Venues

[SanderO]

Ballet, opera, concerts and theater can and are performed in different venues (theaters, Halls). I wonder what impact the "hall" has on both the performance (performers) and the audience (you).

Speaking for myself, and living in NY I have only experienced performances in a few venues. I have seen ABT at the Met and City Center and they were very different experiences... And the NYCB at the NY State theater and Paul Taylor at City Center.. and a few other companies in the more distant past... And recently we saw the Hamburg Ballet at BAM.

Same for opera, I have only experienced operas at the Met, the NY State theater, and Gilbert and Sullivan at the City Center. We're lucky in NY to have quite a few Halls!

I do feel differently at different venues and when I was in Italy I purchased a poster which depicts the great opera houses of the world and on the plane back, there was a film done about the Paris Opera and that theater looked fabulous. It had me thinking about different halls ever since. The Teatro Comunale in Firenze was rather unimpressive for the opera. I prefer Carnegie to Avery Fisher for orchestral concerts.

For those who have seen performances in many venues, how was it different? Have you seen the same company perform in several venues... even the same work... and how was that different? How important is the venue or the Hall to your experience of the work?

What are the best venues for ballet and opera in your opinion and from your experiences. Personally, I don't care for the architecture of the Met Opera and it always bothers me a bit when I attend even the greatest performances there. I think I would find the Kennedy center equally off putting.

What say you?

[Helene]

I've seen photos of the inside of the Mariinsky Theatre, and the Czar's box gives me the willies. I don't know if I'd feel differently if I were in the theater itself. When I went to the Bolshoi Theatre in 2005 to hear Eugene Onegin, I had shivers, knowing that this was the same stage/house in which Plisetskaya, Vassiliev, Taranda, Ulanova, Vishnevskaya, Sobinov, and countless other great dancers and singers had performed. I didn't have the same reaction inside the house in Vienna.

The Metropolitan Opera House is different, because the "Golden Age" performances took place at the old Met.

I can say that there's a big difference seeing opera and ballet at the newly renovated McCaw Hall, the Opera House before the renovation, and the hockey rink where both performed during the renovation. Besides the accoustic improvements, and the great improvements backstage, McCaw Hall feels like home.

[Ray]

For those who have seen performances in many venues, how was it different? Have you seen the same company perform in several venues... even the same work... and how was that different? How important is the venue or the Hall to your experience of the work?

What are the best venues for ballet and opera in your opinion and from your experiences. Personally, I don't care for the architecture of the Met Opera and it always bothers me a bit when I attend even the greatest performances there. I think I would find the Kennedy center equally off putting.

What say you?

Kennedy center is such a barn. So is the Met, but it has more cachet. Those space-age chandeliers have grown on me over the years--the Jestons go to the opera!

I think the Academy of Music here in Philly (c1850) is one of the most wonderful venues in the US for ballet or symphony concerts (I haven't seen opera there). I'm always happy to see ballet there, even if I'm not that into the performance (and I'm grumpy whenever I have to PAB dance in it's alternate space, the utilitarian Merriam Theater down the block). Philly's Perlman theater, part of the new Kimmel center, is a very good space for small and mid-size dance companies--good sightlines, as no seat feels very far from the stage. It's too small for most major ballet companies, though.

As a child I saw my first ballets in Minneapolis's Northrup Auditorium, a modified GIANT lecture hall. Talk about a barn! ABT tours there (it's where I saw Gelsey do Giselle), and so did the Met when it used to tour.

The Auditorium Theater in Chicago is a very special place b/c of its architectural provenance, but its upper balconies are really really high! And the backstage is a dungeon--or at least it used to be.

Finally, Pittsburgh's Benedum Center is a fabulous stage--expertly rennovated movie-palace grandeur, with modern backstage facilities and lots of fly space for sets.

I think the ideal venue is a deep, wide stage but a house that keeps you close to the action, and doesn't seat too many.

[sandik]

I can say that there's a big difference seeing opera and ballet at the newly renovated McCaw Hall, the Opera House before the renovation, and the hockey rink where both performed during the renovation. Besides the acoustic improvements, and the great improvements backstage, McCaw Hall feels like home.

I have some fond memories of the old version of McCaw Hall (back then just called the plain old Opera House), but they are mostly fueled by what I saw rather than the attributes of the house itself.

More Seattle thoughts.

Meany Theater at the University of Washington is an excellent dance hall -- stage is wide with clean sightlines, nice open proscenium, not so deep that the upstage corners are in the shade. Not a big orchestra pit, but enough for a fair sized ensemble, and it's continental seating (no middle aisle) which can make for a lot of knees to trip on if you're late getting to your seat and you're in the middle of the row. But it means they don't lose those views, which is a deal I'm willing to make. I've seen a couple of smaller ballet companies there (Ohio B, back in the Heinz Poll days for one) and they look just fine.

The Paramount Theater is one of the old vaudeville houses, in the older 'narrow with a couple of deep balconies' style, and the seats are pretty crunchy, but the sightlines are good once you get a few rows back, and the plasterwork around the proscenium is lovely and curly. The Cubans performed here a couple times, and their Giselle looked right at home. The Bolshoi's been as well, but the stage was too small for their Romeo -- very cramped looking. I was afraid during the brawling scenes that the corps guys would fly off the stage into the audience.

[bart]

I remember the Paramount in Seattle. I saw "Cats" there in the 80s and the stage is indeed cramped.

My favorite theater experience growing up in the first row Mezzanine of City Center in NYC (which, in the golden haze of memory, now seems to have been almost touching distance from the stage).

I also spent some time in one of the old Met's upper boxes very close to stage left and have developed a preference for the oddly angled perspective this sort of seat gives. Center seats with a postcard view of distant stage strike me as a little too much like going to the movies in the era of Cinemascope.

As to seating patterns, I like houses where the rows go "up" rather than "out." "Up" as in the older European opera houses. "Out" as in the more open layout, with orchestra extending far back and to the sides, favored by architects today. Fortunately, our local performing arts center, which seats a little bit more than 2000, is closer to the Up than to the Out, even though it was built in the early 1990s.

[Mel Johnson]

What drives me birds is the perception in NYC that there IS no house for great national ballets in Manhattan, other than the Met, or as a second choice, the State Theater. City Center isn't on the map for the Royal or the Bolshoi. I find it inexplicable that there is no other suitable venue in Manhattan for ballet.

[Helene]

Meany Theater at the University of Washington is an excellent dance hall -- stage is wide with clean sightlines, nice open proscenium, not so deep that the upstage corners are in the shade. Not a big orchestra pit, but enough for a fair sized ensemble, and it's continental seating (no middle aisle) which can make for a lot of knees to trip on if you're late getting to your seat and you're in the middle of the row.

It's really sad the Meany has dropped the little ballet it had during the season; I dropped my subscription when ballet and Mark Morris were dropped from the schedule.

Mark Morris is back in Seattle next year at the Paramount Theater for two joint performances of L'Allegro with the Seattle Symphony. Pre-sales started with subscription renewals for the Symphony. While it's not the same as adding the performances to the subscription schedule, it will provide advance cash flow (for at least some organization) and market to a classical music audience well in advance.

The Meany stage is wonderful for medium to small troupes without scenery, and the theater is intimate, but not confined. Morris, in particular, has used live chamber music to great advantage when MMDG performed there for over a decade as part of the World Dance series.

In the Spring 2006 issue of DanceView, Michael Popkin, in his review of the YAGP competition, wrote,

Another and more limited fact about music at YAGP that struck one was the importance of tempi to dance and the advantage those performers had, from this point of view, when they had the resource of having a musical tape made for their particular performance. When a performer had made, say, a piano transcription of the Black Swan Pas de Deux from Swan Lake, or one of Aurora's variations from Sleeping Beauty -- the effect was to summon up, on the high school stage, something of the mood of a live performance and the spontaneity increased exponentially. And if this was true of a piano transcripion, how much truer it must be of having live music to dance to if one is to be immediate in one's responses, a lesson that the regional companies can learn, though it will not make it any easier for them to afford live music financially.

The combination of a space on a human scale and the right acoustics a pianist or chamber group playing live music is one of the great experiences that a hall like Meany can provide, if the performers can take advantage of it.

[Farrell Fan]

I've seen many great ballet and opera performances at the Met, but I can't stand the place. I hate its performing chandeliers, hidden restrooms, and grand staircase that leads nowhere. I've always loved the promenade at the New York State Theater, although I've been alarmed in recent years by the encroachment of dinners and receptions that restrict its vast expanse for the benefit of various rich folks. Did Lincoln Kirstein mean for the place to smell like a deli? As for the Kennedy Center, I love everything about it, because it has given a home to Suzanne Farrell. You were expecting me to be objective?

[carbro]

Kennedy center is such a barn. So is the Met, but it has more cachet. Those space-age chandeliers have grown on me over the years--the Jestons go to the opera!

I don't find Kennedy Ctr. barnlike, but what do I know? I'm a barnyarder at the Met and NYST. (You want a barn? Scroll to the foot of this page -- and call PETA!!!)

With a seating capacity just a few fannies less than State Theater, I find NJPAC a most welcoming place. Yes, some of the seats at the top of the Fourth Tier can make you feel a bit far from the stage (no worse that State Theater), but theater management won't let you stay there if there are empty seats on lower levels. You can take a virtual tour (click Prudential Hall and, 2/3 down the list, Prudential Hall Lobby) and see the lovely architecture. The colors of Prudential Hall's auditorium are quite "off" in every photo I've pulled up; they miss the attractive and relaxing forest green upholstery. And its website links to another which allows you a preview of the stage from your very seat! I tried a the seat at the very front of the side of the fourth tier, termed "better," but as you can see, not so great for ballet. But you probably get a really good view of the pianist's hands, if you're there for that!

I have so many complaints about the Met, and I'll start (and finish) with meretricious. I like the Chagalls, though. It would be better if they were hung so that we could actually see them.

I forgot the Joyce, which doesn't have a bad seat. But then, it holds fewer than 500.

What drives me birds is the perception in NYC that there IS no house for great national ballets in Manhattan, other than the Met, or as a second choice, the State Theater. City Center isn't on the map for the Royal or the Bolshoi. I find it inexplicable that there is no other suitable venue in Manhattan for ballet.

ABT performed at the Gershwin -- a Broadway theater -- in the '70s. The prices were exorbitant. Tharp at one of the larger, old Broadway houses (Winter Garden? Majestic? Don't recall.) An option, but not a good one.

Edited March 15, 2007 by carbro

[Helene]

I haven't been to the Met for ballet in many years, and I don't remember seeing ballet from the Family Circle, so that I don't have a "barn" connection with ballet. I do with opera, but I like hearing classical music from the top of the house, and the trade-off is worth it. I still get chills when the little chandeliers at the Met rise at the beginning of a performance. (Although I expect the monster sculpture thingy at the center of the proscenium to fall into the orchestra pit.)

The house that I find barn-like for ballet is War Memorial. It feels very far away in the Balcony, and after my last trip, in which I saw four performances from Orchestra, Dress Circle, and Balcony Circle, I've forsworn Balcony Circle. I feel like I'm about to take a dive from the top of a skyscraper, the rake is so steep.

The new Four Seasons Centre in Toronto has a similar drop, but it's such an intimate house with its blond wood and sandy/beigy//taupy colors that I'm fine, if I don't look straight down

I particularly like jewel box theaters, particularly the Orpheum, where Ballet Arizona was ensconced during the Symphony Hall renovation and where they perform their Spring mixed bill, and the Newmark Theatre, where OBT does its mixed bill programs that are unlikely to sell out the larger Keller Auditorium.

[SanderO]

I got into a discussion at intermission as I waited for a beer during Madama Butterfly with someone ahead of me as we stood under the Chagall about the architecture. He loved and I told him that I could find nothing I liked about the place.

The outside is vulgar with no refinement, huge arches of inappropriate travertine... something seen in Roma! The architect could not find a modernist vocabulary so he used those immense arches, but of course there is no detail or articulation as in classical architecture. And the form looks like something a child might come up with.

When you get inside you have the curvilinear grand stair case which is completely out of place with the orthogonal geometry of the building. It's as if the architect said let's copy the form of a grand staircase from the beaux arts era. Horribly executed. And it is much too close to the entry doors and of course there IS NO main entry or symmetrical entry... There are numerous entry points without the approaching person knowing where to penetrate that awful facade.

Of course the massive Chagall paintings cannot properly be seen, so they are essentially like wall paper.

The best thing I can say about the hall itself is that the seating is comfortable and the title bars are handy to follow along when you cannot understand the language of the opera. The use of gold is another feint to glamor but it comes of as tacky again because of the failure of the architect to do the something with proper scale.

The proscenium has another weird out of scale ornament at the top and the lighting... especially the UFOs which rise up signaling the beginning of the performance are very tacky looking.

I think anyone associated with the design of that building inside and out should have their license revoked and never be allowed to design again. Most are probably dead by now.

The Met stage seems to me monumental and extremely flexible and can support enormous casts and productions, but that is the work of the set designers etc. Obviously the stage and lighting allows for some amazing "effects".. especially for Met Opera productions, like Zauberflote, Tosca, Aida, Traviata and so on.

It is so sad that the artists have to perform in such a tacky, vulgar looking venue.. absent scale, or charm and certainly architecture that will be torn down and not missed.

What a bad period for architecture - the 60s.

[carbro]

Thanks, SanderO, for your expert appreciation.

Not to be overlooked (although I wish I could) is the prison-like solid travertine eastern wall of the NYST, along Columbus Ave. (also W. 62nd St.). But I understand that that ugly monolith is doomed as part of the big renovation.

The draping of four-story-tall banners along the wall is a big improvement, but for years we didn't even get those.

[bart]

carbro, that Columbus Ave wall is the only thing in architecture that made me pray for a gang of hooligan artists with spray cans.

And thank you SandorO for your thoughts on the Met.

The outside is vulgar with no refinement, huge arches of inappropriate travertine... something seen in Roma! The architect could not find a modernist vocabulary so he used those immense arches, but of course there is no detail or articulation as in classical architecture. And the form looks like something a child might come up with.

And the big glass windows reveal so much visual clutter that the simplicity of the arches is spoiled.

Here's a building from "Roma" itself (the Palazzo della Civilitadel Lavoro in EUR, begun in 1938) that shows another way to do the de Chirico arch. Unlike the Met, it captures light and creates shadow in ways that makes it stunning.

http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~tjmoore/imageso...adellavoro1.jpg

http://www.image-depot.de/vorschau/foto-lh...l_Lavoro2_m.jpg

http://www.confindustria.it/90esimo/img/fotoconf.gif

I realize this is an entirely different use of arches, but a comparison with the Met facade is interesting:

http://www.newyork.se/bilder/content/metro...era-utanfor.jpg

Did the designers of Lincoln Center actually intend to do the cruder, grayer version of Mussolini's favorite architectural style that it sometimes -- especially on a messy winter day -- appears to be?

[kfw]

I've always loved the promenade at the New York State Theater, although I've been alarmed in recent years by the encroachment of dinners and receptions that restrict its vast expanse for the benefit of various rich folks. Did Lincoln Kirstein mean for the place to smell like a deli?

I dislike the large performance photographs displayed outside the upper rings. To my mind any photos would mar the spare beauty of the place; and half-lifesized photos of ballets and dancers I've come to see live and in 3-D diminishes that live, 3-D experience.

[Ray]

If anyone remembers, there's a scene in the film The Pawnbroker where the protagonist, played by Rod Steiger, takes a long walk up from deep downtown Manhattan to the Upper West Side. Along the way, he passes Lincoln Center, then under construction. The walk through black-and-white early 60s New York emphasizes his sense of alienation from the world (he's a Nazi concentration camp survivor); Lincoln Center's hulking frame contributes to that feeling a lot!

[Helene]

especially the UFOs which rise up signaling the beginning of the performance are very tacky looking.

I particularly like the UFOs that rise at the beginning of the performance. I'd never thought of them that way before, and I suppose it was having been reared on the space race and "The Jetsons" that makes them so appealing.

Their design, however, is not the fault of the architects or interior designers. The main chandelier was a gift form the government of Austria. I don't know if the baby versions (UFOs) were also part of the gift or were designed to match, but the Met wasn't about to insult a government based on bad or mismatched design.

I once took a tour of Lincoln Center, and our guide told us that the Chagalls were hung backwards. The design on one side of each painting was denser and meant to be an outside border, but they were hung with the borders toward the center.

[volcanohunter]

It is so sad that the artists have to perform in such a tacky, vulgar looking venue.. absent scale, or charm and certainly architecture that will be torn down and not missed.

I agree completely with your assessment of the Met. In addition to being hideous, it's gargantuan. 3,800 seats is much too large for an opera house. It makes for less than splendid acoustics, leading many a freaked-out singer to push way too hard, and leaves much of the audience very far from the action.

The stage is designed to hold massive opera sets and is too big for certain ballets. I remember watching La Sylphide from the balcony of few years ago, and although ABT's corps of sylphs strove mighily to stretch the floor patterns out as much as they could, the rear quarter of the stage remained completely unused for the duration of the ballet. I wondered why the designer hadn't positioned the sets further down the stage to "shrink" it a little.

My mother and her sister began their opera-going days in the early 1960s, and they both still mourn the Old Met. They're quick to tell you how good the acoustics were, how easy it was to get tickets, and so on and so forth. As for me, I tolerate the new Met best when the lights go down and I don't have to look at all that gold paint anymore.

[bart]

It's possible to over-romanticize the "old Met."

This is especially true as to size. The current Met seats 3800 and has standing room for 195. The old Met sat 3625, with 224 standing room. Not much of a difference.

I recall old Met perfomances of the Royal Ballet seen from way up, way back, in which tiny figures (one said to be Fonteyn; another reputedly Nureyev) moved beautifully but as if on some distant planet.

One aspect of the old Met that added to its charm (for me, at least) was that it was cheek-by-jowl to a very mixed neighborhood, full of all kinds of urban surprises and variety. This may not have been as welcome to the wealthy opera patrons. The old Met was like the old 18th century, with rich and poor, elite and masses, living fairly pretty much on top of one another. Lincoln Center is much more Napoleonic in concept: a temple to high culture that is cut off from everything else, creating grand vistas from which one can view the rest of the world in safety and comfort. It's a kind of "Fortress Art."

[kfw]

The old Met was like the old 18th century, with rich and poor, elite and masses, living fairly pretty much on top of one another. Lincoln Center is much more Napoleonic in concept: a temple to high culture that is cut off from everything else, creating grand vistas from which one can view the rest of the world in safety and comfort. It's a kind of "Fortress Art."

That's a fascinating comparison, Bart. I know they displaced residents of an interesting, and if I'm not mistaken, lower and middle income neighborhood to build Lincoln Center, but the center was built before we even had the word "yuppie." In the not quite 20 years I've been going there I've seen the main thoroughfares undergo further gentrification and become less interesting, but I had the impression that the area was much more diverse in the early 60's.

[SanderO]

Urban blight, I mean tranformation was one of idea that Robert Moses embraced from back in the 40 and 50' Many neighborhoods were ripped apart and destroyed by these "emininent domain" projects. New York developers have no sense of community or scale but see everything as ROI.

The idea of an arts campus is great. The execution is pitiful. And the cost to the community cannot be calculated.

Wait to see the abomination at the old world trade center site. They never learn... especially when money is involved.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot..

[volcanohunter]

It's possible to over-romanticize the "old Met." This is especially true as to size.

You're right, bart, the crucial factor that determines acoustics is shape, not size. Some of the worst acoustics I've ever encountered are at the Opéra Bastille, a large house, to be sure, but not as large as the New Met. The fatal flaw there is the fan-shaped auditorium. Absolutely lethal.

My understanding is that the Old Met was narrower than the new one, which would have a large impact on acoustics. Is that correct?

My own preference is for horseshoe-shaped houses that seat 1,000-1,500 people. Occasionally these have sightline problems around supporting pillars in the gallery, but they are usually minimal. Orchestra seats can also be a bit problematic unless the stage is raked very steeply, but as someone who prefers an overhead view, it's not my headache to contend with.

What I don't like are the massive all-purpose auditoriums that litter the North American landscape. I believe it was Shirley MacLaine who once described Toronto's 3,200-seat O'Keefe/Hummingbird Centre as the best-decorated aircraft hanger in North America, which strikes me as a pretty apt description of that style. (Incidentally, the acoustics there were so bad that the musicians in the pit had to be miked.)

[Helene]

What I don't like are the massive all-purpose auditoriums that litter the North American landscape. I believe it was Shirley MacLaine who once described Toronto's 3,200-seat O'Keefe/Hummingbird Centre as the best-decorated aircraft hanger in North America, which strikes me as a pretty apt description of that style. (Incidentally, the acoustics there were so bad that the musicians in the pit had to be miked.)

I went to a seminar during last fall's Ring of the Nibelungen, and one of the speakers was Canadian Opera Company Tuba/Wagner Tuba player Scott Irvine. The entire week was a lovefest about Four Seasons Centre and a hatefest about the Hummingbird Centre. While he was no fan of its acoustics, and said that the acoustics in the Four Seasons Centre probably will extend his career by a decade, he was having none of the non-stop abuse heaped upon Hummingbird Centre. I didn't write down his exact words, but to paraphrase, he said that Hummingbird was never meant to be an opera or ballet house. It was meant to be a place where travelling companies came through with musicals, where the singers had mikes in their hair. It was a decent home as an interim theater, but that the period lasted a decade too long. (The stops and starts and abandoned plans for a new opera/ballet house over that decade have been well documented.)

[bart]

Re the old Met:

My understanding is that the Old Met was narrower than the new one, which would have a large impact on acoustics. Is that correct?

I have visual memories that this is the case, but can't be sure. Can anyone help us with this?

My own preference is for horseshoe-shaped houses that seat 1,000-1,500 people.

Me, too. But building in this size today probably would be ecnomically impossible. And, to be honest, I've been so conditioned to large open-plan barns here in the States that the old style opera houses in Europe (Rome, La Scala, Fenice, Lucca) have actually felt a little TOO small and to me, with everything packed in, The lovely boxes are actually rather narrow, with poor seats unless you're right up front.

About raked stages: I'm reading Barbara Milberg Fisher's In Balanchine's Company: a Dancer's Memoir which discusses this in the context of the NYCB's 1952 European tour. Balanchine wanted to wow the Parisians. So why was the first stop the Liceu in Barcelona in impoverished, internationally ostracized Facist Spain?

... [T]here was one overriding reason to open in Barcelona. It so happened that the Stage of the Gran Teatro del Liceo had precisely the same rake, the same angle of slant, as the stage of the Paris Opera, the Palais BGarnier. So we spent five grueling weeks of rehearsals and performances learning to dance on a stage built for opera, for pantomimes, for pageants and parades -- for everything but strenuous Balachine ballets. Like the Paris Opera House, the stage of the Liceo had a tilt of roughly one inch to every three feet.

About dancing on such a stage:

It takes practice to run lightly uphill, to put on the brakes when you're executing a series of fast turns down-hill, as in Serenade. It takes time to adjust to a whole new set of balances during partnered lifts and pirouettes. You must learn to "lean back" on thin air when you're on pointe facing the audience, so you don't fall on your face. Your whole body begins to appreciate the physics of "upstage" and "downstage" as never before."

[4mrdncr]

Ok, my memories/experiences of...

TOKYO:

Kosei Nenkin: I danced at Kosei Nenkin, I remember the stage as being wider rather than deep with deep wings--but then again I was younger and smaller then, so who knows? I don't ever remember feeling cramped onstage. I Backstage areas, however, were a maze of up/down staircases, rather crowded dressing rooms, and hot quick-change areas. From the audience POV, I only sat in front of Orchestra, and don't remember it being too bad except for barely able to see feet--a common occurrance at most venues' front-rows.

Ueno: I remember decor: warm dark (not blonde) wood walls/balconies with orange lights rimming them. Beautiful chimes to signal beginnings of performance/acts. It was all very modern, with beautiful clean lines, and that wood to warm it up. The main lobby I seem to remember as much more brightly lit, and more stone? Sitting on the aisle stairs in the dark of the top balcony watching ABT's "Swan Lake" with Cynthia Gregory because my mother mixed up the night we were supposed to go, and my best-friend's mother (in her best rendition of a pushy New Yorker) finagled us an entrance--if not any seats. Sight-lines were fine in that aisle and from what I remember of the times we actually had seats.

LOS ANGELES:

Dorothy Chandler Pavilion (Music Center): A sort of 'knock-off' of Lincoln Center with a wider campus and more water, but still white (travertine?) stone and arches--more narrow and many more than the Met. It too had a grand staircase--but I do think it actually led up to the Mezz/balcony levels. I remember very tall long gold drapes at the windows--lots of windows. Inside (can only speak of Mezz/balconies because that's where I sat most) seats were very comfortable, spacing was okay, and I never remember a sightline problem, or a problem with tall/large person in front of me--which may have meant they were raked or staggered more than elsewhere? Color scheme was peachy and gold (to warm up that stone again?) The hall itself is wider than taller. ABT and Joffrey both seemed to do okay there, and filled the house most nights without a problem.

Shrine Auditorium: I LOL every time I read of all of you complaining about the 3600 seats at the Met--ha ha ha you don't know what a large house is until you've been in the 6500 seats of Shrine Auditorium. Remember to bring your NASA worthy spy binoculars and oxygen if you're in the last rows of the upper balcony. Yes, it is raked pretty well, but.... Shrine also had LOTS of decor to look at if you got bored with a performance: 1) The gigantic tent effect (I used to think of an enormous stuff silk pillow) on the ceiling to go with the enormous chandelier--take that "Phantom"! with little red and blue incandescent (not crystal) bulbs to make everything pinky/purple at night. 2) All those Turkish/Middle Eastern camels/castles walls etc. etc. on the side walls, And (3) how about those harem-effect arches in front and the two domed towers outside for fun? Personally I preferred it when painted white and lit up at night, rather than the dull beige it is now. Backstage (ie. flys/wings/etc) was just as cavernous and quite a nasty trek if you had to dash from one side to the other for an entrance onstage. Hallways and dressing rooms, like the building itself, were old, kind of cramped, with flaking paint, but had a large (if dully boring) waiting area for the entourage. And ABT used to come there for a 3wk run and try to fill it all up--good for them, but of course Baryshnikov was the draw.

OCPAC: What a crazy fun place that is! Two upper-level suspended cantilevered hexagon(?)-shaped balconies which makes judging sightlines from the floorplan almost impossible--but not to worry, they are mostly fine, and a similar --agonal first 'balcony' (actually a raised level of the orchestra seating) left of center. Totally amazing how it all fits. The stage appears much smaller than Shrine--could anything be as big?--but maybe a little bigger than the Music Center's in L.A.? Exterior: the entrances are MUCH more confusing than at Met or elsewhere because on so many different levels with long looping walkways--but architecturally they are beautiful skyways--as is that enormous single arch glowing at night. And the inner staircase walled floor-to-ceiling with beveled mirrored "bricks" is literally like being inside a diamond--all crystalline glitter (and a good chance to check your attire as you make an entrance). Most of the time, I loved going there--but then I have many happy warm (weather and otherwise) memories to bias me.

BOSTON:

The Wang Center: The lobby is supposed to be a replica of the Paris Opera House--maybe, it sure has enough marble and gold to do it--and inside the hall itself plenty of paintings of voluptous (and diaphonously clothed) goddesses and muses (with a few major authors--eg.Shakespeare--keeping an eye on things) on the ceiling to keep us occupied. The one endless major mezz/balcony creates quite an overhang down below--so back orchestra seating may feel its lowering effect or get a little claustrophobic. There is a very good rake to seats--but not much space in between rows. Seats are much more comfortable since the refurbishment (late 70's/early 80's?) Best seating for me on first floor is not orchestra--sides are not that great because it is wide and deep--are the boxes at the back. They are actually priced better than orchestra/mezz, raised perfectly high enough not to have interference from those in front (and with movable seats if it's still a problem). If you don't mind the balcony overhang cutting off some of that golden proscenium (and in most ballets, who cares?), or some spill light from the lobby--it's not bad at all.

Also saw music performances at Tsai on the BU campus and at --Hall at NEC and Harvard's --Hall, and of course the BSO at Symphony Hall.

LONDON:

ROH (1982, 2007)

So how has it changed in those intervening years? A new entrance that loops around more and has modern ticketing and bookstore/gift shop areas. More (or new level of?) boxes at back of orchestra section. And it appeared smaller, and narrower than I remembered--as most places do after not seeing them for so long. I was in last row of orchestra section in one of those side boxes and still saw Swan Lake fine.

Sadler's Wells: Modern and stark, grey/black/white, like a modern college or office building. No decorative art except some sculpture here and there and the odd promo pics or b&w portraits. Green neon limning for effect. Steep rake, but beware the tall person in front as seats were not staggered that I remember. (I sat upstairs in first balcony.) Best stage door waiting area I've ever seen--plenty of space, seating, place to get out of cold/rain, and viewing of monitors in case you missed part of a performance, and even eating/internet cafe space if you're bored.

Oh yeah...NYC:

The MET:

I LOVE those chandeliers--they are not UFO's rising, they are crystal starbursts (I love astronomy) or dandelion tufts mimicing the raising of the candlelit chandeliers of the 18th century to dim the lights for a performance. Where is your sense of history?! (Watch "Amadeus" to see it in action at the house in Prague where Don Giovanni first premiered.)

The gold walls, and shuntung slub effects are VERY 1960's and getting sort of tacky (old Las Vegas anyone?) now--as is the fake sponge/leather effect of the maroon red walls. Yes, bathrooms are hidden and the grand staircase is there to go nowhere and only remind one of the swooping arches of that old "Eastern Airlines terminal building by its curvilinear path. I always liked the arches in the front. BUT... the whole campus is much smaller and narrower than I thought before attending performances there. The inside of the Met, too, is taller and narrower and not as comfortable as the Music Center in LA--it's okay, though not great for sightlines--I guess the stage appears big to people, not so much to me. (I put it at comfortable mid-sized for ballet, cramped for opera--but then, maybe the Met Opera Co. likes to cramp it.)

NYST: This reminds me of the UFO's with all those circular headlight accents everywhere. The travertine, stark lines, and blow-up b&w of past greats is what I expect from NYCB's neoclassicism. It is a "leotard ballet" of a venue--not the frothy mix/mess of the Met. At least the staircases lead somewhere. And I had no problem with acoustics or sightlines in 4th Circle.

Saratoga: An open-air barn, with good sightlines and hard seating. Defineately worth the trip, but it is not Tanglewood when it comes to true sylvan beauty. But I've never heard of or seen dance performed at Tanglewood (though I believe Mark Morris has performed at Seiji Ozawa Hall?) so beyond the Lawn/Shed for music, I cannot compare. But when things get tough, that is the venue I remember most.

City Center--yes, the Mezz is great for being at almost eye-level, touching distance of the stage--but you can NEVER straighten your knees/legs past 270, and as many many have noted: you are doomed if someone tall or large sits in front of you. (This goes for the balcony section as well.) It's entire decor and facade remind me of Shrine without all the gold and camels. It needs it's ceiling/proscenium re-painted/refurbished soon please. Bathrooms move faster than Met, which is sort of amazing.

[carbro]

LONDON:

ROH (1982, 2007)

So how has it changed in those intervening years? A new entrance that loops around more and has modern ticketing and bookstore/gift shop areas. More (or new level of?) boxes at back of orchestra section. And it appeared smaller, and narrower than I remembered--as most places do after not seeing them for so long. I was in last row of orchestra section in one of those side boxes and still saw Swan Lake fine.

In 2002, post-renovation (and the auditorium looked smaller to me, too, than it did in the mid-70s), I sat in Balcony seat 72(?). I booked the seat by phone and was told it was almost a full view seat. As I recall, the view was fairly unobstructed, but the seat faced the side of the theater, which meant that the viewer had to twist 90 degrees to face the stage. Even for a person with a supple back, this is painful.

The MET:. . . and the grand staircase is there to go nowhere . . .

These "going nowhere" comments have me very confused. It goes to three different levels: Down to orchestra, a few steps up to Parterre, and finally to the Grand Tier. I tend to watch from the Dress Circle, and I lose patience with the non-calorie burning elevators, anyway, so I enter by ascending the staircase to so-called nowhere, and then take the side stairs up another level. Is it grandiose? Sure! In keeping with the house in general. But it is also utilitarian.