# The Met



## Alligator (Sep 17, 2009)

I just saw a TV special showing Tosca at the Met. I was floored! That stage is huge! 

If I was to vacation in New York, can someone recommend an opera that simply must be seen at the Met before one dies?


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

You can see all the Met operas at your local movie theater live via satellite transmission with English subtitles. However the experience is not the same as being at the Met in person of course.


----------



## Alligator (Sep 17, 2009)

I had heard that, and since they charge admission, I'd rather see a real opera than a "movie" version.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Alligator said:


> I just saw a TV special showing Tosca at the Met. I was floored! That stage is huge!
> 
> If I was to vacation in New York, can someone recommend an opera that simply must be seen at the Met before one dies?


The Met is a one of a kind experience. They could re-enact old episodes of "Laverne and Shirley" and it would still be a good performance.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

The big Zeffirelli productions are sometimes easy to sneer at, but the old Tosca (not the current one) and La Boheme are really stunning. You get a lot of tourists applauding when the curtain goes up on the latter-- more than one act.


----------



## dapperdanny (Dec 5, 2005)

Hi,
I don't post often but I want to say that I can't imagine anyone sneering at any Zeffirelli production. Along with Otto Schenk's "Ring Cycle" and Parsifal, they pretty much set the standard!

Anyway, what productions you might care to see at the Met would entirely depend on what is playing at the time of your stay in New York. A lot would depend on your taste in music. For example, tonight is Strauss' Elektra, one of my favorites, but not most people's cup of tea. If you're new to this art form, you might opt for Bizet's Carmen which will open on New Year's Eve. It is a very popular opera and you'll probably recognize most of it! Easy enough to look up the schedule at:

https://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/


----------



## Serenus (Jun 19, 2009)

*NYC's MET*

I went all the time to the Met when I was in high school and college, and continue to enjoy their live broadcasts in movie theaters.

In my opinion, the house is too big for a great number of operas. Factual information related to me by a former student who has sung a lead role there confirms my suspicions that singers tire quickly trying to fill the cavernous space. Therefore I would recommend something bigger, from later in the 19th or 20th century just because the larger orchestra required for those works does not have to strain so hard, and singers are better matched for the space. This is not to say that you can't enjoy a wonderful Mozart production there, and as one previous poster remarked, the place is an experience in itself.

The writer for the New Yorker's review of the premiere of Samuel Barber's "Anthony and Cleopatra" in September 1966 at the brand new opera house at Lincoln Center remarked that it was (I'm paraphrasing) "The Metropolitan Opera House with Barber's Anthony and Cleopatra in the intermissions". So just going there and enjoying the time and the space and the music can be a very fun experience, regardless of the opera you hear.


----------



## chuckie50 (Apr 16, 2008)

For me choosing which opera one must see before one dies is similar to asking me which of my children I love best. I wouldn't even try to make the choice.
If I lived out of the area I would try to get hear two operas I loved on consecutive days on my visit. Something like hearing Turandot and Carmen on consecutive days in January or La Traviata and Tosca in April. I've used this strategy in Italy and it is one of the highlights of my opera experience.


----------



## Alligator (Sep 17, 2009)

So perhaps the best choice is just to see whatever I can when in New York. Fair enough.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Timeless Fashion said:


> You can see all the Met operas at your local movie theater live via satellite transmission with English subtitles. However the experience is not the same as being at the Met in person of course.


No. In fact, it's arguably better. I wouldn't pass up a ticket to the Met of course, but having seen the broadcasts, at $22 a ticket you're getting one heck of a show.

First, you see the singers closeup - even closer than the nearest seat.

Second, sound is digital, and tremendous.

Third, you see it at different angles, depending on where the action is. Not only do you see it better than anyone in the Met, you see it at the best possible angle regardless (they even have cameras right over the stage).

Finally, you can eat popcorn while you watch.

Only downside: old people who think the $22 entitles them to believe and act like they're really at the Met rather than a movie theater.


----------



## jst (Oct 22, 2008)

I am surprised: the ticket price is the same here - 22 USD.

In my town the Met performances are given in old opera theater house. So no popcorn, sorry. The problem is the sound seems to be optimised for cinemas. I have little problem with singers closeups too. The image is changing but the acoustics axis stays. The same is if the camera moves overhead. Probably it is effect of theatre, you are used for such tricks in cinema. I plan to try experience in small town 50 km to to north where Met performances are given in real cinema hall.


----------

