Met Broadcast Backlash

There was a piece in the New York Times yesterday about the Metropolitan Opera movie theater broadcasts and the small, but inevitable, backlash.

You know something has really arrived when there’s a backlash.

It sounds to me like there are two unhappy camps:

1. people who think the Met broadcasts emphasize acting and telegenics rather than singing, and will therefore change for the worse how opera is performed;

2. and people who see it as competition for local opera companies.

There’s no question that both of those worries are reality-based, but there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle. The Met broadcasts are too good and too successful.

A pretty face is nothing new
Close-ups of singers on the Met stage have hardly initiated a trend that’s been in force for years: favoring singers with conventional good looks. I know a lot of people who believe it was the rising influence of the stage director in opera that precipitated this change. The Met broadcasts only reinforce what has already become the norm.

Competition is nothing new
Similar to the Met’s touring productions years ago, the broadcasts around the country bring the excitement of the Metropolitan Opera to people who may never have the chance to attend in person.

Are they the same as live regional opera? No, but local opera companies who feel they’re losing sales because of the broadcasts should ask themselves why.

As the Times article notes, most Met broadcast attendees have already attended live opera performances – they know very well what they’re missing.

I’m sure many people patronize their local companies and see the Met at the movies –- I encountered one woman at a Met broadcast who had been in the audience at Lincoln Center when the performance was originally recorded.

But if some people choose opera in the movie theater over live, regional opera, it’s got to be because the experience is better for them somehow. My husband is not so crazy about opera, but he really enjoys seeing the broadcasts – for him, the music is not enough – he needs the whole theatrical experience, and that’s not possible from the opera house seats that we can afford.

For a lot of people, the best way to enjoy opera is on CD or ipod in their car stereo, or the weekly Met radio broadcasts. Should we stop producing opera CDs so people are forced to see it live?

There’s also the social experience of the arts to consider – for some, it might be a choice between seeing their local opera company alone, or the Met broadcast with a group of friends – the barriers to entry are fewer at the movies.

I think there’s a whole spectrum of ways that people enjoy art and entertainment, and giving people an additional choice, one that is indisputably high in quality, can’t be anything but a good thing.

...........................................................

More:

• People's Opera Goes to the People

• Extending Your Reach

• Opera Meets Hip Hop

• Yet Another Use for Your iPod

• More on Met Simulcasts

• Rethink the Rules for a New Audience

• Change is Good

Photo: jwilly. Some rights reserved.

Comments

[Q]

You know, the other day while in the movie theater we saw the advertisement for the movie broadcasts of operas. I guess it can draw in more people simply because the ticket for the broadcast is cheaper than the ticket for the live production. Other than that there is no real reason to see this in the theater. You need to see the live version in order to feel the emotion and appreciate the beauty of the show. Should they stop? No, look at how "Rock Band" has opened up a new genre of music for a lot of kids that would not have had the pleasure of paying attention to the songs on the game. I think it is too early to jump to any conclusion on this form of promotion...in all reality that is what the met casts are.