MICS AND THE MET
When I was kid I went to a little primary school that had 99 students in a rural town called Luddenham, Australia. It wasn't a bad place. We had four teachers, portable toilets, no air conditioning and a cricket pitch. Our dads were farmers, brick layers, welders and truck drivers. Generally speaking we were tough, hard working and down to earth. And then there was Nigel.
Nigel wasn't a bad kid but he was just a
bit gullible. A loyal fan of WWE wrestling, Nigel firmly believed that what he saw on the TV
screen was real and any suggestion that Hulk Hogan, André the Giant and Jake the Snake might have
been acting would send him into a neurotic episode. At little lunch Nigel
could be seen practising the rope to
rope, full nelson choke and the step over toe hold.
It was a sickness of sorts, the
silly bastard just believed everything he saw on television.
Today the operatic community is full of Nigels and Nigellas,
many of whom send me abusive emails on a regular basis. What seems to trigger
these believers more than anything else is my suggestion that today's operatic
stars like Jonas Kaufmann are being assisted by amplification. To these people
this idea creates a deep-seated
emotional trauma, and just like a flustered Nigel on the playground from
all those years ago they demand proof.
Their emails often read something like:
"Luomo del Loggione, you obviously have no idea what you're talking
about. What a bitter person you must be to say these things. FYI the New
York City Opera does use
amplification but the Metropolitan Opera does not! The Met is and always has been a 100% acoustic
environment. We have all heard the rumours that certain artists like Cecilia
Bartoli were amplified but they are just rumours. I see nothing interesting in
any of your claims. Have you personally seen mics being used at the Met? If so please enlighten us about the
precise details otherwise shut up!"
Faced with this ultimatum I have elected to
go with the former option of enlightenment and will be giving proof that the
Met does use amplification. This proof will be given over the course of a five-part series which will explain the
different ways that amplification is being used and how its use is being kept a
secret. Below is the list of articles in the series:
PART 1 - MICS AND THE MET
PART 2 - THE OPEN SECRET
PART 3 - BLESSED ENLIGHTENMENT
PART 4 - AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
PART 5 - SINGING CYBORGS
The reason that it requires a whole
series to address this topic is due to the fact that amplification within
opera is no longer a black and white issue. In fact the whole issue is grey and
is becoming a darker shade of grey
all the time.
Consider the following questions:
1) Is opera amplified today?
2) Does the Met use
amplification?
3) Is there a
difference between enhancement and amplification?
These seem like straightforward questions
but during this series you will learn that the issue is more complicated than
it first seems. It is an indisputable fact that there are microphones, sound
desks and speakers in almost all venues today. This is a settled matter, but
the real questions are which ones are being used? Under what circumstances are
they being used and to what degree are they contributing to the sound in the
back of the opera house?
Each article within this series will focus
on different aspects of this issue,
collectively painting a realistic picture of what is actually going on. At the
outset of this series most readers will be primarily interested in the detailed
admissions made in Part 3. In that article titled BLESSED ENLIGHTENMENT I will
make good on my promise by revealing specific details of covert amplification
which I have seen being used at the Met. It's only natural that readers
will be primarily focused on these claims, after all it was demands by the
public for me to reveal these details which led to the creation of this series.
However, I also hope that due consideration will be given to the greater
context that this series describes, one which explains what is happening to our
artform and why it will soon be lost forever.
A WEB OF LIES
Firstly it needs to be said that it's
completely understandable why there are so many Nigels and Nigellas within the
operatic world. After all,
administrations have gone to great lengths to cover up this truth for
decades. Perhaps the best example of such a cover up was an article
published by the New York Times on June 28, 2013.
The New York Times piece (which is hyperlinked at the bottom of this
article) was written by journalist Anthony Tommasini and will be the source material used as
evidence in this series. At the time, soprano Diana Damrau had been captured in a photo which clearly depicted a
wire from a body mic. According to the article, Mr Tommasini
seeking an explanation contacted the Met Press Office, where he states he "encountered some
confusion about the matter". After this initial confusion Tommasini was contacted by the Met’s General Director Peter Gelb, who made arrangements to address his
concerns at a later date. As a result of these interactions Tommasini was able to provide a detailed list of the
specific circumstances where the Met acknowledges the use of amplification. This list of circumstances is
presented below:
1) The Met acknowledges the use of body mics during broadcasts which pick up singers' voices, delivering them to the control desk. The Met stresses that these feeds are only used in HD and radio broadcasts and are never projected into the house. The Met also acknowledges a network of fixed microphones around the stage which are used for this same purpose.
2) The Met acknowledges amplifying singers’ voices into the house in instances where special
effects are added to voices. The example given was the special effects of a
"booming voice" added to the offstage voice of Fafner in Siegfried
who was depicted as singing from inside his lair.
3) The Met acknowledges amplifying singers’ voices into the house to accommodate requests made by
contemporary composers. The example given was requests made by John Adams.
4) The Met acknowledges amplifying instruments into the house. The
example given was the mandolin accompaniment in Don Giovanni's serenade
"Deh vieni alla
finestra".
The article made it very clear that beyond
these circumstances amplification is not used in operatic performances at
the Met. In proving beyond all reasonable doubt that this statement is
untrue, the
Loggione will use this very
article to substantiate its case. This will be achieved primarily through
uncovering three legal technicalities which will be referred to as the Three Smoking Guns.
SMOKING GUN NUMBER ONE
The first smoking gun surrounds one of the statements made by Peter Gelb during an interview with Tommasini.
He states:
"In certain productions during certain
scenes singers are sometimes positioned in places on the Met's large stage
where their voices cannot be picked up by the network of microphones used for
radio and for the HD
broadcasts that have become
so popular in recent years. In these instances a singer will wear a body microphone, which carries the singer's voice to the
control panel for the broadcast, but not, Mr Gelb insisted, into the house."
The first thing that stands out here is
that just like many other statements made by Gelb in the article this one does
not appear as a direct quote. Obviously this was done because the statement
verges on making the false claim that voices are never amplified into the
house. Knowing that there is always the potential for the truth to come out it
seems that it was insisted that the statement be presented in this manner and
not as a direct quotation. To my way of looking at this, Gelb's statement
here is paramount to outright lying, because the Met does use body mics to amplify voices into the
house. But technically speaking Gelb was not lying due to the fact that the
carefully-worded statement was
not actually referring to this kind of body mic. Confused? Allow me
explain.
The Met actually uses two different types of body mics.
1) Body mics which amplify voices into the
house
2) Body mics which are used for the radio and HD broadcasts.
Although Gelb knew his audience would
interpret his comments generally, he was intentionally making statements within a limited context. This
allowed him to insinuate the meaning he wanted while legally stating something
very different. The smoking gun within the syntax is the specific phrase "In these instances". By using this
phrase Gelb legally limits his statement to the context which he had carefully
defined, that being specifically to the second kind of body mics which are used
for the purpose of radio and HD
broadcasts.
Therefore it should not be said that Peter
Gelb lied but rather that he displayed unconscionable conduct and deliberately
misled the public. This kind of calculated manoeuvring does not happen by
accident and could only have been the product of a process which involved legal
vetting. Keep in mind that when Gelb originally contacted Tommasini he elected not to go into depth about the matter, instead agreeing to contact him at a later
date for an interview where he would address his concerns. Obviously in the
interim Gelb consulted legal counsel
in order to develop a strategy on how to handle the matter. This fact is beyond
doubt as evidenced by the high degree of legal syntax within the article.
Accordingly a good question to all the believers out there would be, if Gelb had nothing to hide then why did he
need to do all of this?
SMOKING GUN NUMBER TWO
In the article claims were made that the
Met is an acoustic environment where opera can be heard in a traditional way.
Once again this statement was not presented as a direct quote creating a
"legal buffer" because the statement itself only describes Tommasini's understanding of what he believes
he was told. But if this is not enough evidence for you the next point will be.
The real smoking gun here is that in this instance Tommasini is not even stating that the claims originated
from Peter Gelb personally. Instead Tommasini puts to the reader that the claim is made by the
"institution" as opposed to the individual. This is achieved through the use of the
words "the company
maintains".
He states:
"A small number of opera houses and concert halls around the world
have introduced sound enhancement systems, sometimes openly, sometimes
stealthily. But the Met is and always will be an amplification-free zone, the company maintains, a place where opera can be experienced the traditional
way - with natural sound."
This statement gives further examples
of wordings which do not happen by accident and for any person who
interprets these statements through a legal paradigm it’s obvious that making the claim in this manner was a
legal necessity. What necessitated this need was the fact that the statement is
false and if Gelb had personally made this claim he would be individually
accountable. By employing the legal tactic of saying "the company
maintains", Gelb's individual liability is avoided.
SMOKING GUN NUMBER 3
During the article extensive statements
were given by a sound engineer named Jay David Saks, but what most readers would not realise is that Mr Saks
was not the person who was responsible for amplification which was projected
into the house. This is due to the fact that Mr Saks’
role at
the time only related to the radio and HD broadcasts. Once more the article furnishes this
information in the most surreptitious way, by stating:
“Since 1980, this process has been overseen
by Jay David Saks, the sound designer for the Met's broadcasts. Mr Saks who is both the
audio producer and his own engineer, sits at the control panels during
broadcasts and has overseen and mixed 1,253 live radio broadcasts and 150
audiovisual productions including all of the Met's HD broadcasts.”
It would be very easy to read over this
without noticing anything untoward.
But considering that Tommasini
was looking for assurances that body mics were not being amplified into the
house, it’s meaningful that the
sound engineer that was made available to him was one who had nothing to do
with that function. By offering a sound engineer that could not answer the
question, Gelb and his legal team created a way of
enacting the Fifth Amendment without
making it obvious. Because even if Tommasini did question Saks about body mics being projected
into the house Saks would have full deniability and would not be required to
answer, as he was only responsible for amplification used for the purpose of
recording broadcasts. Such an answer could only have come from the Head of Sound Department Josh Marks, who for obvious reasons did not take part in an
interview.
To any intelligent person these facts prove
beyond all reasonable doubt that the Met is lying about its use of microphones.
An assertion supported by the fact that the entire article was obviously
subject to legal vetting before being published. This is not surprising when
considering that Peter Gelb's control over the press is legendary. When
considering this level of control it is understandable why the article did not
ask the important questions of the correct people. For example, why wasn't the Head of the Sound
Department Josh Marks asked to clarify the circumstances where body mics are
used to project voices into the house? After all, he was the person in control
of this function, not Saks.
Also, why did the article focus exclusively on the practice
of using body mics and avoided all details surrounding the existence of a sound
enhancement system? Why didn't questioning extend to other types of
microphones which could potentially be utilised within a system which projects
voices into the house? These are pertinent
questions because perhaps Gelb and his legal team conveniently consider the
concepts of enhancement and amplification to be different things?
Tommasini certainly would have known exactly what
questions to ask but for reasons which we can only assume these questions never made it into the article. Perhaps the reasons which prevented
this from occurring are best understood by other journalists familiar with the restraints placed upon
them while fulfilling their assignments for the New York Times.
Despite not obtaining personal statements
from relevant parties addressing the difficult questions, Tommasini did collect some very valuable
information in this article. Of significant value were statements made by Gelb
which prove the existence of two different types of body mics being used.
In his commentary regarding the body mics
which are used for the radio and HD broadcasts Tommasini recounts Gelb stating:
"In these instances a singer will wear a body microphone, which
carries the singer's voice to the control panel for the broadcast, but not, Mr Gelb insisted, into the house."
But then in relation to amplifying voices
into the house Tommasini recounts Gelb
stating:
"Sometimes a special effect
requires it"
and "On occasion a composer has asked for a voice to be
amplified".
These admissions are extremely valuable for
the following two reasons:
Comparing other contradictory elements
within the article is equally disconcerting and when doing so all of the claims
which the Met publicly makes begins to erode. Take for example this
statement:
"A small number of opera houses and concert halls around the world
have introduced sound enhancement systems, sometimes openly, sometimes
stealthily. But the Met is and always will be an amplification-free zone, the
company maintains, a place where opera can be experienced the traditional way - with
natural sound".
Having read this claim now consider these
facts which have all been admitted within the article:
- Instruments are amplified into the house
- Voices are amplified into the house
- Special effects are added to voices
- There are at least two different types of body mics being used
- There are microphones placed downstage on the rim of the orchestra pit
- There are microphones placed on the sides of the proscenium
- There are microphones placed above the stage
- There are microphones in the pit
- Microphones are used offstage
- There are speakers close to the stage and pit
- There is a network of speakers in the theatre
- There is a sound desk
- There are two different sound departments which handle different functions.
Now ask yourself these three questions:
1) Does this constitute an amplification-free
zone?
2) Does this not constitute technology which
is synonymous with a sound enhancement system?
3) Does the use of all this technology mean that opera is being experienced in a traditional way with natural sound?
Now consider the following:
- For hundreds of years the accompaniment of "Deh vieni alla finestra" did not require amplification. Therefore why does the Met who brags about having the finest acoustic in the world, calling it "the world’s biggest bathroom" need to amplify it now?
- For over a century Fafner’s voice did not need electronic sound effects so why does the Met need to add these effects now?
- Is it really believable that hundreds of millions were invested in this technology and its associated costs so that audiences could better hear a mandolin and experience the sound effect of a cave?
Tommasini had his doubts, which he honourably expressed in the article. He stated:
"That's the explanation and, assuming this is the whole story, it seems reasonable" and "As someone who cherishes
classical music as an artform that glorifies in natural sound I get nervous hearing Mr Gelb talk of
camouflaging wires on singers’ bodies. And the Met has certainly kept this practice
a secret."
The Met certainly have kept it a secret.
Furthermore the admissions made in the article only occurred after the Met was
caught out and these admissions only confess a fraction of truth. In reality
the Met is keeping a lot more secrets such as the role which the sound
enhancement system plays and the real circumstances under which body mics are
being used, the latter not only
occurring in the music of Adams but also shockingly with Verdi and
Wagner.
The New York Times article written by Anthony Tommasini will be referenced throughout this five-part series. The Loggione encourages its readers to carefully review this source in its entirety. By doing this, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions about what might have necessitated the extensive legal manoeuvring employed. Readers are also advised to familiarise themselves with the many claims that the article makes, claims which will continue to be proven false throughout the course of this series. The New York Times article is linked here.
ADDENDUM
1) The article acknowledges that unlike
many other venues the Met does use this technology in a tasteful way. Moreover
it is acknowledged that if an argument was made that opera should be amplified, then the Met sets the standard to be
followed. It should therefore be understood that it is the lack of transparency
by the Met which is the central issue. The Loggione acknowledges that the Met
has every right to pursue a realistic sounding but enhanced environment over an
acoustic one. However the Met like any other business has a contract with
the public, making disclosures of
this kind a legal obligation.
NEXT IN THE SERIES
In the next article titled THE OPEN SECRET
the Loggione will delve into the paralogical and explain exactly how the Met
has been able to keep its covert practices a secret from the public for so
long.
Copyright
Brett Goulding 2021
Comments
Post a Comment