Jump to content


Inefficiencies of the Mariinsky WebsiteAre there monkeys or humans operating the MT website?


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#31 volcanohunter

volcanohunter

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,865 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 02:48 PM

I also think opera is closer to film or plays b/c the singers act and "speak" (sing actually), so ever since the advent of supertitles above the stage (which was VERY controversial years ago) people understand everything and less people are "afraid" of opera. Of course, it could be argued that ballet dancers act and "speak" (mime), so maybe I am wrong.


Last summer I took a young cousin to see his first ballet, the POB's Giselle. He'd previously been to the opera quite a few times, his parents being committed Wagnerites, but he claimed to have preferred the ballet. (He said this not to me but to his horrified parents.) He cited not having to read titles as one of the reasons for enjoying ballet more.

#32 Birdsall

Birdsall

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:00 PM


I also think opera is closer to film or plays b/c the singers act and "speak" (sing actually), so ever since the advent of supertitles above the stage (which was VERY controversial years ago) people understand everything and less people are "afraid" of opera. Of course, it could be argued that ballet dancers act and "speak" (mime), so maybe I am wrong.


Last summer I took a young cousin to see his first ballet, the POB's Giselle. He'd previously been to the opera quite a few times, his parents being committed Wagnerites, but he claimed to have preferred the ballet. (He said this not to me but to his horrified parents.) He cited not having to read titles as one of the reasons for enjoying ballet more.


This was one of the main complaints about "supertitles" in opera when they first appeared. Old timers were aghast and said, "You don't go to the opera to READ!" It was literally the end of the world coming! LOL I remember that, b/c I was a newbie back then and was open to the supertitles. With time you stop needing titles for the operas you love to death. You know what they are singing at any moment. But I do think opera became more popular in the 90s up to today due to supertitles. So I think there were definite pros to it, but it made me laugh to hear what your young cousin said. When we stop and think, READING at the opera is a bit ridiculous! LOL

I am glad I caught the tail end of opera without supertitles, because I remember doing "homework" before going. You bought recordings and followed along with the libretto to learn what was being sung, etc. You listened over and over in preparation for attending a particular opera, and it enabled you to totally know the music well so when you went to an opera, you swooned b/c you knew the arias. You really didn't need the titles b/c you knew what was going on and knew the music before you ever entered the theatre.

I wonder if people today go in "cold" not knowing a thing about the opera or any of the arias. I don't think you could go in "cold" not knowing any of the music or the story if titles had not come about. You would be bored out of your mind totally lost as to what is going on especially with today's stagings. And I think that was unthinkable back in the day to walk into an opera cold.

I tell people just getting into opera to buy the opera and listen ahead of time. It pays. It is no different from going to a Madonna concert. People get excited at hearing the songs they know backwards and forwards. With opera you enjoy it so much more the better you know the arias or duets or ensembles....

#33 volcanohunter

volcanohunter

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,865 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 03:13 PM

But I do think opera became more popular in the 90s up to today due to supertitles.


But remember that the National Endowment for the Arts audience participation surveys show that the number of people attending opera has fallen since the surveys began in 1982. Ballet attendance has fallen by an even larger percentage, but more Americans go to the ballet than to the opera--for a variety of reasons.

http://www.nea.gov/r...PA-brochure.pdf

#34 Birdsall

Birdsall

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 07:03 PM


But I do think opera became more popular in the 90s up to today due to supertitles.


But remember that the National Endowment for the Arts audience participation surveys show that the number of people attending opera has fallen since the surveys began in 1982. Ballet attendance has fallen by an even larger percentage, but more Americans go to the ballet than to the opera--for a variety of reasons.

http://www.nea.gov/r...PA-brochure.pdf


I did not know this. I remember reading articles saying the audiences for opera were growing, but these articles were in the 90s and maybe they were just saying that (wishful thinking).....I do know that even regional opera companies were throwing in a rare or esoteric opera almost every season, because they could. And the house would not be empty. After the economy went south it has been a huge dose of La Boheme, Traviata, Carmen, etc.......I miss the days when I could actually have hope that a local company might stage an Anna Bolena or Semiramide one day. They were programming enough fringe repetoire that I always had hope. But with today's economy I would laugh at myself to even think for a second that a regional company would stage those operas.

#35 California

California

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 04:59 AM

But remember that the National Endowment for the Arts audience participation surveys show that the number of people attending opera has fallen since the surveys began in 1982. Ballet attendance has fallen by an even larger percentage, but more Americans go to the ballet than to the opera--for a variety of reasons.

http://www.nea.gov/r...PA-brochure.pdf


But also remember that in 1982, dance was coming off an extraordinary "dance boom" fueled by the likes of Baryshnikov, Kirkland, Makaraova, etc. So the percentage decline is more understandable once they started to step out of the limelight.

#36 volcanohunter

volcanohunter

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,865 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 06:07 AM

Oh, yes. And that ballet's most active audience is 65+ is testament to the remnants of the dance boom. (Table 2f)
http://www.nea.gov/r...SPPA/trends.pdf

Ballet was also different while Balanchine, Ashton and Tudor were still alive. Even when they were older and not necessarily prolific, there was still the possibility of going to the ballet to see the premiere of a new masterpiece, which gave ballet-going an excitement it does not have today.

Sorry if we're veering Posted Image

#37 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:00 PM

That's an interesting point, because the NY ballet audience was split then between the dancing stars at ABT and the choreographic stars at NYCB, Balanchine and Robbins. (During the dance boom, the majority of Tudor's works were already made: only "The Leaves Are Fading" and "Tiller in the Fields" were choreographed in the '70's, although ABT was still programming many of the ballets that were part of its artistic legacy during their main season.)

I remember major efforts to convince that Bujones, for example, was the next one in line after Baryshnikov, and people loved Kirkland, although her own problems undermined her career. After the fall of the Soviet Union Russian dancers again helped stoke the interest at ABT; at NYCB, there are more premieres than under Balanchine's time at Lincoln Center, except during a few festivals under his tenure, but quantity and quality are different, and the desperation with which talented neoclassical choreographers are branded "the next Balanchine" shows how little of it has stuck.

Ratmansky at ABT creating one-act ballets is a bit of ABT coming full circle.

As far as super-titles are concerned, I've always found them easy to ignore when I don't need them, and you can turn off Met Titles.

Ismene Brown posted commentary and a translation of a recent interview with Daria Pavlenko concerning pay for the Mariinsky corps:
http://www.ismeneb.c..._structure.html

She expressed concern about declining standards, some of which she attributes to financial dis-incentives and how young dancers out of the school are not all choosing the Mariinsky as their company upon graduation. If the Mariinsky can't count on institutional memory and the generosity of one generation towards the next, I agree with Pavlenko that they are in trouble.

#38 Birdsall

Birdsall

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:42 PM

As far as super-titles are concerned, I've always found them easy to ignore when I don't need them, and you can turn off Met Titles.


The Met's seatback titles are my favorite, because you can turn them off and you don't get any glare from others around you even if they are using their titles. Santa Fe Opera had the same system (seat back titles) when I went there. I think those are the only two opera houses in the U.S. that have them like that due to the expense. At least I read that once, and since I read it in Opera News there could be more houses that installed them. No idea. Does anyone know if any of the major houses in Europe have them?

I noticed that the Mariinsky provides English supertitles for its Russian operas, but other repertoire (Italian, French, German) get Russian supertitles above the stage. Maybe Mariinsky II will have the seat back titles.

Back to topic.....the Mariinsky does seem to be having major issues. Vaganova dancers choosing other companies is going to be a major problem if the trend continues. Beyond that, it is now less than a month away that the White Nights Festival begins, and still no word about June and July repertoire. Foreigners need to get a visa for their visit and so this is really ridiculous.

#39 Rock

Rock

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 05:56 PM

I recently attended a Traviata at the Met, where I rarely go although I like opera very much. I used the translator on the back of the seat in front of me although I couldn't see anyone else's. I don't know how they do it. No glare, no distraction. I found it very helpful and you don't have to look at it all that much. Once you get the drift you can watch the stage, and it helps enormously to follow what's being said. The person who invited me didn't use hers at all because she knew the opera forwards and backwards, but I felt for those of us who don't know the works very well it's a wonderful help and not distracting to others in any way.

#40 Birdsall

Birdsall

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 06:43 PM

I recently attended a Traviata at the Met, where I rarely go although I like opera very much. I used the translator on the back of the seat in front of me although I couldn't see anyone else's. I don't know how they do it. No glare, no distraction. I found it very helpful and you don't have to look at it all that much. Once you get the drift you can watch the stage, and it helps enormously to follow what's being said. The person who invited me didn't use hers at all because she knew the opera forwards and backwards, but I felt for those of us who don't know the works very well it's a wonderful help and not distracting to others in any way.


Yes, the seat back titles are wonderful, in my opinion. You can choose to use them or not use them. No distraction from other screens (I also don't know how they made it that way.....amazing)....

But most houses have the supertitles (a screen for everyone above the stage). It doesn't bother me up there either, but some people don't like it. However, I find it easy to tune things out I don't care about. I have had friends yell at me, "Turn off your windshield wipers! The rain stopped 20 minutes ago!" when they are a passenger in my car. I don't notice it, but it drives others crazy. LOL I guess that is how supertitles are. Just the existence of them annoys some people.

#41 Mashinka

Mashinka

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 01:59 AM

Posted Image Russian visas: I get charged double because I'm an Irish passport holder living in London, visas are an absolute racket and a nice little earner on the side. What the Russians don't realize is that charging £70 a pop for a basic visa. (£140 in my case) people are actually deterred from visiting in the first place.

#42 Birdsall

Birdsall

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:28 AM

Posted Image Russian visas: I get charged double because I'm an Irish passport holder living in London, visas are an absolute racket and a nice little earner on the side. What the Russians don't realize is that charging £70 a pop for a basic visa. (£140 in my case) people are actually deterred from visiting in the first place.


I tend to agree. It is the first country I have visited that required a visa, and the problem is that you can't apply until 45 days before you depart.

I feel like it is a racket too, because WHY would someone need a visa? I suspect like you that it is because they make a little more money off each person.

To connect with the topic: since the White Nights Festival June/July repetoire has not been announced many people will not go this year. You can't even fill out the application for the visa to say what dates you are planning to visit without knowing what is playing in June or July.

I am sure this is being caused by the opening of the Mariinsky II and I am sure they are busier this year than previous because of it, but this is a bad sign. If the Mariinsky II is already causing delays in programming (when it is supposed to make things better) it is a sign of things to come, I suspect. I hope I am wrong.

#43 California

California

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:16 AM

I feel like it is a racket too, because WHY would someone need a visa? I suspect like you that it is because they make a little more money off each person.

Americans are very spoiled in being able to travel to so many countries without a visa. We forget that we require citizens of many of those countries to obtain a visa just to visit the U.S. as a tourist. Currently, the U.S. allows tourists from only 37 countries to enter the U.S. without a visa:
http://travel.state....thout_1990.html

For all the others (including Russia and most states of the former Soviet Union), the application fee alone is $160, and you have to pay that whether or not it is approved: http://travel.state....types_1263.html

#44 Birdsall

Birdsall

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:25 AM


I feel like it is a racket too, because WHY would someone need a visa? I suspect like you that it is because they make a little more money off each person.

Americans are very spoiled in being able to travel to so many countries without a visa. We forget that we require citizens of many of those countries to obtain a visa just to visit the U.S. as a tourist. Currently, the U.S. allows tourists from only 37 countries to enter the U.S. without a visa:
http://travel.state....thout_1990.html

For all the others (including Russia and most states of the former Soviet Union), the application fee alone is $160, and you have to pay that whether or not it is approved: http://travel.state....types_1263.html


Do you know why we require other countries or why some require us to have one? I am just curious. I wonder if there is a valid reason. Maybe safety? What does an actual visa do that a regular passport doesn't do? I suppose the application for a visa is targeted toward the country you are visiting, so I guess the country obtains actual information about what you are going to do and how long you will be there, so it gives them more control. I guess a regular passport doesn't do that. Is there any other reason besides that? It seems like someone up to no good could still be a threat with or without a visa, but what do I know?

#45 California

California

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,425 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:42 AM

Do you know why we require other countries or why some require us to have one? I am just curious. I wonder if there is a valid reason. Maybe safety? What does an actual visa do that a regular passport doesn't do? I suppose the application for a visa is targeted toward the country you are visiting, so I guess the country obtains actual information about what you are going to do and how long you will be there, so it gives them more control. I guess a regular passport doesn't do that. Is there any other reason besides that? It seems like someone up to no good could still be a threat with or without a visa, but what do I know?


I know a little about how some of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary) were finally admitted to the VWP (Visa Waiver Program) in 2008. The State Department has some kind of formula for determining the likelihood that admittance without a visa would admit persons presenting a risk to the U.S. (terrorism, etc.). I don't know if they determine that through surveillance, failed Visa applications, or something along those lines, and I don't remember how low the risk assessment has to be to be added to the VWP program. I know the Slovaks were very angry (as I assume the others in this group were) that American citizens were admitted to their country without a visa and that they had all contributed soldiers to George Bush's so-called "Coalition of the Willing" and yet we refused to admit them to the VWP. It was a major point of annoyance for them, and I'm glad to see they have now been admitted.

Do note that your passport is issued by your home country, not the country you are visiting. Countries like Ukraine and Bellarus, which are reportedly hotbeds of "loose nukes," are not on the VWP list. So citizens of those countries have to go to the U.S. Embassy for an interview (and perhaps further investigation) to determine if it's safe to let them into the U.S.

I noticed that Saudi Arabia is no longer on the list. After 9/11, there was some controversy that admission to the U.S. was too easy.

I just noticed that Poland has NOT been admitted to the VWP. Sorry!

Edited by California, 29 April 2013 - 09:50 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):