Mme. Hermine Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Going through a bunch of old magazines, I happened on a story in Life Magazine on September 6, 1966, about the opening of the new Metropolitan Opera House. Many nice photos and I found the following paragraph interesting (some questions never change): "With all this opulence, can the Met continue to stir up vigor and excitement? Is it in danger of becoming a museum for a tottering art rather than a theater of living music? Will singers and composers have to compete with massive productions - and with the house itself? These are questions that may trouble but by no means discourage the directors. Assistant Manager Francis Robinson does not believe that performances were ever improved by the frustrating obstacles of the drafty old house on Broadway. There is no rule, he says, that hardship is needed to create inspiration. Rudolf Bing, the general manager, is equally self-assured about his 83-year-old company. After all, he says, "It's the spirit that builds the body-not the other way around." Link to comment
carbro Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Another issue related to the move from the old house to the new one: Someone once asked why some seats in the Met marked "Partial View" were not at all obstructed, while other seats with obstructed views were not so marked. It was explained that it was a carry-over from the Old Met and the view from the corresponding seats in that house, so subscribers would have that reassurance that their new seats were exactly equivalent to their old ones, even if they weren't. Since I've been a Standing Room patron for so many years now, I have no idea whether or not some of the inaccurate designations have been changed. If not, maybe it's time. Link to comment
Recommended Posts