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: 

1) Firstly they confirm that Gelb's statements about body mics never projecting voices into the house are only to be interpreted within a limited context. That being the context where body mics are those specifically used during radio and HD broadcasts.   

2) Secondly they confirm the existence of a second type of body mic which is not used for the purpose of the radio and HD broadcasts. This is because if the body mics for the radio and HD broadcasts never carry the singer’s voice into the house then a second type of body mic must be being utilised when fulfilling a composer's request for amplification.

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. 

 

ARTICLE LIST

ABOUT THEAUTHOR

PATRON’SCORNER

 

 

Copyright Brett Goulding 2021