to steal culture from the rest of the world? Putin likes Tchaikovsky, so we give it to him and ban it? What if Putin likes Gogol?

There’s a lot to refer to in the history of Russian culture, especially that of the 19th century, which explains why the country repeatedly returns to such wretched rulers that suppress their people and cannot give up the imperial ideas of the past, and so can be partly quoted by the Russian government.

And yet, we admit that the special attention of the authors to the so-called “Russian soul” often critically refers to the lack of education and international integration for Russian people. It gives the keys to understanding and integration, never actually praising the state—though quite romantic from the perspective of arts—where Russia seems to be stuck for over two centuries, no matter the revolution, wars, and new regimes.

Putin stirred up a war within the arts, and for us, it looks like the most losing part.

We are all disconnected, rejecting each other, hanging labels, and refusing to perform together. We have good guys asking to ban Prokofiev and Chekhov. We have angry people in Vilnius, deprived of seeing the performances they were waiting for half of the year. We have Elīna Garanča criticized for singing her amazing Amneris alongside Jonas Kaufmann and Anna Netrebko.

Consider Ukrainian soprano Anna Bondarenko, who cannot publicly celebrate her triumph in the same “Aida” because, in the eyes of her president, she shared the stage with the enemy. The police for Netrebko’s concert cordoned the entire quarter around the theater in Arezzo off while Italian ladies protested the ban of Netrebko around the theatre. 

Arguments. Shame. Protests. Bans. Political gestures. Resignations. 

Where is peace? Where is art?

What would be bad if Ukrainian artists shared the stage with Anna Netrebko? After this year, I would only accuse her of vanity and the desire to be close to those in power, be it Vladimir Putin or Peter Gelb.

What if they dialogued? What if Pussy Riot was there too? Could Anna Netrebko keep silent? That would be the time of truth and a failure of Putin and his ideas to disconnect us all.

What if Ukranian people were invited to concerts and performances where their sorrows would be openly remembered, understood, and reflected by the international cast that included Russian singers? Such an open-hearted event would show we are all different, and yet we are so alike. 

Don’t tell me Ukrainians would feel bad about the presence of Russians. Don’t tell me that. No matter how long I have lived abroad, I am Russian. And this year, I spoke to dozens of Ukrainian people and never hid my origin.

I was open; I was with them, trying to understand their pain as much as I could. I always saw how they felt my pain and fears, too. Never in my tough yet heartwarming experience, in hundreds of hours of dialogue in a dozen of cities across Europe, did the Russian and Ukrainian people fight.

There are criminals in this world, and unfortunately, with the world population surpassing eight billion, they are many. But even more terrible is the fact that there are absolute villains who organize those bad people to serve their terrible needs. Together, they became the horrifying and dreadful superpower nobody in the world knows how to stop.

But we must understand that only together we can stop it, and as long as there’s a war between us, they become stronger, and we become weaker. 

We can send more guns, or we can do more handshakes. We can do more hugs and more music, which is even more sincere. We can do what’s kind to each other and not be afraid. We can be kind to Russians. You cannot imagine how hard it is for us, too. We can talk and cry together. We can be no-nonsense and not play by the rules Putin has set, which we, unfortunately, continue to do. We can take OUR WORLD CULTURE back from Putin; it was never his.

We can stop the war between us.

The post Criticism on Fridays: One Year of War appeared first on OperaWire.

Lithuanian National Opera workers are still protesting against the assignment of the new general manager, but it has yielded no results so far. Although there are also artists on the other side of the barricades, the case that is turning the State theater to a narrow and limited national focus after five years of international progress is now obviously political. 

Meanwhile, the newly appointed director started to share her vision, continuously emphasizing the national and local context.

“I am glad I was born a Lithuanian. It is a strong and brave country with so many talented people. We are a small nation with an extraordinary power of talent. We have much to be proud of,” Laima Vilimienė starts her statement as a new LNOBT director. The most popular message in Lithuanian politics now. 

Besides the rhetoric about the past victories of Lithuanian culture, though not of the LNOBT, Vilimienė also shared her thought about the future: “The program I have presented has no room for pro-aggressor creators or performers. Projects to help Ukraine will continue and new forms of cooperation will be sought.”

Just in case, according to the current Minister of Culture of Lithuania, Prokofiev and Tchaikovsky are pro-aggressors and are supposed to be canceled. Thank God, the geniuses of music are dead and cannot hear this nonsense. Such a shame. 

And if anyone in the audience would confront this “strong and brave” position, the new director then doubts their artistic taste, and her new program takes that into account, too.

“My goal is to broaden the audience, not only by meeting existing cultural needs but also by developing a higher level of artistic taste among the public.”

Moving west, we meet another developing confrontation between the state powers and artistic freedom, though this case is not that obvious.

Anna Netrebko is at the center of a loud argument about her participation in the Wiesbaden May Festival. While both parties voiced their position, and now the discussion is being held behind closed doors, the German press is up to conveying this to the audience.

The discussion is now reaching a point where the journalists are explaining, very loudly (though not for the first time), to Uwe Eric Laufenberg that his main point is feeble — opera is indeed political, and the director himself was once appointed there by politicians. 

Opern News also reminded him that the May Festival and the Staatstheater Wiesbaden are funded by taxes. The simple fact is that the befitting narrative eventually leads to the heartbreaking conclusion — the people of Hesse support the war financially. And, considering a fee of 100.000 euros announced for two performances at the Festival, that might be a massive support. Although, as an economist, I can confidently say, this assumption is incorrect even if we assume Netrebko still supports Putin somewhere in her heart. The soprano is not even a Russian tax resident and will certainly not risk her unstable international status by having any connection to Russia now. 

Whatever the decision, or whatever our judgment of the sincerity of Netrebko’s statements (and, accordingly, her appropriateness on the international stage), we see that, as was said almost a year ago, despite the self-assured statements of the soprano’s manager, thediva cannot sit on two chairs.

Turning to Italy, where the authorities seem to be concerned about the Russian context the least, we find just the same parties confronting each other, this time for an entirely different reason. 

From the end of last year, Maggio Musicale Fiorentino Superintendant Alexander Pereira was being investigated for embezzlement. 

One can notice that the amount of funds embezzled is not as critical as we are used to hearing in such scandals — “just” 60.000 euros and Pereira himself always points out publically that while he did spend this amount on what is difficult for people to recognize as work expenses, he also brought significant fundings to the Maggio.

“With my contacts,” he explained, “we brought in May about 7.5 million in 2021 after 4 million in 2020 and compared to an average before me in 2019 of just 2.5 million.”

Pereira is the Anna Wintour of the Italian opera industry. He knows the right people and how to get their money for the Maggio. It is probably for this reason that the Maggio Superintendant doesn’t look ashamed at all, spending money from the foundation for private jets and luxury dinners — he “earned” them himself and was undoubtedly more successful than directors of many other Italian theatres. 

That is why the statements of the opposition (the State and the City of Florence) party sound like good Italian political talks at the dinner, not a real accusation for the modern world.

“Pereira never hid his style. In the Control Commission there are those from the majority who justified his presence by saying that after all, it is like “having Vlahović [the Serbian star soccer player signed for Juventus last year, — author’s note],” if you want a champion, do you have to pay for helicopters?” Antonella Bundu and Dmitrij Palagi made their statement on the official site of Commune di Firenze.

But then, maybe we should better approach the story in this “good Italian dinner” style and not worry about the embezzlement made by the successful manager? Then we could just enjoy the new Pereira plan, which promised to turn the Maggio into a space for public events in the next two years which would then see him bringing even larger funds to the Maggio. 

We could definitely do this if we define the successful manager as the one who can convert the costly dinners into theatre funds, but I believe that this position implies many more responsibilities, such as taking care of the well-being of your employees, guaranteeing timely payment, working with trade unions, and providing a decent material base not only for star tours but also for daily work. And all this has been neglected and violated throughout Pereira’s tenure, especially during the pandemic crisis. 

That may explain why the Italian theatre workers’ union FIALS is raging about any money spent off-label. And if we think about what authorities really have to ask the Superintendant, that would be not how he spent his “deserved” 60K unapproved, but how his idea of a new great Maggio Musicale (which was paid by 7.5 million brought in last year) correlates with the art of music itself, musicians, and their needs. 

Otherwise, the theater runs the risk of becoming one big luxury dinner, like those which Pereira cooks himself out of premium products paid by the Maggio Musicale for wealthy donors, and which have nothing to do with Music. And we don’t know, it may even work out and bring more revenue. But as long as musicians of the Maggio can only state the loss of assets, layoffs, reductions in staff, wage cuts, and attacks on artistic quality in the last 10 years, I don’t think the side expenses are the main problem of the Florentine theatre.

When I oversee all this happening around us, I cannot believe for a second that any of these arguments (that itself is often a good thing leading to problem-solving) is fair and true. They all seem to show how scattered and disconnected our society is, and none of those serves the art and artists. 

#ArtIsPeople and #ArtIsWork were declared during the pandemic but never found their place in the tough opera industry of nowadays. And no matter how many times the phrase was repeated in the last few months, I don’t think anyone on earth would now believe the infamous “Art is not politics.”

The post Criticism on Fridays: Theatres vs. States appeared first on OperaWire.

On February 1, the Ministry of Culture announced that Laima Vilimienė, who is currently a Head of the Klaipėda State Music Theater and previously worked for many years as Lithuanian National Opera and Ballet Theater’s deputy general director for marketing, won the competition for the position of director of the LNOBT.

The end of the contract of the current General Manager of the LNOBT, Jonas Sakalauskas, fell during a very difficult period (reminiscent of fear and often hysteria) for Lithuania. And according to the law, the contract cannot simply be renewed. A new director is appointed every five years on the basis of competition for projects for the next five years. 

The fairness of the commission’s choice must now be called into question, and many professionals are openly emphasizing the conflict of interest of the commissioners who appointed Vilimienė. 

This vague wording of the law allows the ministry to simply put anyone at the head of the theater who proposes (does not even calculate and implement) a program that is in line with the current Government policy.

Five years ago, this thoughtlessness worked out great, and according to the ideas of liberal and progressive ideas of Lithuania at that time, the young opera baritone with management education and the experience was appointed for this position. And that’s how the period of growth started. 

After five years, the theatre is still on its way. This period is certainly not enough to cement the achievements, but now, I’m afraid, we should think about how not to lose what was gained.

The time when newly appointed director Vilimienė worked at the theatre remains a very dark spot in the memory of employees and the audience as a period of stagnation, repertoire monotony, poor work environment, and corruption. Just five to 10 years ago, LNOBT was a typical rural post-soviet institution. 

Although some may note that the Lithuanian National Opera is still not the brightest star among the European opera houses and carries the difficult heritage of 40 years of Soviet occupation, if we look at what progress has been done in the last five years under the current General Manager Jonas Sakalauskas, you can barely find a theatre in the world that made such significant headway in a such a short term. 

Let’s call out just some of them, those I could see with my own eyes not even being present in Lithuania all the time.

Under Sakalauskas, Sesto Quatrini was appointed as an artistic director. Not only has the Italian conductor dedicated his time and skills to improving the habitual pattern of singing and performances, but together with his manager Francesco Saverio Clemente, he brought many international stars onto the LNOBT stage. 

The theatre successfully presented several international co-productions (together with Teatro dell’Opera di Roma, Royal Opera House Muscat, Teatro Real Madrid, Canadian Opera Company, and Grand Opera Huston), and held the world premiere Bob Wilsons‘ “Turandot*.” Not to mention the director’s presence in Vilnius and his iconic meetings with the audience and professionals.

When a young talented Lithuanian conductor Ričardas Šumila was appointed as the new musical director of LNOBT, after working closely with Sesto Quatrini for a few years, he put much effort into improving the orchestra and the results were noticeable almost immediately.

The theatre held frequent auditions for young singers and enriched the ensemble with new names and voices, while the singers (and not only local singers) started to perceive LNOBT as a decent place to work. 

The working environment was improved drastically as an important part of Sakalauskas’ policy – amazing work was done through a personal approach and the presentation of public policies that basically teach old and new workers to value their feelings at the working place.

The worker-oriented approach helped the theatre go through the pandemic with its head held high. Many special activities were held online to keep the staff busy. Psychological help was offered. The wages were saved. 

And once the pandemic restrictions were lifted, loads of time and money were spent on innovative projects like collaboration with Operamania, which gives a chance to numerous young creators to develop and present their modern operas on stage. At the same time, the young directors joined the ranks of theater workers. 

When the war came, the theatre paid (and still does) attention to Ukrainian colleagues, organizing performances and touring the theater companies from Ukraine. 

That said, I must admit that some of Sakalauskas’ decisions were recently directed by politics, not artistry, such as when he decided to cancel all the Russian composers’ performances. If it was a bow to the Minister of Culture Kairys (who actually wants to declare the mental quarantine for all Russian works of culture in Lithuania), it never worked out to save Sakalauskas’ position. 

Eventually, the audience only got more stressed and disappointed. While canceling Prokofiev (who was born in Sontsivka, Ukraine) and Stravinsky (who spent most of his life and worked abroad) made no sense in the matter not to traumatize Ukrainian people in Lithuania, where they, I must note, still speak the Russian language, which I find not a smaller part of Russian culture than the music.

But I do believe, that mistakes happen to all of us. Especially in such difficult times. With Russian composers in the repertoire or without, Sakalauskas is a great chief for his theater and his people. And we can see it from the support the theatre workers show to him on social media. But it’s not enough to change the situation.

That is why Friday night, the workers gathered by the main entrance of the LNOBT to perform an action of “Mourning month. Day One,” the first event of a month-long plan of actions showing workers’ support to their General Manager. And also to protest against the interruption of the program of development and progress that theater followed the last five years, and which the newly appointed director Laima Vilimienė wants to switch to “the more balanced repertoire,” where she “will really pay due attention to the national culture in the broadest sense, both creators and performers.”

With this article, I pay my support to Jonas Sakalauskas and more importantly to the LNOBT, which with ups and downs I could see and write about closely, with which I often disagreed, and yet with which I’m kneeling in respect of truly amazing progress done in just a few years.

I encourage the workers and the audience to not let this go.

*The co-production of the opera “Turandot” was agreed upon during Gintaras Kevisas’ direction, several years before the actual work started and the opera was presented to the Lithuanian audience, previewed by numerous educational events created by Jonas Sakalauskas’s team.

The post Criticism on Fridays: Breaking! Lithuanian Ministry of Culture Is About to Destroy The National Opera appeared first on OperaWire.

Or do we?

Every time Google releases a new version of its Operation System, the owners of hundreds of models of tiny and big smartphones stand still, hoping to update soon (if they ever will), and learn to deal with the new features with excitement. 

Every time Apple releases a new version, the owners of the last model of the iPhone, who “have to” buy the new device every year, choke with anger. “How horrible is that, I liked how it was before,” they shout, even though changing the brand would be the last thing they ever considered.

Apple is a lifestyle and a part of self-perception for many people.

And guess what? So is the Met.

Since the Metropolitan Opera announced its plans to change the policy towards the repertory and schedules to remedy a difficult financial situation the institution is facing after the pandemic, the audience simply cannot stop expressing displeasure with General Manager Peter Gelb’s new strategy. 

Prioritizing new operas and reducing the number of performances by almost 10 percent is only a part of the bigger plan, which also includes the withdrawal of up to $30 million from Met’s endowment and intensified work with donors. 

But are those changes so crucial or are we afraid of losing the Met we got used to?

Going into the unknown is scary, but if we think about it, this actually sounds like a good business development plan. The previous model did not perform well, and the pandemic changed the habits of consumption. Something had to be changed. And, I suppose, management spent long weeks trying to figure out what people want [to pay for], so they would return and fill the hall to the desirable 80 percent. 

But, as often happens in such user research, they might only be finding what the audience doesn’t want. People keep noting how the modern approach to the old masterpieces falls short of expectations. But what they fail to realize is that they paid no attention to the old Zeffirelli productions either, and the poor media coverage didn’t ultimately help to bring more people to see another Violetta (even if there were some truly mesmerizing ones ). 

“People don’t know what they want until you show it to them,” Steve Jobs once said. And this is what, I believe, the recent sold-out performances clearly proved to Peter Gelb. Though Metropolitan Opera was careful after the pandemic and made no big headlines about changing the strategy during the last years, they risked, tried new approaches, and saw them work. 

Did many of the classic opera lovers that gave a standing ovation after the performance of “The Hours” predict or ask to see something like this? Did many newcomers who filled the hall for “Fire Shut Up in My Bones” expect to see such a story on the stage of the opera house? That was a new Met that didn’t try to meet the audience’s expectations anymore. And yet, all those people were there, and they were many.

And these simple metrics, besides bringing triumph for the authors and the cast, also gave hope for a solution to the financial problem facing the company. It promised stable and progressive wages for workers, better contracts, new contributions from modern composers, and new artistic collaborations.

But in no way did that mean the cancellation of the classics. 

I even think that the diversity of the repertoire could promise some kind of protection for classics from brave innovations and excessive creativity. 

Many fans of classics, not only in music but in aesthetics, were hurt by recent attempts of the Met to change the industry. The shiny, but lackluster, Vegas “Rigoletto” staging and overly expensive machinations of the Ring cycle hit them the worst. Those moves showed them the industry was changing, even in their beloved classical house of gold. In our crazy times, it’s like the ground is slipping away from under your feet. Therefore, the conservative (and not only elderly) audience is pretty tough on accepting any changes. 

And when the storm is rising, people, for better or worse, are quick to express all their worries. And at some point, we can see the long-suppressed concerns and objections get out of control.

Ticket prices are indeed the core hardship for many people, and yet, it’s more a problem of the user interface (since we started to talk in this metaphor, let’s keep going). It’s not like there are no affordable tickets at the Met, it’s just that people have no idea how to get them since there are no clear guides to follow. People keep believing that tickets under $200 don’t exist or are rather rare. And so, the rush, weeknights, Fridays under 40, the subscription options, and sales on TDF tickets, which might and have to open the doors for the new audience, remain the prerogative of connoisseurs and regulars. And these cheaper tickets are rarely sold-out for the regular shows (also consider how much people pay for Broadway shows, which do much better business; the marketing machine is one reason, but the excitement of new shows is also part of that). 

Another problem that often appears in people’s comments on that matter is that people feel themselves the prisoners of the Met, having no options, and therefore are afraid they will be forced to see what they don’t want. 

But actually, there are a bunch of options. There are about 30 theaters performing opera in NYC and another hundred small private institutions throwing performances once in a while. Not to mention traveling for opera is always an option and neighboring towns, states, cities, and yes, countries, have LOTS of opera to show. 

But if you prefer the highest rate stars delivered to your comfortable seat in the heart of New York and this is the description of opera for you, well, you’re lost — it is a common iPhone syndrome. There are fans of opera, and there are fans of the Metropolitan Opera. It’s a choice.

And these two options have quite distinct costs. I don’t mean only the ticket price. I mean transportation, timing, the bills in the cafe, and the way one can or cannot choose what and how it will be performed. 

The Met has been building its name and its substance for decades. People say, “I go to the Met,” and sometimes it means more than a particular opera they are going to see. And it also means they want to go to the Met, not just go to see the opera. They want the experience of the Met. In this context, it has been a long time since these audience members have lost control over what they see and if they haven’t stopped going to the Met after those “Ring” and “Rigoletto” productions, it’s very probable that they will remain loyal after this announcement.

Because, besides the costs, the level of satisfaction also differs. With all this controversy, and perhaps only more for this reason, at the Met, like nowhere else, you can feel the childish excitement. You can be ecstatic to the point of losing consciousness. And also, you can be loudly unsatisfied (and this, let’s not hide it, is a certain pleasure too as we can see from the raging comments after the announcement).

And for now, we are free to react to this update as we wish. This will be just a side treat for us, the audience. If we come. For classics or modern composers, it actually doesn’t matter.

The question is whether the Met has already developed its competitive edge enough to dictate its own rules so boldly and push the audience to progress vigorously after the pandemic. And therefore, whether the new strategy will bring sufficient financial improvements to the titan institution, which we are all so dissatisfied with in recent years, and without which, let’s agree, we cannot imagine the world of opera.

The post Criticism on Fridays: The Voices Raised Against the Coming Changes At the MET appeared first on OperaWire.