# The Met Opera Is Struggling. How Can It Fill Those Empty Seats?



## Der Fliegende Amerikaner (Feb 26, 2011)

http://nyti.ms/23q5IsS

Excerpt:

MAY 4, 2016

While there was plenty to celebrate artistically this season at the Metropolitan Opera - with several acclaimed new productions and memorable star turns - the company's worrying box-office slump continued.

The Met was on track to take in only 66 percent of its potential box-office revenue through the end of the season on Saturday, company officials said, down slightly from the previous season. (Since some seats are discounted, attendance is projected to be 72 percent.)

Some weakness stemmed from factors beyond the Met's control: Jonas Kaufmann, one of the last bankable stars in opera, withdrew from all his appearances this season, citing illness, and other opera companies are facing struggles of their own. But it is becoming a pattern.

It is a daunting house to fill. With 3,800 seats and 200 standing-room places, the Met is far bigger than most European houses, and it gave 225 opera performances this season, more than almost all of its peers. It sold an average of 2,869 seats per performance - more than enough to fill the 2,256 seats of the Royal Opera House in London or the Vienna State Opera, which can hold 2,284.

What to do? Channeling their inner impresarios, critics and reporters for The New York Times engaged in a little operatic spitballing, throwing out ideas - including some that the Met is experimenting with and others it might find off the wall - that could help fill the house again. MICHAEL COOPER


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Lower their prices would be a good start.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't know the answer, but I do know that opera is and always was about the human voice, and that the Met has always had the reputation of presenting the greatest singers in the world. I've been listening to the Saturday broadcasts for the last couple of seasons, and I've heard very little of the kind of singing that would persuade me to cough up the money for such an expensive night out. No doubt they're hoping that a trend toward updated productions will win opera new audiences, and they may be right. But _Trovatore_ will always need, in Caruso's words, "the four greatest singers in the world." Arguably, the shoes of Caruso, Ponselle, Schumann-Heink and Ruffo have not been nearly filled for a couple of generations.

If they can't raise the standard of singing, Pugg's suggestion that they lower their prices, however they need to accomplish it, may be a necessary course.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm not sure how much the broadcasts effect sales in the Met itself. I would say that whenever I have been to a broadcast the Met itself appears to be pretty full. It was certainly full for the last performance of Electra. Interestingly the broadcast in which the cinema I attended was almost full was of the Pearl Fishers.

Obviously to attend opera is a very expensive night out and with the downturn in the world economy people probably haven't got the ready cash to spend it as many times on opera. It somewhat annoys and amuses me when you have the Met appealing for funds and sponsors as if they are a charity.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I'm not sure how much the broadcasts effect sales in the Met itself.


The LA Phil offered simulcasts of some concerts in local theaters for a couple of years. These were technically and artistically very successful, and uniformly $20 per ticket. But they dropped that program, evidently based on a board judgment that attendance at Disney Hall was being cannibalized. I'm sure they had some kind of measurement to judge that, because the costs of setting up the simulcasts must have been quite high to begin with.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I'm not sure how much the broadcasts effect sales in the Met itself. I would say that whenever I have been to a broadcast the Met itself appears to be pretty full.


Appearances can be deceiving. I once went to a televised sports event at the Albert Hall. All the sold tickets were packed into one Quarter so the wide angle Camera always had a backdrop. We were in a box with no one around us.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

What the Met lost in filling up the seats in-house they made up for big time with their HD performances all over the world.
It's probably a wash.
The Met never actually functioned in the black. It always struggled. 
Maybe it's time to cajole and encourage Volpi to think twice and return back to the fold. His tenure was quite positive in a lot more ways (and HD sprung from his brain, not Gelbs'.)


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know the answer, but I do know that opera is and always was about the human voice, and that the Met has always had the reputation of presenting the greatest singers in the world. I've been listening to the Saturday broadcasts for the last couple of seasons, and I've heard very little of the kind of singing that would persuade me to cough up the money for such an expensive night out. No doubt they're hoping that a trend toward updated productions will win opera new audiences, and they may be right. But _Trovatore_ will always need, in Caruso's words, "the four greatest singers in the world." Arguably, the shoes of Caruso, Ponselle, Schumann-Heink and Ruffo have not been nearly filled for a couple of generations.
> 
> If they can't raise the standard of singing, Pugg's suggestion that they lower their prices, however they need to accomplish it, may be a necessary course.


I normally defer to your opinions which I regard and respect highly but this particular time I must humbly disagree.
Perhaps you were not there in-house (which makes one HUGE difference in assessing a production) to see the magic of a foursome that rivaled anything of the past golden age but there it was : _Il trovatore_ with Netrebko/Hvorostovsky/Zajick and (go ahead and scoff) even a fine performance was wrought from Yonghoon Lee. 
But the icing on the Met cake was the outstanding cast, every one, in the latest _Roberto Devereux_. History was made as Callas passed the scepter to Sondra Radvanovsky whose voice may not be a Tebaldi sound in beauty but then neither was Callas', but they had something much more exciting and electric in their portrayals. To add to the superior casting, Garanca was magnificent as Sara, Polanzani gave the best performance of his career so far, and though Kwiecien may have had some down moments, all four together crafted a piece of tapestry that was hard to beat anywhere.
There ARE singers today who rival some of the best of the past. Do not overlook Joseph Calleja, who even has a certain sound reminiscent of those of past tenors. 
Radvanovsky and Netrebko are astonishingly fine singers and have grown through the years.
And as for sheer beauty of sound, where else could you find another velvet flowing sound like Renee Flemings'?
Watch for newcomers Michael Fabiano who will astound you, he's that good.
No! In my humble opinion, for that's all it is, we have some stellar voices yet today who match many of those of the past.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

First thing they need to do some serious research. To understand what has changed, in opera and wider society. Have they asked those who used to go and now don't? Has the age range demographic changed?

I don't see many empty seats at the European opera houses I've been to in the last couple of years, (perhaps with the exception being provincial British opera companies.)

Maybe they should consider fewer performances, but I guess that affects all their labor contracts.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

nina foresti said:


> I normally defer to your opinions which I regard and respect highly but this particular time I must humbly disagree.
> Perhaps you were not there in-house (which makes one HUGE difference in assessing a production) to see the magic of a foursome that rivaled anything of the past golden age but there it was : _Il trovatore_ with Netrebko/Hvorostovsky/Zajick and (go ahead and scoff) even a fine performance was wrought from Yonghoon Lee.
> *But the icing on the Met cake was the outstanding cast, every one, in the latest Roberto Devereux. History was made as Callas passed the scepter to Sondra Radvanovsky whose voice may not be a Tebaldi sound in beauty but then neither was Callas', but they had something much more exciting and electric in their portrayals. To add to the superior casting, Garanca was magnificent as Sara, Polanzani gave the best performance of his career so far, and though Kwiecien may have had some down moments, all four together crafted a piece of tapestry that was hard to beat anywhere.*
> There ARE singers today who rival some of the best of the past. Do not overlook Joseph Calleja, who even has a certain sound reminiscent of those of past tenors.
> ...


Agree wholeheartedly about Roberto. Great singing AND acting. Yes, we have singers who can match anyone from the mythical 'golden age' whenever that was! I also have to disagree with Woodduck that opera on stage is all about the human voice. On CD yes, but when you are watchng a staged production it is also about the drama. It is about singers looking the part as well. So the Met scores fairly highly in my book, especially as it avoids the excesses of Eurotrash nonsense productions.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Highlights, with repeats as demanded. Appropriate lightings. No stage settings. No costumes (casual dress). Concessions sold during performances, with occasional arias from vendors.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Vaneyes said:


> Highlights, with repeats as demanded. Appropriate lightings. No stage settings. No costumes (casual dress). Concessions sold during performances, with occasional arias from vendors.


"Thank you for that..........no you can just just leave your report.......Yes we'll get back to you....NO, no need to call .....
Please close the door firmly after you. Goodbye."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> I normally defer to your opinions which I regard and respect highly but this particular time I must humbly disagree.
> Perhaps you were not there in-house (which makes one HUGE difference in assessing a production) to see the magic of a foursome that rivaled anything of the past golden age but there it was : _Il trovatore_ with Netrebko/Hvorostovsky/Zajick and (go ahead and scoff) even a fine performance was wrought from Yonghoon Lee.
> But the icing on the Met cake was the outstanding cast, every one, in the latest _Roberto Devereux_. History was made as Callas passed the scepter to Sondra Radvanovsky whose voice may not be a Tebaldi sound in beauty but then neither was Callas', but they had something much more exciting and electric in their portrayals. To add to the superior casting, Garanca was magnificent as Sara, Polanzani gave the best performance of his career so far, and though Kwiecien may have had some down moments, all four together crafted a piece of tapestry that was hard to beat anywhere.
> There ARE singers today who rival some of the best of the past. Do not overlook Joseph Calleja, who even has a certain sound reminiscent of those of past tenors.
> ...


I don't want anyone deferring to my opinions.

Of course we have a few first-rate voices. All I've noted is that I haven't heard many of them coming out of my radio; _most_ of the singing from the Met this season has been just about competent and some of it not even that. Nor do I find many opera recordings made after the 1960s and '70s worthy to set beside those of earlier generations. If we want to enjoy opera now (aurally, at any rate) we're safer not making comparisons with classic recordings.

Radvanovsky stands almost alone among sopranos in the bel canto repertoire today (and she is not the equal of her finest predecessors in terms of coloratura technique). Fleming is a great singer, but she's 57, and her bel canto efforts have been controversial. In the '50s and '60s we had Callas, Sutherland, Zeani, Cerquetti, Scotto, Moffo, Caballe, and Sills, to name only extraordinary singers who come readily to mind. Netrebko and Hvorostovsky would certainly be considered worthy singers in any era (I'm not that well acquainted with Zajick and Lee, but what I've heard of them hasn't made me especially eager for more), and I'm sure their _Trovatore_ was well-sung. But they are considered among the best we have - the _superstars_ of today. Once we've heard Gadski, Destinn, Ponselle, Rethberg, Leider, Battistini, Amato, Ruffo, Stracciari - well, don't get me started (again)! And we don't have to go back that far to hear singing the like of which doesn't exist now - or, if it does, is no longer being heard in New York, or is no longer reaching my living room.

I can't help but think of how often I've heard people say that they hate the sound of operatic singing. A pushed, wobbly sound, rigid, uninflected phrasing, and dynamic monotony have become "normal" operatic singing today, and such inexpressive noises are not likely to appeal to those who listen to popular music. I know that when I turn on the radio and hear live opera, I often think "Why would anyone want to listen to this?" Generally I listen for a while to determine just how near to unbearable it will be, and then turn the radio off and find something more rewarding to do.

We'll see whether "modernized" stagings of old operas can make up for the decline of true bel canto singing. My suspicion is that opera will have to change to accommodate new styles of music and new ways of singing, and that opera as we know it - an art not of theatrical effects but of _dramma per musica_, based on the most refined capacity of the human voice for freedom, flexibility, and beauty of tone - will become even more of an elite entertainment than it is now. Where that will leave the Met is anybody's guess.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I've been to the Met exactly one time, so I can only speak of that experience -- but, though it was just a "regular," mid-March Saturday matinee of L'ELISIR D'AMORE, every Family Circle seat but one or two was filled and by no means just with the proverbial "graying heads," either. At intermission, the upstairs lobby was so packed I literally could not move more than a couple of steps. And the opera's cast of Vittorio Grigolo, the veteran Alessandro Corbelli, and a lesser known but excellent soprano and baritone did not disappoint, vocally or physically: plenty of tonal beauty, subtlety, and power in their singing. As for why the Met is supposedly having problems, I feel it's probably a combination of high ticket prices and the ready availability of opera on Youtube, in movie theaters, and on recordings. Hotels in Manhattan are _expensive_, so why should out-of-towners pay high accommodation _and_ ticket prices when they could visit their local cinema for an HD broadcast, or listen on the radio or watch online for free? So I don't think the situation is "If everyone sang like Gigli and Ponselle, the Met would be packed to the rafters each night." I think it's much more to do with the economy and with the fact that "opera" isn't just "the Met" anymore.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

*Woodduck:* I was born in 1978. Personally, I don't much like recordings of Mozart, Rossini, or Handel made before the 1970s, and my favorite recordings of those composers' works were made in the 1990's. Recordings of individual arias from much earlier might be to my taste (John McCormack's "Il mio tesoro" or Joan Sutherland's "Bel raggio lusinghier" are examples), but the operas as a whole tend to sound, to my ear, strange and inauthentic (not to mention abridged). I'm aware that in the 1940's a cast that included Ezio Pinza performed a concert version of LA CENERENTOLA -- but I would have no interest in hearing a recording of it.

But that's just a matter of personal taste. What I find a little unconvincing is the suggestion that people don't go to live opera today because they know that the singers they hear probably won't measure up to singers from the past. While I'm sure that's true of _some_ people, I have a hard time believing it applies to a large percentage of the public or that it's a big reason for lack of attendance. No, I think it's more likely rising ticket, hotel, and transportation prices as well as the cultural change -- the fact that opera is now so readily available digitally, _and_ the fact that the number of opera companies from which Americans have to choose is far, far greater today than it was in Ponselle's time. Here's what would be interesting: to see Met attendance numbers from the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, etc. Was the whole house (the smaller "old Met" up until 1966) usually filled in those decades? Did attendance fall off during the war years? Was it significantly smaller on the nights that relative unknowns were singing than it was on the nights the biggest stars were singing?


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

*Affordability*

All opera houses have the data. It's abundantly clear that the cheaper seats in London, Milan and many others are fully sold out, whereas the top price tickets remain available on the day of performance. Not enough 'cultural' people have £$€300+ to spare on a routine night out. That's the basic fact of it.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> *Affordability*
> 
> All opera houses have the data. It's abundantly clear that the cheaper seats in London, Milan and many others are fully sold out, whereas the top price tickets remain available on the day of performance. Not enough 'cultural' people have £$€300+ to spare on a routine night out. That's the basic fact of it.


My Met ticket cost only $33, but that was for a seat in the Family Circle -- the last rows of the top floor. And then there was the transportation cost (I couldn't afford a hotel room so I came home, by train, right after the performance). I live in Fairfax County, Virginia. Twenty-five minutes away is the Center for the Arts, where the Virginia Opera performs, and 20-25 minutes away by subway is the Washington National Opera. So it's much more practical for me to see opera at one or the other of those -- not that their tickets are cheap, either! And at both companies I have noticed that it's the cheapest seats and the most expensive seats that are sold out. In other words, people with money to spare sit downstairs, while the "poorer" people would rather pay $45 for an upstairs-top seat than pay $70 for an upstairs-front seat.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Bellinilover said:


> In other words, people with money to spare sit downstairs, while the "poorer" people would rather pay $45 for an upstairs-top seat than pay $70 for an upstairs-front seat.


That's interesting. I guess it depends on the sight/sound of the position and what kind of budget a person has. Seems to me that in London for example, £40-£70 ($60-100) is a good price/value point (frontish amphitheatre), and these sell very quick. It's where I prefer to be. Any more than that gives diminishing returns and eats into the hotel budget. £200 to hear a routine cast in La Boheme from the stalls (orchestra). well, that's for the expense accounts, and the too-rich-to-care, surely?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Pugg, lowering prices just wouldn't be feasible for the Met . It's a non-profit organization and the costs of running it are staggering .
It has to pay all the singers , the chorus, the orchestra , the conductors, vocal coaches and musical staff , the lighting technicians, stage hands, the people who do the costumes, the wigs and even the fencing master for operas where the characters use swords . 
That's an awful to of people ! All these people work their tales off to try to produce the best opera performances possible, and they have families to support .
They get payed well, but it's incredibly hard work . The Met is not generously support by the government , but it has lots a private donors , yet it still has a hard time making ends meet .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> *Woodduck:* I was born in 1978. Personally, I don't much like recordings of Mozart, Rossini, or Handel made before the 1970s, and my favorite recordings of those composers' works were made in the 1990's. Recordings of individual arias from much earlier might be to my taste (John McCormack's "Il mio tesoro" or Joan Sutherland's "Bel raggio lusinghier" are examples), but the operas as a whole tend to sound, to my ear, strange and inauthentic (not to mention abridged). I'm aware that in the 1940's a cast that included Ezio Pinza performed a concert version of LA CENERENTOLA -- but I would have no interest in hearing a recording of it.
> 
> But that's just a matter of personal taste. What I find a little unconvincing is the suggestion that people don't go to live opera today because they know that the singers they hear probably won't measure up to singers from the past. While I'm sure that's true of _some_ people, I have a hard time believing it applies to a large percentage of the public or that it's a big reason for lack of attendance. No, I think it's more likely rising ticket, hotel, and transportation prices as well as the cultural change -- the fact that opera is now so readily available digitally, _and_ the fact that the number of opera companies from which Americans have to choose is far, far greater today than it was in Ponselle's time. Here's what would be interesting: to see Met attendance numbers from the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, etc. Was the whole house (the smaller "old Met" up until 1966) usually filled in those decades? Did attendance fall off during the war years? Was it significantly smaller on the nights that relative unknowns were singing than it was on the nights the biggest stars were singing?


I'm sure you are right on these points and that many factors are in play. But just to clarify: it isn't that I think that people don't go to live opera today because they know that the singers they hear probably won't measure up to singers from the past. What I think is that most young people today, unless they are already opera enthusiasts, have little idea what truly great singing can sound like, and that what they hear of opera singing at present doesn't entice them. I don't blame them. It doesn't entice me either.

Much of the standard opera repertoire consists of Romantic music, which was conceived on the presumption that singers possessed not only certain technical abilities but also considerable interpretive creativity. To a great extent it's the former that makes the latter possible: if you can't do a clean descending scale you aren't going to be able to play with rhythm and dynamics and make it expressive. Mozart's operas are most likely to be done effectively now, since the Classical style is more straightforward - it requires less creativity from the singer - and smaller voices have never been in short supply (though I've wondered what's become of the great tradition of the German lyric soprano). If singers can't bring personality and imagination to Romantic music, and audiences have forgotten how such music can sound, the emphasis will have to shift to "production values" to retain audience interest.

Of course it's conceivable that modern audiences wouldn't flock to hear stylish, deeply felt, delicately inflected, exquisitely enunciated, tonally gorgeous singing like this even if there were singers able to give it to them:






But I don't want to believe it.

I have no statistics to show that the best and most popular singers attract bigger audiences, but how could that not be the case?


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

I would think that Opera houses are hoping that HD Cinema and DVD will encorage people to want a taste of the real thing. If this happens it will lead to more Opera "Tourism" where a greater proportoin of the audience are doing a 'once and done' trip.

This is what has happend to the West End (London's principal theatres) and I believe Broadway. It explains the long running success of easy to understand musicals like Les Miz, that any non English speaker can sit through. It also leads to £15 souvenir brochures and £45 t shirts. It's upto the Met to work out how to reach out beyond Manhattan and 'bus them in'. A combination of the two have made Cameron MacIntosh and Lloyd Webber very rich men indeed. 

Lucky for me its hard to get tickets to their shows.:devil:


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Belowpar said:


> I would think that Opera houses are hoping that HD Cinema and DVD will encorage people to want a taste of the real thing. If this happens it will lead to more Opera "Tourism" where a greater proportoin of the audience are doing a 'once and done' trip.
> 
> This is what has happend to the West End (London's principal theatres) and I believe Broadway. It explains the long running success of easy to understand musicals like Les Miz, that any non English speaker can sit through. It also leads to £15 souvenir brochures and £45 t shirts. It's upto the Met to work out how to reach out beyond Manhattan and 'bus them in'. A combination of the two have made Cameron MacIntosh and Lloyd Webber very rich men indeed.
> 
> Lucky for me its hard to get tickets to their shows.:devil:


I couldn't help thinking of America's famous "bussing in" plan. I guess that worked and still does. There's no simple answer, but a creative marketing department should be able to shift a few seats with some nice inducements. I notice that La Scala don't hesitate to offer deals whenever seat take-up is low.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

superhorn said:


> Pugg, lowering prices just wouldn't be feasible for the Met . It's a non-profit organization and the costs of running it are staggering .
> It has to pay all the singers , the chorus, the orchestra , the conductors, vocal coaches and musical staff , the lighting technicians, stage hands, the people who do the costumes, the wigs and even the fencing master for operas where the characters use swords .
> That's an awful to of people ! All these people work their tales off to try to produce the best opera performances possible, and they have families to support .
> They get payed well, but it's incredibly hard work . The Met is not generously support by the government , but it has lots a private donors , yet it still has a hard time making ends meet .


I do understand what you mean however when "we" from this side of the pond want to see something.......
My partner works for KLM Royal Dutch airlines , so I travel for next to nothing, hotels : half price.
But even then, it's a lot off money to see ones favourite opera


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

A couple of ideas:
1. The seats in the very back of the orchestra are really pretty bad audio-wise and under the overhang to boot. Why they should be charged the same rates as the seats from t-z are beyond me. They should be cheaper. 
2. If they could just bring themselves out of the old ages and think how much better it would be to add a Sunday matinee when Broadway is alive and well with other theater productions and add a Wednesday matinee as well to their schedule, it could open up new vistas. In so doing they are attracting the masses who need to get to bed at a decent weekday hour for work the next day. The restaurants in the area will profit by it as well.
What's the downside you say? 
3. The backstage workers, the carpenters etc. their union will object to the extra workdays. And what of the orchestra and the hostility of the musicians? Ah yes, but what if???????????
....what if the Met bites the bullet and makes Monday and Tuesday evenings dark to make up for it? It's still the same amount of hours only now they are catering more to the needs of the public than to the union members. No running up the aisles frantically at curtain calls worrying about catching a last train or staying out past their curfew.
Of course this brings up another problem: 
4. Rehearsal time. Yes, it does throw a monkey wrench into their already too-short time but they would have Sunday evenings for rehearsals and perhaps a morning brunch for everyone on Tuesdays as well for more rehearsal time. (The production time and money saved in closing those days could make up for the extra but shorter+ rehearsal time.)
They could also cut down the number of times an opera is presented. Instead of, say, 8 or 10 Toscas, some in October and the other set in maybe February, why not make it just 6 productions instead of 10 thereby shortening the season somewhat and end in April instead of May? The longer opening time for rehearsals could appease the backstage crew and musicians so they wouldn't complain about losing 3 more weeks of work.
5. What about renting out the building to another company willing to pay for their own backstage crew and talents on the dark Mondays and Tuesdays? Just a little extra pocket money.

Now I have zero doubt that there are some real glitches in the above that I have not thought of -- shorter rehearsal times vs. extra or changed days to complicate set-in-stone plans -- but maybe it's a start.
Thoughts?


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Some very good points there.

8 performances at 75% capacity, or 6 performances at 100%. I wonder which one is most profitable!

Covent Garden rents to other events (BAFTAs), movies (Fifth Element) and even pop groups (Pet shop boys in July!). Just because people have bad taste in music, doesn't mean they lack disposable income to buy concert tickets at a swanky venue. Baby boomers would jump at the chance of spending $200 to see James Taylor, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Carole King performing at the MET. They're unlikely to wreck the place ;-)

The problem with discussing anything to do with the Met is that the tail is wagging the dog (unions), so all this is academic.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Don Fatale said:


> The problem with discussing anything to do with the Met is that the tail is wagging the dog (unions), so all this is academic.


Aye mate. Sadly, 'tis the bottom line.


----------



## graziesignore (Mar 13, 2015)

Who ARE the best singers in the world, and why isn't the Met getting them more often? Back in the 1980s the Met had trouble getting some of the best baritones, as I recall, because the European houses were paying them more.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Here's one that the Met has overlooked.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

nina foresti said:


> Here's one that the Met has overlooked.


Welsh National Opera have her as Lady Macbeth in September (I might go), and Rosalinde (Die Fledermaus) in January, but alas none of the big houses have come calling yet.
http://www.operabase.com/listart.cgi?name=Mary+Elizabeth+Williams&acts=+Schedule+

Similarly, I've seen/heard a number of good singers live and on YouTube and keep watching to see how the progress.

This gives me an idea for a thread...


----------

