I'm sad to see so many don't care about the Met's new season.Those of us in North America have few opportunites to see opera broadcasts so the Met HD broadcasts are a lifeline.
Leslie - wait and see.. I just put up this poll, and due to the time difference most of the (until now very few answers) are from Europeans. I am fairly certain that the vast majority of this blogs readers are quite interested in the Met´s new season..
My feeling is that the MET actually plays a sort of Hollywood-role in the world of opera. Its role is basically limited to the nice giftwrap packaging and mass marketing of the opera (a-la Three Tenors, Il Divo, Netrebko hype etc.) and earning nice money out of it. Apart from that, its role in the world of opera is basically irrelevant. Remember any breakthroughs coming from MET? any exciting new interpretations? any new relevant stagings? any exciting new readings? Yes they have big names, and lost of money. So what? Couple of interesting shows and that's it. That's why I honestly do not care about MET's season
But some young, up-and-coming Italian conductor called Muti just made his debut there! - and in the aftermath of another debut by a precocious Argentinian/ Israeli/ Palestinian/ German/ citizen of the world the previous year! Add to this their brave 'premiere' of little-known French director Patrice Cheraeu's production of even less known 'House of the Dead'... It seems the Met require a pedigree more rigorously proven than a Queen's governess. I'm not interested in the Met because anything they show worth seeing, I have alreay seen. And better.
"I am fairly certain that the vast majority of this blogs readers are quite interested in the Met´s new season.."The vast majority of this blogs readers are more supportive of cutting edge stagings and rarely-performed operas than the extremely conservative audience that the MET panders to. Most of the MET audiences likely will be fuming at some of the DVD reviews written in this blog.
"...its role in the world of opera is basically irrelevant." Certainly opera, like all forms of entertainment, is a matter of personal preference, but comments like this border on the absurd. The Met and its storied history needs no defense from me or anyone else. However, even its detractors should welcome the "extremely conservative" interpretation as a breath of fresh air next to the plethora of modernist interpretations in most other houses. You see, it's all about choice. Don't forget, one person's "cutting edge staging" is another person's Eurotrash.
"conservative" extremely or not, is exactly what it says, an attempt to preserve something - basically doing one and the same thing over and over again. This is all very fine, as it enables many to see and hear what they believe the opera should be. However, apart from satisfying this demand, it really doesn't bring anything to the development of the art of opera as such, and therefore, being essentially irrelevant to this art form.One could of course, argue that such a institution is important for bringing opera to the masses, which in itself is a very important role to play.
I interpreted "conservative" to mean traditional, not repetitive. Certainly the Met develops the art form with new productions. Consider Boris and the LaPage Ring in the new season as an example.Think about new singers appearing. Think about old singers appearing in new roles. Think about old conductors appearing for the first time. The art evolves in many ways.The Met may not be first choice among opera houses of the world, but it is hardly irrelevant.
Post a Comment