LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for OPERA-L Archives

OPERA-L Archives

OPERA-L Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave OPERA-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: the real final night at the old Met 1966
From: Donald Levine <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Donald Levine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:22:46 -0700

text/plain (74 lines)

No need to get so excited, it was all conjecture anyway.  As for the poles,
no one said there weren't poles.  I might have said that despite of the
lack of poles or obstructions in the new house, the shape of the auditorium
caused most of the side balconies to have obstructed views.  Dead on great
views in the new house are only in the center.  The sides stink.  The Lyric
is a big house but no side views, much better there.  As for the bathroom
situation, I'm sure it was horrible, especially for the ladies but guess
what?  The bathroom situation at the New Met isn't so great either.  Men
are OK, not great but OK, but the ladies always have a line.  Not nearly
enough.  The Bastille in Paris BTW has the same problem.

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Max D. Winter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Donald Levine wrote:
> "Yes, there were probably major structural problems due to lack of
> maintenance and
> construction of facilities in roof top areas that were never intended to
> support their weight,
> but all of this could have been addressed."
> Oh, really?  And how paid for, given that the company was underwater in
> dealing with the
> costs of the new house?  It's easy to offer armchair solutions decades
> after the fact when
> you don't have to deal with the practical details.  We've even had one
> person offer an expert
> engineering assessment of the structural condition of the Old Met, based
> on what he
> witnessed "every day" during the demolition!  (How long did he watch every
> day, one
> wonders?)  Another insightful commentator claimed that there were no
> pillars blocking the
> view from seats - in spite of the many photos showing those pillars on
> every level below the
> balcony!  (Don't believe your lyin' eyes.)
> I can't believe we are having yet ANOTHER go at this topic.  All the back
> and forth fails to
> address the only issue that really matters and was the principal impetus
> for building a new
> house: the appalling and antiquated conditions backstage.  These were
> impossible to
> address, because there was no room around the building to expand the
> back-stage areas.
> Nor was there space in the building for building adequate storage or
> rehearsal rooms or
> public areas.  I have never heard anyone comment on the bathroom situation
> at the Old
> Met, but given what I have seen and experienced in older venues like
> Carnegie Hall, and
> Symphony Hall and Lyric Opera in Chicago, I can imagine that they were
> dreadful.
> These discussions about saving the Old Met invariably represent a triumph
> of nostalgia over
> common sense and reality.

OPERA-L on Facebook:
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to [log in to unmask]
containing only the words:  SIGNOFF OPERA-L
To stay subscribed but TURN OFF mail, send a message to
[log in to unmask] containing only the words:  SET OPERA-L NOMAIL
Modify your settings:

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main OPERA-L Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager