In an open letter to Peter Gelb, fellow blogger A.C. Douglas lambasts the new format of the Met Broadcast "halftime shows".
Generally speaking, that format comes across as a lame aping — even parody — of the multi-announcer live coverage of a network TV sporting event, complete with the requisite inane, intrusive chatter, and vapid, prole-pandering, locker-room star "interviews."
Before I go any further, I should give a disclaimer: I was never a regular listener to the Met broadcasts before they released their archives - which is to say, before Margaret Juntwait. Frankly, the productions were too often sub-par for my ears, spoiled as I have been by recordings of the great singers of the 20th Century. The point is, I don't have any basis for comparison to Ms. Juntwait.
That being said, I kind of like Margaret's little halftime numbers. The play-by-play of the audience milling around is a bit jarring, but the interviews and commentary are a great idea needing better implementation. They are certainly not perfect: I'd like them much more if the interviews were pitched above the intellectual level of a retarded baboon. But I like it that the broadcasts now try put some depth behind the performance - talking to the stars and finding out that they're real people, even PERSONABLE people, with opinions about their art.
While I do believe that great art is elitist in nature, I don't think elitism should be an inpenetrable fortress. Domingo is a great artist to be sure, but does that mean he must be so elevated above the masses as to have no personality? I say no. I say that the height of his accomplishment is accented by the fact that he is a human being, with interests and thought and personality like anyone else.
Let me be absolutely clear here, because there is a fine distinction to be made: I don't care about Domingo's hobbies, his favorite movies, or his best recipe for flan. I do want to know what he thinks about the music, and his character. What is his approach to a character like Otello, who is so different from the literary source that is his inspiration? How has conducting Boheme changed the way he approaches it as a singer? You see, I am not a fan of denigrating such a great artist with irrelevancies; but I love the opportunity to explore his artistry in direct interview.
These singers are interesting, personable human beings with opinions and thoughts about their art. I love it when Margaret Juntwait gives them a chance to express some of that. Without it, a great singer is only as real as a bust of Dickens is real. Why be satisfied with what we can learn indirectly through their work, when we have the real article here to talk with?
Imagine if you will, the opportunity to interview a great artist in another field. What questions would you ask Picasso, or Coleridge? These are the kind of questions that I want to see asked of singers on the great stages of today.
Unfortunately, most of the halftime shows don't satisfy in this regard. i heard an interview with Phillip Glass - Phillip Glass! - awhile ago, with such scintillating questions as "how many times have you been to the Met this season?" and "do you prefer to conduct your own works, or watch from the audience?" She may as well have asked about his favorite toothpaste. Here you have an opportunity to interview one of the major composers of the century, and you ask if he is a season ticketholder. During this interview, I tried yelling better questions at the radio, but Margaret wouldn't listen.
But the interviews don't have to be like that. Indeed, I listened a few weeks ago to an interview with the Don Magnifico of the evening, as he - in slightly broken English - explained the duality inherent in his character. He described the challenges of playing a comic villain, and the things in this role that were of particular difficulty to him. This was a marvellous interview, which gave me all sorts of new insight into the performance and the performer.
If only all of the interviews could be so fascinating, I would be a complete supporter of the Met's intermission entertainment. As it is, I can only disagree with Mr. Douglas' appraisal by a matter of degree. I agree that most of the time, these interviews are an insult to the listener and to the interviewee. Make the interviews interesting and intellectually/personally engaging however, and you will have a winner in my book.
