THE OPEN SECRET

In the first article of the series titled MICS AND THE MET the allegation was made that General Manager, Peter Gelb lies to the public about the company’s use of amplification.  This is hardly a sensational statement and it’s entirely understandable. In fact, any intelligent person who knows anything about the state of opera today would not only appreciate the pressure that Gelb is under but also sympathise with his circumstances.  

Of course he lies. It’s an essential requirement for his role. Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Peter Gelb are all extremely gifted liars and if they weren’t none of them would be where they are today. The truth is that people in these types of positions have to make unpopular decisions without losing public favour and attempts to hold them to a moral standard which does not allow them to achieve these objectives is as unreasonable as it is naïve.  

Consider for example the death of tenor Richard Versalle who died onstage at the Met in 1996. The facts are that he stopped singing, fell ten metres from a ladder onto the stage below and was taken to St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. While it’s widely accepted that he suffered a heart attack during the incident, his actual cause of death remains a contentious issue.  Was it the heart attack that killed him? Or was it the fall? Before the matter was legally settled, these were multi-million dollar questions, because if it was legally determined that Versalle was still alive when he hit the floor, the Met would have incurred massive liability. Faced with this situation, a General Manager has only one option which is to build a case proving that the singer died from the heart attack and not the impact of the fall. This is exactly what happened. Then it came down to a legal battle and in this particular instance, the Met won. The important thing to realise is that the truth (whatever the truth was) never had anything to do with it. The fact is a General Manager of an opera house is vested with the responsibility of acting in the company’s best interests, a responsibility which often requires them to be less than honest.

When adopting this kind of realistic view of the world any person should understand that it’s Peter Gelb’s duty to lie about amplification and accordingly we should give him a pass for doing it. I have nothing against Peter Gelb who was always gracious and polite toward me during the limited interactions I had with him. In spite of this, my role as an independent journalist means that I have an interest in exposing the very truths which he is duty-bound to conceal. Tommasini also had that interest but he is not an independent journalist and with regards to the New York Times article he wrote, his journalistic freedom was limited. 

 
THEN HOW DO THEY KEEP IT A SECRET?

For an outsider who doesn’t know what to believe this is actually a reasonable question, because if amplification is taking place on the level that this article suggests then how could the secret be maintained? If you are thinking along these lines I completely understand and admit that my whole argument appears to be paralogical. But it only seems paralogical when someone is not fully informed.

Firstly, it’s not actually a secret. Well at least not in the true sense. It could be considered an “industry secret” or an “open secret” but the evidence is on display for most people within the industry if they want to confront it. Once armed with the correct information you will immediately understand how this open secret has been so well kept and in order to gain this understanding, you only need to be aware of the following four considerations which will transform your perspective on the whole issue. 

 
1. SURVEILLANCE

Definition: close observation, especially of an expected spy or criminal.

If you’re wondering what this has to do with the Met then you have obviously never been backstage there. The Met epitomises an environment under surveillance. It’s the sort of place that makes even the most un-paranoid person check underneath the salt and pepper shakers in the canteen for spyware. If you think I might be overstating the case I assure you I’m not. The reality is that from the moment a person enters the walls of that building they are being constantly surveilled. This surveillance which is very real is one of the reasons that this open secret can be maintained so well, because it creates a high degree of atelophobia in those who work there, which is the next factor on the list. 

 
2. ATELOPHOBIA

Definition: the fear of making a mistake or not being good enough.

People at the Met are terrified of making a mistake and everyone with the exception of Paul Groves is on their best behaviour.  Accordingly, people in the Met’s employ understand that in certain instances, it’s in their best interests to look the other way. Everyone knows they can’t be seen showing interest in microphones and they certainly can’t afford to be caught talking about it. This obligation is sub-culturally understood and, in my experience, uniformly observed. With regards to artists being amplified, people don’t ask questions and they look the other way.

 
3. SYCOPHANCY

Definition: obsequious behaviour towards someone important in order to gain advantage.

The Met is a place which is teeming with sycophants. This is hardly surprising because there are a lot of people desperately vying for the same positions which has led to toe sucking becoming a dominant trait within the culture. Whilst there are other work environments which are highly competitive, none of them can compare to the sycophant culture within the Met. The reason for this is due to the adrenaline and fulfilment that artists get when their careers reach the highest level. To them, singing their favourite role on the stage of the Met is the greatest feeling they will ever experience and from a dopamine perspective is something akin to heroin. While it’s never discussed, the truth is that just like drugs, a big career in the arts can destroy people. Singers can change, often losing their core values in the process. This sad but common phenomenon has made the Met a place full of people who will literally say, do or deny anything in order to keep their job. Most singers who have sung there and are no longer in favour would literally consider selling their own children in order to get back. This is a pertinent point because the extreme degree of sycophancy within the environment helps maintain the open secret as it’s a characteristic which makes a demographic easily controlled.

 
4) CAMOUFLAGE

Definition: the disguise of equipment or installations making them blend with their surroundings.

This is the one that makes all of my claims completely plausible, because in reality the Met does not have to hide its microphones, it just has to camouflage them. And what better way is there to camouflage a microphone than amongst other microphones?

The introduction of microphones into the environment for the purposes of broadcasting has provided the perfect cover, because even if you get backstage and you see microphones a sycophant will just tell you:

“Oh no, that’s just for the broadcast.”

This means that Jonas Kaufmann could easily wear a body mic for an entire performance with complete impunity. Likewise, there are concerts all over the world which are amplified into the hall while the audience believes the presence of microphones is only to record for broadcast. When one points out to these people that the performance is not being broadcast, they say:

“Oh, isn’t it? Well they must just be recording it for archives, they do that you know, every performance is recorded for archives.”

The possibilities of this camouflage are almost limitless. This is true for both body mics and fixed mics within the theatre. You might see them but the sycophant class have an inexhaustible list of reasons why it should be ignored. One of my personal favourites is:

“Oh no, those microphones are just there for the Merry Widow on Wednesday night.”

And what they are saying is true. They are used for the Merry Widow on Wednesday night. But the same microphones, sound desk and hidden network of speakers are also present on Friday night for Parsifal. And during “Amfortas die Wunde” in Act Two, how would anybody know if the system was turned on or not? The conductor wouldn’t be the wiser nor would the audience. In fact even the tenor singing Parsifal would have no way of knowing.

Another example of this camouflage is the use of body mics in performances with spoken recitative. In these instances a Papageno or Don José can be wearing a body mic for the entire show. Naturally a well-groomed sycophant will make assurances that only the spoken recitative is being amplified and not the singing, but once again how would they know?

How can we be certain that after the recitative the sound system is turned off not just turned down?

 
Who should we ask?

 
Peter Gelb?

 
 
ADDENDA

1) The article acknowledges that in certain instances people can experience cognitive dissonance. This often occurs when either of the following two factors apply:
  • when the truth is something people feel a moral obligation to ignore
  • when the truth is something which they find unpleasant.
Covert amplification within opera fulfils both criteria. Resultingly for many within the industry a high degree of cognitive dissonance is likely to apply. This should be kept in mind by readers who intend to question those they know within the industry because the evidence which these people have encountered due to all of the aforementioned reasons might be something they play down or deny.

2) The article’s reference to the misbehaviour of Paul Groves was a compliment of the highest order.

 
NEXT IN THE SERIES

In the next article titled BLESSED ENLIGHTENMENT the stakes increase as L’uomo del Loggione gives a first-hand testimony of covert amplification which he has witnessed being used at the Met.

 
Copyright Brett Goulding 2021

Comments

Popular Posts