nanushka

I hadn't actually read the AP's article on the Met's plans, but now that I have I see that Peter Gelb offers quite a significant qualification: This is much more in line with what I think is actually feasible and realistic: live performances (of opera at the Met, at least) are likely dependent on significantly better treatment options than now exist. More on why:

I saw that comment on a lot of accounts posting black boxes with the BLM hashtag on Tuesday — individual accounts, not just large accounts. Many of those users responded gratefully to the comment, and deleted the hashtag as suggested. I didn't get the sense that they felt they'd been damned either way. Was there a controversy that I wasn't aware of? I thought it was just people sharing a useful tip. Neither the comments nor the account holders' responses seemed impolite or critical.

I'm not talking about regulations, though. (Perhaps my use of the word "stages" has been confusing; I was not referring to, e.g., the CDC's "stages" or "phases" of reopening.) I'm talking about (non-anecdotal) patterns of social behavior and of broad institutional and industry-wide (in the arts — and most specifically at the Met) adaptations — and about what's likely to happen with those as all things continue to develop over the next 6-12 months, not about what's happened with them over the past 4-8 weeks.

I guess. But also, potentially, for those who are analyzing societal shifts (if their social theories don't prohibit describing change in stages).

I'm curious how exactly the pressure arising from that decision might play out — in the cases of arts audiences in particular. I'm also not so sure public opinion is actually as far ahead as some politicians and protesting citizens on the push for life to "get back to the way it was." Certainly there's beginning to be more of a push; but there are a lot of potential stages between where we are now and "the way it was."

For all three of those, though, I think the greater challenge won't be the audience (who, as @Helene pointed out above, can potentially see and hear performances remotely) but the performers. Singers, dancers and wind players all expel a lot of air, and generally rehearse and perform in close contact with one another. All three groups will likely be very hesitant to put themselves in much danger of contracting a respiratory illness — which for professional opera singers, especially, could quite possibly be career ending (not to mention life threatening). Many of the latter have likely been extremely careful over the past few months (to the extent their personal circumstances allow), and so getting a sufficient number of them who are immune and can put on a series of performances at the Met seems like a tricky task.

Right, definitely. I shouldn't have written "who have had COVID-19" since that's the illness; I should've written "who have had the virus."

A December 31 gala reopening seems highly improbable to me. I don't think opera will be back onstage in any normal way (e.g. choruses rehearsing and performing together, soloists within ~15 feet of one another, etc.) until there is a vaccine and/or significant developments in treatment — to the point where, for a large proportion of the population, COVID-19 is as treatable as the flu. I'm not sure I understand #1. How does a summer of getting outside make opera in the theater more feasible? Reopening plans, no matter how gradual, are going to hit a point beyond which things just can't progress until there are significant developments in widespread rapid testing, contact tracing, and especially treatment — and, ultimately, a vaccine. I don't think things will ever be fully normal until we have the last of those, or at least a very good form of the second-to-last. #3 would seem to mean that only singers/choristers who have had COVID-19 could continue with their professional careers — which, as @YouOverThere suggests, is highly problematic. It's also a big if that people who've had it would both (a) not be able to be reinfected (reasonably likely) and (b) not be able to carry and infect others (not quite as likely, as I understand it). And trying to put together a schedule of performances — which they'd need to start planning for now, or at least by this fall — seems like a logistical mess, if only performers who've had the virus (and come out of it in good shape) could be slotted in.

There was once (and may still be) on YouTube a complete NYCB (2008?) recording with Wendy Whelan, Albert Evans, Sterling Hyltin, Adam Hendrickson, Savannah Lowery and Adrian Danchig-Waring. An exciting performance, but not high quality video (apparently pirated). I too really enjoyed this Ballet Arizona performance and am glad to have a higher-quality complete video.

I like that reading, @BalanchineFan (even if I didn't particularly like the excerpt format or some of the newer pieces). I hope the past remains a very strong presence in the present and in the future. NYCB's chief (though certainly not only) value, to my eyes, is in its role as the foremost keeper of the Balanchine tradition.

Ah thanks, @Dale, perhaps this is the celebration @Helene was referring to. I hadn't seen word of it. And yes, I think holding off made a lot of sense.

Ah, I thought it was all part of this, which I'd thought began with last night's ABT performance. (Oh, actually no, with Saturday night's MND. Both of those were originally listed on that page, before they occurred.) I'm not sure where it was originally communicated. It's all over now, just from googling "blackout tuesday june 2."

Perhaps. Or perhaps that was just another reason why.

Wasn't the series already started, last night? (Sorry, I may be missing what you meant.)

Same here.