CommentSept07 - Page: 1 of 1

When Peter Gelb replaced Joseph Volpe as the Met’s GM in 2006, he came with new ideas and a vision of what he could do to make opera more accessible to the general public.

His first moves were ambitious and innovative: new, spectacular productions of old favorites, as with Anthony Minghella’s stunning “Madama Butterfly,” shown in Times Square of all places, the commissioning of new operas, as Tan Dun’s handsomely staged but melodically challenged, “The First Emperor”; broadcasting live opera into theaters, using digital sound and high definition picture quality to showcase for people across the country and around the world just what a Met production looks and sounds like, and releasing these "Hi-Def "productions to TV where an even larger audience can view them in their own homes. It’s all very positive.

The trend has firmly caught on and major companies from LA to D.C. are following the lead.

But as we have noted in the past bringing all these innovations to the greater general public is costly and the ledger is still precariously in the red for many companies who have tried it, which is why only the biggest and most financially secure can venture forth on the scale we have seen.

If the proverbial tree needed to be shaken, Mr. Gelb certainly shook it, took a few chances, spent big bucks, and proved that the opera audience’s appetite to see big productions performed live is out there and interested.

And that leads us to the other side of the equation: you can bring opera to people all over the world and still not expand the base to a younger audience, if what you bring is the wrong thing. Offering a cup of gasoline to a man seeking to quench his thirst is to bring the wrong kind of liquid to a thirsty man. As “Alice” observed in her journey through the looking glass: “Drink enough from a bottle marked poison, and sooner or later you will surely die.” How true.

Our view on the kinds of the opera repertoire is this: much of what exists in opera is good; even more is ignored and never performed; and some is, well, to be frank, vocally (countertenors) and stylistically (trouser roles) outdated and needs to change. Handel and Mozart, for two, were great composers for instrument, but for voice? Well, not even Gelb will buck that proverbial monkey on our backs, we suspect, and it’s too bad. With all the change occurring around us, the most important change will comer from a change in one’s mindset, and the mindset of much of opera is: don’t change a thing.

And so, our question: Can Peter Gelb pull it off? Mr. Gelb has yet to demonstrate (and maybe that’s only because the big test hasn’t come yet, although he did falter with “The First Emperor”) that he has both the brains, which he has, and the ear, which is still in doubt, to bring to the opera audience new productions that people want to hear over and again.

Is he prepared to deal with the self-inflicted wound of opera? Will he bring to the public new productions that fall inexcusably short of melodic inspiration? Will he listen in fascination to the hauteur who think melody is pedantic and simple-minded? Will he spend a lot of money for nothing worth hearing and preserving? To be honest, the Met would be better off giving this site $3 million to help build the opera base, than waste it on composers who bring new operas with “challenging,” and “innovative” scores that few can remember a thing about.

Can he pull it off? We’ll know soon enough.