The time has come, in this week of lifting the lid on cricket corruption, to reveal the virus at the heart of classical music, the canker in the operatic apple. For years, those of us in the business have tried to keep quiet about the existence of those shadowy men who sidle up to you before curtain-up at Covent Garden, La Scala or the Met and whisper in your ear: "Ten to one Juan Diego Flórez misses the 6th top C in Ah! Mes Amis"; "Twenty-five to one Angela Gheorghiu drops her tiara in act four"; "Fifty to one Bryn Terfel drops a word in his final solo".
These tantalising offers are just the tip of an iceberg of classical music betting that is the black economy of the industry. Ever wondered how it is that the Royal Opera House or the Met can afford Erwin Schrott, Anna Netrebko or Renée Fleming and their ludicrously inflated fees? The head honchos of the houses are all in on the action. They will drop into rehearsals and gently hint that it might be a good idea for Schrott to crack on the top note of Non Più Andrai during the third performance of Figaro; that if Netrebko were to miss an entry in the third act of Manon – well, these things happen; that Fleming messing up the finale of La Traviata would be quite understandable.
It's been going on for decades. Remember the furore when Pavarotti missed a top C at La Scala and was booed? An opera-singing accident? Nothing of the sort: that cracked note guaranteed La Scala stayed in business, and lined Pavarotti's already voluminous pockets. Roberto Alagna fleeing the stage at Aida in Milan a few years later? Just another singer prepared to take the fall for a brown envelope stuffed with used notes.
So beware the soprano who messes up Porgi, amor in Figaro and is sporting a new Chopard necklace the next time you see her; the tenor who cocks up an aria and ends up with a chunky Rolex on his wrist. As the whistleblower, I'm naturally an incorruptible observer of this operatic cesspool. But if anyone wants 20-1 on Tom Allen forgetting his lines in the first act of Così at Covent Garden, come and see me before curtain-up.
Comments in chronological order (Total 25 comments)
Post a comment1 September 2010 9:58PM
I read this faintly hoping that it might have some sort of point to it, or at least raise a smile. Nope. Nothing.
1 September 2010 11:53PM
I'd trust you as a gospel and not knowing anything about the backstage of opera I must ask straight out: is this a joke showing how absurd it would be if it was true? Or is it true like in true truth?
2 September 2010 12:49AM
Is this a satire? If so, then a few indications as to what's being satirised would be welcome. Is it a serious expose? If so, a more sober tone and some sources would be welcome. As it is, I've read it three times and still can't figure out what it's meant to be.
2 September 2010 12:54AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
2 September 2010 12:57AM
Ahh, come on. Give the guy a break. He's trying to be funny. Unsuccessfully, granted, but all the same...
2 September 2010 12:57AM
I for one thought it funny Tom. When all around you can't put a relatively minor infraction in perspective the only thing left to us is levity. I can hardly believe how many sensible reporters have tripped over their tongues and fallen prey to hyperbole. It's all been Slippery Slopes and Thin Ends of Wedges. Why are intelligent minds closed to the possibility of there being more than one wedge, more than one slope, in matters such as these?
Hope that those half-dozen Recommendations doubled, no, tripled, no, quadrupled, the pleasure that you so clearly derive from being snarky Commentant12. Here's to wishing you a full and happy life.
2 September 2010 1:29AM
Very funny.
Perhaps the comments who don't get it don't follow the news of English cricket - that would explain their lack of comprehension - read the headlines of the last few days' sports pages (if you can be bothered of course, before declaring your incredulous stupefaction).
2 September 2010 1:59AM
How funny! I laughed so much that I frightened the cat and the neighbors. I know a tiny bit about opera and squat about cricket but I got it right away! The cricketeers commenting above have their y-fronts in knots. Get a grip. I expect more of you.
2 September 2010 2:02AM
Commentant12...
"I read this faintly hoping that it might have some sort of point to it, or at least raise a smile. Nope. Nothing."
That's not nice. What's the point in posting something like that? Are you trying to hurt Tom Service's feelings? Why?
2 September 2010 2:08AM
Oh dear.
2 September 2010 7:14AM
This is known as a "filla", as in the case of Polyfilla, and written by Phil Space. 4 paragraphs about nothing just to fill up a hole in the page. Took about 15 minutes with no research necessary, was not funny at all, which may have been the reasoning behind it, has no real analogies to cricket and says absolutely FA.
The Guardian has been resorting to these "articles" for some time now and the editor is falling down on his job by letting such tripe be published. Come on Guardian, buck your ideas up!
2 September 2010 7:15AM
A four paragraph one liner
Well done
2 September 2010 7:34AM
Wow! Lighten up people! It was a tongue-in-cheek, light hearted piece taking the mickey out of both the current furore in cricket as well as a poke at the supposedly stuffy world of opera. What odds Commentant12 is an aspirant journo from a posh school who couldn't make either the choir or cricket team and resents thoses who can combine all three in a gentle bit of ribbing?
2 September 2010 8:32AM
Yes, it's tongue in cheek, but it's the type of tongue in cheek idea that, as Headologist suggests, could be sustained as a passing aside, not a four paragraph piece. And yes, I'm very well aware of the cricket scandal, as I'm sure every one else who failed to find it amusing is. I kind of assume, however, that stuff written for the Guardian by a usually interesting journalist is worth reading, and I just felt genuinely moved to express disappointment on this occasion.
Deebee -- I feel flattered that you took the time to speculate about my background and psychological make-up. At least that provided a bit of a laugh, as does your suggestion that somehow this piece is a miracle of inter-disciplinary journalism.
2 September 2010 9:19AM
Sorry, Service. To be convincingly ironic it needs a touch of real bile. And meant to amuse, it is just not funny enough.
2 September 2010 9:27AM
Sorry, Tom, but this was rubbish.
2 September 2010 9:29AM
Tom, my underworld sources tell me that nowadays this also applies to audiences applause between movements. Since more people need to be bribed, bookies have agreed to offer better (if somehow inflated) odds, which make clap betting one of the most lucrative and popular illegal activities of this century.
2 September 2010 9:50AM
Commentant12 - glad I could provide a laugh. I'm a bit worried though that you're not scoffing at my suggested make-up though?
henry3000 - I thought a polite cough was supposed to follow an
, not applause. How the opera has changed!
2 September 2010 10:01AM
A dark street in Slough, 9pm 1st September 2010. LE CORSAIRE, wearing dark overcoat, shades and trilby, sidles up to COMMENTANT12, wearing pink tutu and feather boa.
LE CORSAIRE: Psst, over here...
COMMENTANT12: What?
LC: You look like the kind of guy who'd like to make some money without askin' any questions, am I right?
C12: Go on...
LC: I have fifty quid in my pocket here to give to someone if a generic rude, snarky comment is the first response to Tom Service's gently amusing post this evening.
C12: I listened to this faintly hoping that it might have some sort of point to it, or at least raise a smile. Nope. Nothing.
LC: Look, make sure that a rude, snarky comment is the first response on that blog and you get the fifty quid. But it has to be the first comment, it has to be pointlessly rude and it has to be utterly bland to the point of inanity. There's a lot of money riding on this.
C12: Oh, I get the fifty quid? Why didn't you say so? Alright then - it's a deal.
And so history was set in motion...
2 September 2010 10:18AM
Everyone is entitled to an opinion on a football match, a referee decision, a work of art, music,etc. but it appears that if some journalist do MISS the target in an attempt to amuse the majority of people reading his work, then we are deemed 'judgemental'.
The author appears to be well informed and certainly a better writer than most of us here (naturally, giving that's his job!), but this time he has written a 'piece' that most people, including me, feels it's a 'filler' and not hitting the 'funny' or ironic/sarcastic bone of the majority of (presumably intelligent) readers.
Can one comment freely and not being labelled as 'rude' in doing so?
Is Democracy only for the populists and do-gooders?
2 September 2010 10:43AM
bugiolacchi - you're quite right, although the Internet seems to bring out the worst in a lot of people. Perhaps the anonymity of it creates a more honest environment, where true feelings are expressed rather than polite ones, but some posters (not necessarily on this thread) seem to take a vindictive pleasure in roasting a journo or other contributors. By all means have a dig - but try and keep it within reason?
2 September 2010 10:45AM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
2 September 2010 10:58AM
as a cricket fan and an opera singer I did crack a smile... the very thought of this happening in our profession wherein our jobs and reputations, not to mention egos, are so ridiculously precarious that one bad performance, yes even one bad note unfortunately, can be so devastating....... I think it would be much healthier all-round Tom's way!
2 September 2010 11:20AM
I think this is VERY clever and very funny. I laughed. Can't understand why some people didn't find it funny. Humour allowed onto the hallowed stage of Opera, like the hallowed grounds of cricket! That's not cricket!
2 September 2010 12:44PM
Well, for once I am lost for words. Is it just a joke as many of you guys are thinking? If so, I am not laughing.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I also don't believe that a serious music critic like Tom Service would come up with a facetious jibe at the opera world if he didn’t think that something seriously wrong was going on. After all, Elaine Padmore might be reading and considering a defamation suit. But then I think he left us (and Elaine) a clue why he decided to discuss this issue right now and it's not in the opening line...
The economic model of opera houses is interesting. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with Tom’s comment about the over-inflated rates that top opera singers command. It’s market like any other, top opera singers have market power and price accordingly. The fact that it is a market that we have particularly strong feelings about doesn’t change the underlying economics. The interesting question is whether we, as patrons, are paying the true price of what it costs to put up a show that we want if opera houses feel the need to top up their coffers by such pathetic means.
Very interesting issues but the regulation four paragraphs that Guardian seems to allow its editors simply isn’t enough to cover this ground. We need more facts, Tom. You can’t throw us a juicy bone and only allow us to stare at it. Maybe one for the blog?
P.S. On a facetious note, I think for Ben Heppner the odds should be whether he does not mess up Tristan. But then it would be no bet…